Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper proves that for a single-mode light field, the inequality √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) < 2 certifies quantum non-Gaussianity — a state that cannot be any mixture of Gaussian states — and demonstrates the criterion on a quantum dot single-pho

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:49 UTC pith:45I7L5OB

load-bearing objection A clean, well-proved g2/g3 witness for quantum non-Gaussianity with a convincing QD experiment; the main caveat is an unquantified detector-efficiency assumption in the experimental certification. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2511.08488 v2 pith:45I7L5OB submitted 2025-11-11 quant-ph

A Quantum Non-Gaussianity Criterion Based on Photon Correlations g⁽²⁾ and g⁽³⁾

Christoph Hotter , Clara Henke , Cornelis Jacobus van Diepen , Peter Lodahl , Anders S{\o}ndberg S{\o}rensen This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum non-GaussianityGaussian statesphoton correlationsnon-classical lightsingle-photon sourcequantum dotcontinuous variablesloss-resistant witness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quantum non-Gaussian states — those that cannot be written as mixtures of displaced and squeezed (Gaussian) states — are needed for quantum advantage in continuous-variable systems. This paper establishes a sufficient criterion for such states from only the normalized second- and third-order photon correlation functions g^(2) and g^(3): every mixture of Gaussian states must satisfy √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) ≥ 2 when g^(2) < 4/9, so violating that inequality certifies quantum non-Gaussianity. Because the bound involves only normalized correlations, the certification survives attenuation and finite detection efficiency, needing only longer measurement times. The authors demonstrate the test on a quantum dot single-photon source, obtaining √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) = 0.174(13), more than 100 standard deviations below the bound.

Core claim

The central claim is that the combination √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) < 2 is an unambiguous proof of quantum non-Gaussianity for a single-mode field, and by the supplementary multi-mode argument for Gaussian multi-mode fields as well. The proof proceeds by computing the second and third normally ordered moments of displaced-squeezed states with Wick's theorem, showing that Gaussian pure states lie on or above the curve g^(3) = (2 − 3√g^(2))^2, with the boundary reached in the limit of vanishing squeezing and vanishing displacement. Jensen's and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities then extend the inequality to incoherent mixtures, provided g^(2) < 4/9, which is exactly the regime where the square root is meanin

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized correlation combination √g^(3) + 3√g^(2), tested against the threshold 2. The authors show that for displaced-squeezed states the allowed region in the (g^(2), g^(3)) plane is bounded by g^(3) = (2 − 3√g^(2))^2; this curve is found by Taylor-expanding the moments to second order in the squeezing parameter r and taking the limit r → 0 while keeping the ratio with displacement fixed, then proved globally by an algebraic inequality. Wick's theorem (exact second-order cumulant expansion for Gaussian states) supplies the moment formulas, and the lifting from pure to mixed states uses Jensen's inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The measured quan

Load-bearing premise

The certification holds if the measured coincidence counts equal the Glauber normally ordered correlation functions g^(2) and g^(3) of the field mode, which the paper assumes by operating at sufficiently low detection efficiency; at high efficiency with non-number-resolving detectors, click statistics can deviate from Glauber correlations.

What would settle it

Find a statistical mixture of displaced-squeezed states with g^(2) < 4/9 whose g^(2) and g^(3) satisfy √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) < 2 — either by numerical search or by constructing an explicit counterexample such as a weighted mixture of a weakly squeezed displaced state with vacuum — and the paper's central bound would be refuted; the authors' proof asserts no such mixture exists.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any experiment that records √g^(3) + 3√g^(2) < 2 with g^(2) < 4/9 gets a direct certificate of quantum non-Gaussianity, with no need for state tomography or a Wigner-function reconstruction.
  • The certification is inherently attenuation-resistant: losses only rescale acquisition time, so the same bound applies behind beam splitters, fibers, or low-efficiency detectors.
  • The test requires only a three-detector Hanbury Brown–Twiss setup, making it broadly applicable to single-photon sources, heralded states, and other non-Gaussian light sources.
  • The quantum dot demonstration reaches a combination value 0.174(13), more than 100σ below the bound, and the Gaussian-null p-value is 4·10^(−4793).
  • In the same framework, linear tangent versions of the bound yield simpler inequalities such as g^(3) + 3g^(2) < 1, and an additional criterion based on mean photon number and g^(2) can certify Fock states up to at least n = 1000.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the criterion is sufficient but not necessary, many non-Gaussian states will evade it; complementary witnesses or higher-order correlations will still be needed to certify the full class.
  • The g^(2) < 4/9 restriction is the true operational window: for larger g^(2) even mixtures of Gaussian states can dip below the pure-state curve, so experimental claims must report g^(2) alongside the combination.
  • The same ratio-symmetric structure suggests a family of higher-order witnesses (e.g., involving g^(4)) that could certify a larger set of non-Gaussian states, a direction the paper itself flags.
  • Applying the criterion at high detection efficiency would require number-resolving detectors or a careful calibration of click statistics to Glauber correlations, since non-number-resolving counters can otherwise mimic a violation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a sufficient criterion for quantum non-Gaussianity based on the normalized intensity correlations g^(2) and g^(3). The central result is that every single-mode state that is a mixture of Gaussian states must satisfy sqrt(g^(3)) + 3 sqrt(g^(2)) >= 2, so observing the opposite inequality certifies quantum non-Gaussianity. The proof proceeds by deriving a quadratic bound for Gaussian pure states from closed-form moments, proving it by a polynomial inequality, and extending it to mixtures with Jensen and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities; a multi-mode extension is given in the supplement. The authors apply the criterion to a quantum-dot single-photon source, reporting g^(2)=0.00334(4), g^(3)<=1.7e-4, and a violation of 0.174(13) < 2, with an extremely small p-value.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful addition to the quantum non-Gaussianity toolbox: the criterion is parameter-free, uses only normalized nth-order correlations, and is therefore insensitive to attenuation and to finite detection efficiency in the idealized Glauber sense. The analytic proof is self-contained and appears sound; the multi-mode extension broadens its scope. The experimental demonstration shows a very large statistical separation, and the availability of data on Zenodo is a strength. The main caveat concerns the mapping from detector clicks to Glauber correlations, which is asserted but not quantified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Experimental validation (last paragraph)] The claim that click statistics match Glauber correlations rests solely on the statement 'In our experimental setup, the efficiency is sufficiently low to match the Glauber definition.' No quantitative efficiency value, detector model, or systematic-error bound is given. For a non-number-resolving detector with efficiency η, the click probability for n incident photons is 1-(1-η)^n, which is proportional to n only in the limit η→0. Unless η is shown to be small enough (or a correction is applied and propagated), the measured coincidence counts may not equal <a†^n a^n>/<a†a>^n. Since the reported violation is a headline experimental result, this is load-bearing. Please provide an estimate or upper bound on η and a worst-case propagation to sqrt(g^(3))+3sqrt(g^(2)), or replace the heuristic statement with a calibrated click-to-Glauber analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proof of the inequality for Gaussian mixed states] The step from Eq. (14) to Eq. (15) is not logically equivalent when g^(2)>4/9; in that regime Eq. (15) holds trivially because 3√g^(2)>2. The text should state this explicitly so the reader does not infer that the square-root step is valid globally.
  2. [Bound for Gaussian states, Eq. (10)] The derivation of the boundary via Taylor expansion in r and solving for α² is heuristic. The subsequent rigorous proof is convincing, but the presentation should clearly separate the heuristic insight from the proof.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'The white region cannot be reached by any incoherent superposition of Gaussian states.' This is only true for g^(2)<4/9; the red region shows that mixtures can enter below the pure-state bound for g^(2)>4/9. Please add this qualification to avoid overstatement.
  4. [Experimental validation and Conclusion] The phrase 'more than 100 standard deviations' is not by itself a well-defined confidence statement, especially since g^(3) is reported as an upper bound. The p-value test is the more rigorous statement; consider reporting a confidence interval for sqrt(g^(3))+3sqrt(g^(2)) instead of, or in addition to, the sigma language.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the g(2)/g(3) bound is derived from Gaussian moment formulas and proven independently; the experiment provides an independent test.

full rationale

The paper derives the quantum non-Gaussianity criterion directly from first principles. Gaussian pure states are parametrized as displaced squeezed states, their moments are obtained via the exact cumulant/Wick expansion, a candidate boundary is identified by a Taylor expansion, and the resulting inequality is then proved algebraically (Eqs. 11-13). The extension to mixtures uses Jensen's and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities without fitting any parameters, and the multi-mode extension is similarly derived. The experimental g^(2) and g^(3) values are not used to fit or determine the bound; the p-value test uses the derived boundary as a conservative null hypothesis. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work (e.g., the cumulant software and related papers) are not load-bearing. The only caveat is the experimental assumption that low detector efficiency makes click statistics coincide with Glauber correlation functions; the paper explicitly states this assumption, but it is an experimental validity condition rather than a circular step in the theoretical derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation has no fitted parameters. The bound is obtained from standard Gaussian-state moment formulas and inequality manipulations. The experimental interpretation depends on the stated low-efficiency detector assumption and Poisson statistics.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Moments of Gaussian states are obtained from the displaced-squeezed-state expectation values via the second-order cumulant expansion (Wick's theorem).
    Used in Eq. (4) to express G^(2)_G and G^(3)_G; standard quantum optics result with Refs [34-36].
  • standard math Any multi-mode Gaussian pure state can be decomposed into single-mode squeezed states via the Bloch-Messiah reduction without changing total photon-number correlation functions.
    Used in the supplement to extend the bound to multi-mode fields; standard theorem with Refs [48,49].
  • domain assumption At the achieved detection efficiency, measured detector-click coincidences equal the Glauber correlation functions g^(2) and g^(3) entering the bound.
    Explicitly stated in the experimental validation section; required for the measured violation to certify the state.
  • domain assumption Photon-counting statistics are Poissonian for the p-value test.
    Used in the supplement to compute expected two- and three-photon counts and the p-value; standard for low-efficiency photon counting.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15106 in / 21841 out tokens · 199149 ms · 2026-08-03T22:49:20.635202+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum non-Gaussian states, which cannot be written as mixtures of Gaussian states, are necessary to achieve a quantum advantage in continuous variable systems. They represent an important benchmark for the realization of an advanced quantum light source, as they cannot be made by simple means such as displacement and squeezing. We introduce an attenuation-resistant sufficient criterion for quantum non-Gaussian states based on the second- and third-order correlation functions, $g^{(2)}$ and $g^{(3)}$. The general non-linear bound for classical mixtures of Gaussian states is $\sqrt{g^{(3)}} + 3 \sqrt{g^{(2)}} \geq 2$. Any mixture of Gaussian states must fulfill this inequality, thus, the violation of it represents a direct confirmation of quantum non-Gaussianity. We experimentally show the non-Gaussianity of the state produced by a quantum dot single-photon source, where we obtain $\sqrt{g^{(3)}} + 3 \sqrt{g^{(2)}} = 0.174 (13)$, which represents a statistical significance of more than $100$ standard deviations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08488 by Anders S{\o}ndberg S{\o}rensen, Christoph Hotter, Clara Henke, Cornelis Jacobus van Diepen, Peter Lodahl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Second- and third-order correlation function for Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: cannot be populated with statistical mixtures of Gaus￾sian states. For the region with g (2) > 4/9, statistical mixtures can be below the bound, as will be shown later. We start by rearranging inequality (11) to g (3) ≥  2 − 3 q g (2)2 . (14) We are allowed to take the square root on both sides only if the expression 2 − 3 p g (2) is positive, which corresponds to g (2) < 4/9. Taking the square root and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Experimental validation with a single-photon source. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Statistical-noise-enhanced multi-photon interference

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a symmetric three-photon Fourier interferometer, engineered super-Poissonian light with g(2)≈1.9 and g(3)≈3.6 maximizes visibility at ≈0.61, surpassing the magnitude of the single-photon value.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. J. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Physi- cal Review130, 2529–2539 (1963)

    1963

  2. [2]

    Mandel, Sub-poissonian photon statistics in resonance fluo- rescence, Optics Letters4, 205 (1979)

    L. Mandel, Sub-poissonian photon statistics in resonance fluo- rescence, Optics Letters4, 205 (1979)

    1979

  3. [3]

    Mandel, Non-classical states of the electromagnetic field, Physica ScriptaT12, 34–42 (1986)

    L. Mandel, Non-classical states of the electromagnetic field, Physica ScriptaT12, 34–42 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    Innocenti, L

    L. Innocenti, L. Lachman, and R. Filip, Coherence-Based Op- erational Nonclassicality Criteria, Physical Review Letters131, 160201 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature306, 141–146 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ıa-Patr´on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum informa- tion, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    A. C. Wade, J. F. Sherson, and K. Mølmer, Squeezing and En- tanglement of Density Oscillations in a Bose-Einstein Conden- sate, Physical Review Letters115, 060401 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Wieczorek, S

    W. Wieczorek, S. G. Hofer, J. Hoelscher-Obermaier, R. Riedinger, K. Hammerer, and M. Aspelmeyer, Optimal State Estimation for Cavity Optomechanical Systems, Physical Review Letters114, 223601 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Zhang and K

    J. Zhang and K. Mølmer, Prediction and retrodiction with con- tinuously monitored Gaussian states, Physical Review A96, 062131 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Gietka, C

    K. Gietka, C. Hotter, and H. Ritsch, Unique Steady-State Squeezing in a Driven Quantum Rabi Model, Physical Review Letters131, 223604 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Ferraro, S

    A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. Paris,Gaussian States in Quan- tum Information, Napoli series on physics and astrophysics (Bibliopolis, 2005)

    2005

  12. [12]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum Computation over Continuous Variables, Physical Review Letters82(1999)

    1999

  13. [13]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Efficient Classical Simulation of Continuous Variable Quan- tum Information Processes, Physical Review Letters88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  14. [14]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Niset, J

    J. Niset, J. Fiur ´aˇsek, and N. J. Cerf, No-Go Theorem for Gaus- sian Quantum Error Correction, Physical Review Letters102, 120501 (2009)

    2009

  16. [16]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz `e, Metrological Nonlin- ear Squeezing Parameter, Physical Review Letters122, 090503 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezz `e, A. Smerzi, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Motional Fock states for quantum-enhanced amplitude and phase measure- ments with trapped ions, Nature Communications10, 2929 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Lachman and R

    L. Lachman and R. Filip, Quantum non-gaussianity of light and atoms, Progress in Quantum Electronics83, 100395 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Filip and L

    R. Filip and L. Miˇsta, Detecting Quantum States with a Positive Wigner Function beyond Mixtures of Gaussian States, Physical Review Letters106, 200401 (2011)

    2011

  20. [20]

    Je ˇzek, I

    M. Je ˇzek, I. Straka, M. Mi ˇcuda, M. Du ˇsek, J. Fiur ´aˇsek, and R. Filip, Experimental Test of the Quantum Non-Gaussian Character of a Heralded Single-Photon State, Physical Review Letters107, 213602 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Straka, L

    I. Straka, L. Lachman, J. Hlou ˇsek, M. Mikov ´a, M. Mi ˇcuda, M. Je ˇzek, and R. Filip, Quantum non-Gaussian multiphoton light, npj Quantum Information4, 4 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Lachman, I

    L. Lachman, I. Straka, J. Hlouˇsek, M. Jeˇzek, and R. Filip, Faith- ful Hierarchy of Genuine n -Photon Quantum Non-Gaussian Light, Physical Review Letters123, 043601 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Lachman and R

    L. Lachman and R. Filip, Quantum Non-Gaussian Photon Co- incidences, Physical Review Letters126, 213604 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Roeland, M. Walschaers, F. Grosshans, V . Pa- rigi, D. Markham, and N. Treps, Certification of Non-Gaussian States with Operational Measurements, PRX Quantum2, 020333 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Checchinato, J.-H

    R. Checchinato, J.-H. Littmann, L. Lachman, J. Lee, S. H¨ofling, C. Schneider, R. Filip, and A. Predojevi ´c, Losses resistant verification of quantum non-Gaussian photon statistics, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11590 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.11590 2024

  27. [27]

    Liu, Y .-K

    R.-Z. Liu, Y .-K. Qiao, L. Lachman, Z.-X. Ge, T.-H. Chung, J.- Y . Zhao, H. Li, L. You, R. Filip, and Y .-H. Huo, Experimental Quantum Non-Gaussian Coincidences of Entangled Photons, Physical Review Letters132, 083601 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    M. H. M. Kalash, Mahmoudand Passos, E. R ´acz, L. Rup- pert, R. Filip, and M. V . Chekhova, Certifying non-classicality and non-Gaussianity through optical parametric amplification, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18296 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.18296 2025

  29. [29]

    R ´acz, L

    E. R ´acz, L. Ruppert, and R. Filip, Witnessing quan- tum non-Gaussianity from intensity moments, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20492 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20492 2025

  30. [30]

    G. P. Teja, C. Kumar, L. Lachman, and R. Filip, Quantum non- Gaussian high Fock states of light pulses and their superposi- tions, Physical Review Research7, 033272 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Bemani, A

    F. Bemani, A. A. Rakhubovsky, and R. Filip, Heralded quan- tum non-Gaussian states in pulsed levitating optomechanics, npj Quantum Information11, 160 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    N. B. Grosse, T. Symul, M. Stobi ´nska, T. C. Ralph, and P. K. Lam, Measuring Photon Antibunching from Continuous Vari- able Sideband Squeezing, Physical Review Letters98, 153603 6 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight,Introductory Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

    R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  35. [35]

    Plankensteiner, C

    D. Plankensteiner, C. Hotter, and H. Ritsch, QuantumCumu- lants.jl: A Julia framework for generalized mean-field equa- tions in open quantum systems, Quantum6, 617 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    G. C. Wick, The Evaluation of the Collision Matrix, Physical Review80, 268 (1950)

    1950

  37. [37]

    See Supplemental Material for the expanded expression ofG (n) G , derivation of the minimum with respect toθ, inequalities for the mixed states proof, additional useful expressions for Gaussian states, the proof of the bound for multi-mode fields, details on the experimental three-fold coincidences, the p-value analysis and an additional criterion based o...

  38. [38]

    J. L. W. V . Jensen, Sur les fonctions convexes et les in ´egalit´es entre les valeurs moyennes, Acta Mathematica30, 175–193 (1906)

    1906

  39. [39]

    A.-L. Cauchy, Sur les formules qui r ´esultent de l’emploi du signed>ou<, et sur les moyennes entre plusieurs quan- tit´es, Cours d’analyse de l’´Ecole Royale Polytechnique Œuvres compl`etes,S ´er. 2, Tome III, 360 (1821)

  40. [40]

    J. M. Steele,The Cauchy-Schwarz master class: an introduc- tion to the art of mathematical inequalities(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2004)

    2004

  41. [41]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 347 (2015)

    2015

  42. [42]

    Henke, T

    C. Henke, T. W. Sandø, V . Angelopoulou, L. M. Hansen, A. Tiranov, O. A. D. Sandberg, Z. Liu, L. Midolo, N. Bart, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, P. Lodahl, and C. J. van Diepen, (unpublished)

  43. [43]

    Stiesdal, J

    N. Stiesdal, J. Kumlin, K. Kleinbeck, P. Lunt, C. Braun, A. Paris-Mandoki, C. Tresp, H. P. B ¨uchler, and S. Hoffer- berth, Observation of three-body correlations for photons cou- pled to a rydberg superatom, Physical Review Letters121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.103601 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.103601 2018

  44. [44]

    Liang, A

    Q.-Y . Liang, A. V . Venkatramani, S. H. Cantu, T. L. Nicholson, M. J. Gullans, A. V . Gorshkov, J. D. Thompson, C. Chin, M. D. Lukin, and V . Vuleti´c, Observation of three-photon bound states in a quantum nonlinear medium, Science359, 783 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    R. H. Brown and R. Twiss, Lxxiv. a new type of interferometer for use in radio astronomy, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science45, 663–682 (1954)

    1954

  46. [46]

    R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between photons in two coherent beams of light, Nature177, 27–29 (1956)

    1956

  47. [47]

    Hotter, C

    C. Hotter, C. Henke, C. J. van Diepen, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, A quantum non-gaussianity criterion based on pho- ton correlations g(2) and g(3) (2025), zenodo 10.5281/zen- odo.17573486

    doi:10.5281/zen- 2025

  48. [48]

    S. L. Braunstein, Squeezing as an irreducible resource, Physical Review A71, 055801 (2005)

    2005

  49. [49]

    Cariolaro and G

    G. Cariolaro and G. Pierobon, Bloch-Messiah reduction of Gaussian unitaries by Takagi factorization, Physical Review A 94, 062109 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    L. M. Hansenet al., (unpublished). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: A QUANTUM NON-GAUSSIANITY CRITERION BASED ON PHOTON CORRELATIONSg(2) ANDg (3) Expanded expressions of the correlation functions for Gaussian statesG (n) G In this section, we show the expressions forG (1) G ,G (2) G andG (3) G for displaced squeezed states (Gaussian states), i.e. we insert Eq. (3...