Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Heralded generation of a three-mode NOON state

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A genuinely entangled three-mode NOON state can now be heralded by a single auxiliary photon, with measured fidelity 0.823.

desk verdict Nice unitary and a solid proof-of-principle three-mode NOON state, but the experiment is post-selected, not truly heralded — the title overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08458 v2 pith:UPTODUDX submitted 2025-12-09 quant-ph

Sukhjit P. Singh , Elnaz Bazzazi , Diego N. Bernal-García , Simon White , Hassan Jamal Latief , Alison Goldingay , Sven Rogge , Sergei Slussarenko
show 3 more authors
Farzad Ghafari Emanuele Polino Nora Tischler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords three-modeNOONstateheraldedentanglementlinearopticsphotoninterferencegenuinemultipartitefidelityestimationmultiphase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first heralded generation of a three-mode two-photon NOON state — the coherent superposition of two photons in any one of three modes — where a single click in an auxiliary mode announces that the state is present in three target modes. The scheme is deliberately simple: three single photons enter a four-mode linear-optical unitary, and the detection of one photon in the heralding mode leaves the target modes in the desired state with nominal probability 0.25. The authors measure a success probability of 0.237 and a fidelity of 0.823 to the ideal NOON state, and certify genuine tripartite entanglement by exceeding the biseparability bound of 2/3 by more than eight standard deviations. Because the state is heralded rather than post-selected, the output remains usable for further processing, which matters for multiphase estimation, distributed sensing, and quantum communication.

What carries the argument

The central element is the four-mode unitary transformation U acting on path and polarization that sends |1,1,1,0⟩ to γ|ψ_3^2⟩|1⟩_herald + ... with |γ|²=0.25; the authors found it by numerical optimization and implemented it with a displaced Sagnac interferometer made of wave plates and a polarizing beam splitter. The second key ingredient is the fidelity-estimation protocol: for each mode pair, vacuum-projection on the third mode plus a two-mode interferometric measurement yields a coincidence fringe whose visibility and phase directly give the corresponding off-diagonal density-matrix element, so the NOON-state fidelity is obtained without full quantum state tomography.

What would settle it

Measure a two-photon interference dip between the two input paths: if its visibility is far below the values assumed here and a fidelity recomputed with the coherences set to zero drops below 2/3, the genuine-entanglement claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors report the experimental realization of a heralded three-mode two-photon NOON state, |ψ_3^2⟩=(|200⟩+e^{iα1}|020⟩+e^{iα2}|002⟩)/√3, produced from three single photons and a four-mode linear-optical unitary. Detection of one photon in the auxiliary mode flags successful generation; the nominal success probability is 0.25, and the measured value is 0.237±0.009. The state is characterized by a targeted measurement protocol that extracts the three two-mode coherences from sinusoidal interference fringes after projecting one mode onto vacuum, avoiding full tomography. The estimated fidelity to the ideal NOON state is 0.823±0.018, which exceeds the biseparable bound 2/3 by more than eigh

Load-bearing premise

The three input photons must be mutually indistinguishable for the three-photon interference to be coherent; the paper does not directly measure this, instead inferring it from interference visibilities of 81–92%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The heralded three-mode NOON state is ready for multiphase estimation: its fidelity to the known optimal multiphase-estimation state is 0.836±0.019.
  • Because the state is heralded rather than post-selected, the output photons remain available for further interference and processing.
  • The nominal success probability 0.25 and modest resource count — three input photons and one auxiliary click — put multi-mode NOON generation within current linear-optical technology.
  • The fidelity bound of 2/3 for biseparable states gives a simple, directly usable criterion for certifying genuine tripartite entanglement in any three-mode two-photon experiment.
  • The pairwise coherence-extraction method extends naturally to other three-mode entangled states and to integrated-photonics implementations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same vacuum-projection/two-mode-fringe method is applied to higher-N multimode NOON states, it could certify GME without full tomography, provided the pairwise fringes remain visible.
  • The measured visibilities (81–92%) are below the ideal 100%; a direct two-photon interference measurement between the input paths would quantify how much of the fidelity shortfall comes from residual distinguishability rather than loss or mode mismatch.
  • The scheme's success probability of 0.25 may degrade as N grows; an interesting extension is to search for unitaries that trade some heralding probability for higher tolerance to photon loss.
  • The reported state is close (fidelity 0.836) to the optimal multiphase-estimation state, suggesting that the same interferometric module could be used as a practical source for distributed quantum sensing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and experimentally implements a linear-optical protocol intended to generate a three-mode two-photon NOON state |ψ_3^2⟩ = (|2,0,0⟩+e^{iα1}|0,2,0⟩+e^{iα2}|0,0,2⟩)/√3 in a heralded fashion. A four-mode unitary acting on three single photons is numerically optimized so that detecting one photon in an auxiliary mode leaves the target modes in the NOON state with nominal success probability 0.25. The experiment uses two SPDC pairs, a displaced Sagnac interferometer, and pseudo-photon-number-resolving detection. The authors report a fidelity F=0.823±0.018 to the phase-optimized NOON state, a coherence-only fidelity bound F∈[0.817,0.836], and genuine multipartite entanglement certified by exceeding the biseparable threshold 2/3 by more than eight standard deviations. They report a measured success probability of 0.237±0.009. The central claim is that this constitutes the first heralded generation of a three-mode NOON state.

Significance. If fully supported, this would be a valuable step: three-mode NOON states are resources for multiphase estimation and distributed sensing, and a heralded, non-post-selected source would be a genuine advance over prior post-selected demonstrations. The numerical unitary search, the ~25% theoretical success probability, and the targeted fidelity-estimation method without full tomography are useful contributions. The experimental data are rich enough to support the post-selected state with high fidelity and GME. However, the experimental implementation, as described, does not demonstrate true heralding: the reported fidelity and GME are conditioned on four-fold coincidences that include target-mode detections. This materially weakens the central claim and needs to be addressed before the paper can be accepted as a demonstration of heralded generation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental implementation / Discussion] The claim of heralded generation is not supported by the reported data. The text states that the correct input state |1,1,1,0⟩ is certified 'by considering four-fold coincidence events in the final measurements,' and the Discussion concedes that 'this choice of final photon counting is not a fundamental requirement.' Because the four-fold condition includes the target-mode detections used in the fidelity estimate, the reported F=0.823±0.018 and the >8σ GME certification describe the post-selected set in which the target modes were already found to contain two photons. The auxiliary-mode click combined with the single input trigger does not by itself rule out the case where the second SPDC pair is absent: one input photon could reach the herald mode and produce trigger+herald coincidences with no NOON state. Thus the implemented device is a post-selected proof-of-principle, not a demonstr
  2. [S2.1, Eq. (S8)] The reported fidelity is maximized over the two target phases α1 and α2: F = max_{α1,α2} F(α1,α2). Thus F=0.823±0.018 is the fidelity to the closest three-mode NOON state, not to a pre-specified target. This is stated in the SM but not made explicit in the abstract or main-text results. It does not invalidate the GME certification (the biseparable bound 2/3 applies to every choice of α1,α2), but it softens the benchmark and should be disclosed prominently wherever the fidelity is quoted.
  3. [S3.2 / Experimental results] The three-photon coherence that underpins the NOON-state fidelity is not directly characterized by a Hong-Ou-Mandel or three-photon interference measurement. The pairwise visibilities are 81.9±3.6%, 92.0±2.8%, and 81.2±4.0%, all below the ideal 100%. While the measured fringes themselves provide indirect evidence of multi-photon interference, the manuscript does not quantify how the residual distinguishability or spectral/temporal mismatch affects the extracted coherences and the final fidelity. Please add a direct indistinguishability characterization or at least a quantitative discussion of how the observed visibilities bound the impact on F.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text vs SM S2.3] The main text reports the coherence-only fidelity bound as F∈[0.817,0.836], while SM S2.3 reports F∈[0.818,0.836]. The inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [References] The reference list contains duplicate numbering: two entries are labeled [1] and [2] appear after [39] and [43], respectively, causing ambiguity in citations. Please renumber.
  3. [Abstract / main text] There are typographical issues in the abstract and main text, e.g., 'experimenttogenerate' should be 'experiment to generate'. Please proofread the final version.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states each data point is 'obtained from an average of 1039 four-fold coincidence counts accumulated over 1800 s.' Clarify whether 1039 is the number of four-fold counts in a single setting or the total accumulated; the error bars assume Poissonian statistics, which should be stated consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fidelity and success probability are directly measured from data, not derived from fitted constants; the main caveats (phase optimization and post-selection) affect inferential strength, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The heralded-state unitary in Eq. (2) is obtained by numerical optimization as a design step, then the experimental fidelity is computed directly from measured populations (Fig. S4) and measured two-mode coherence visibilities (Fig. 3) via Eq. (S6); no fitted parameter is subsequently relabeled as a prediction. The only fitted quantities are the NOON-state phases α1 and α2, which are optimized in Eq. (S8); this softens the fidelity benchmark because the reported F is the maximum over the phase family, but it is not circular: the GME threshold F_bs = 2/3 is phase-independent and derived from a Schmidt decomposition in Sec. S2.4, and the fidelity bounds in Sec. S2.3 are obtained independently of population data. The Discussion explicitly concedes that the four-fold final-photon counting used to certify the input 'is not a fundamental requirement'; this is a genuine validity limitation—the experiment is a post-selected proof-of-principle rather than a fully demonstrated heralding source—but it does not make the mathematical derivation circular, because the measured coherence and population elements enter the fidelity formula as data rather than as assumptions. The self-citations (Refs. [9] and [4]) are used for context and source design, not as load-bearing justification of the core result. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear-optics mathematics plus domain assumptions about photon indistinguishability, the action of the measurement waveplates, and the interpretation of the fan-out detection patterns. The only fitted numbers in the fidelity analysis are the two relative phases of the target state. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • α1 (relative phase of |0,2,0> component) = 1.568±0.030 rad
    Target NOON state defined up to two phases; S2.1 (Eq S8) maximizes fidelity over α1, α2, so the reported F is to the closest NOON state. These are post-hoc fitted values.
  • α2 (relative phase of |0,0,2> component) = -0.262±0.033 rad
    Same as α1; jointly optimized to maximize F in S2.1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Three input photons are indistinguishable except for the four encoded path-polarization modes, so their joint evolution through U is coherent (bosonic amplitude summation rather than classical routing).
    Required for Eq (2) to hold: the output must be a coherent superposition γ|ψ>|1> + ... . The paper does not report a direct HOM-type indistinguishability measurement; the measured visibilities (81–92%, S3.2) are indirect evidence of partial indistinguishability.
  • standard math Linear-optical evolution of N photons through a passive unitary U is governed by the bosonic permanent formula; the detector patterns correspond directly to Fock states.
    Used in Eq (2) and S1; this is the standard linear-optics framework.
  • domain assumption The measurement transformation U_meas(θ) = HWP(θ) QWP(π/4) followed by PBS produces coincidence fringes of the form C(θ)=A/2+V/2 cos(8θ+φ) with A,V,φ related to density-matrix elements by Eqs (S16).
    Central to the fidelity extraction (S2.2); assumes ideal wave plates and PBS and that the two-photon state after vacuum projection lives in the 3-dimensional subspace {|20>,|02>,|11>}.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-photon-number resolution via 2-way fan-out before detection resolves the Fock patterns used in the analysis without additional corrections for the 50:50 splitting statistics.
    S3.2 normalizes probabilities using counts of |11>, |20>, |02> patterns; a |20> pattern requires a coincidence across the two fan-out branches (probability 1/2 for a 50:50 splitter), which is not stated to be corrected. This assumption affects the extracted V, A and populations.
  • domain assumption The SPDC source produces the separable three-photon input |1_H,0_V>_Input2 |1_H,1_V>_Input1 when conditioned on the four-fold coincidence pattern.
    S3.1 describes the source; the input state is certified by the final four-fold coincidences rather than by independent heralding of each input photon.
  • standard math Genuine multipartite entanglement is witnessed by fidelity > F_bs = 2/3 for this target state.
    Derived in S2.4 via Schmidt decomposition following Bourennane et al.; this is a standard witness argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heralded generation of a three-mode NOON state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPTODUDX

@misc{pith2026251208458,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heralded generation of a three-mode NOON state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPTODUDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08458}
}
read the original abstract

Entangled states of photons form the foundation of quantum communication, computation, and metrology. Yet their generation remains fundamentally constrained: in the absence of intrinsic photon-photon interactions, the generation of such states is inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic. The prevalent technique of post-selection verifies the creation of an entangled state by detecting and thus destroying it. Heralding offers a solution in which measuring ancillary photons in auxiliary modes signals the state generation without the need to measure it. Here, we introduce and experimentally demonstrate a scheme to generate a three-mode two-photon NOON state, where the detection of a single photon in one heralding mode signifies the presence of the state in three target modes. We validate the generated state by estimating a fidelity of 0.823 +/- 0.018 with respect to an ideal three-mode NOON state and certifying genuine multipartite entanglement. By virtue of the high success probability and small resource overhead of our scheme, our work provides a theoretical and experimental stepping stone for entangled multi-mode state generation, which is realizable with current technology. These multi-mode entangled states represent a key direction for linear optical quantum information that is complementary to multi-qubit state encoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08458 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The heralded three-mode state is projected onto a two-photon two-mode subspace by conditioning on vacuum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Automated discovery of high-probability heralded schemes for path-entangled states

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A newly discovered modular-comb family of linear-optical circuits generates NOON states with success probabilities that grow exponentially (and super-exponentially) over previous passive schemes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Prevedel, M

    R. Prevedel, M. Aspelmeyer, C. Brukner, A. Zeilinger, and T. D. Jennewein, Photonic entanglement as a resource in quantum computation and quantum communication, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B24, 241 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. Żukowski, Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quan- tum information processing: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 016001 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vučković, Photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photonics3, 687 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Aspuru-Guzik and P

    A. Aspuru-Guzik and P. Walther, Photonic quantum sim- ulators, Nat. Phys.8, 285 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Kieling, M

    S.Bartolucci, P.M.Birchall, M.Gimeno-Segovia, E.John- ston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Spar- row, and M. D. Vidrighin, Creation of entangled photonic states using linear optics (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Bartolucciet al., Fusion-based quantum computation, Nat

    S. Bartolucciet al., Fusion-based quantum computation, Nat. Commun.14, 912 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Lu and J.-W

    C.-Y. Lu and J.-W. Pan, Quantum-dot single-photon sources for the quantum internet, Nat. Nanotechnol.16, 1294 (2021)

    2021

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Forbes, F

    I. Forbes, F. Ghafari, E. Deacon, S. P. Singh, E. Lavie, P.Yard, R.Shaw, A.Laing,andN.Tischler,Heraldedgen- eration of entanglement with photons, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 086002 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    S. Barz, G. Cronenberg, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Heralded generation of entangled photon pairs, Nat. Pho- tonics4, 553 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Pittman, M

    T. Pittman, M. Donegan, M. Fitch, B. Jacobs, J. Fran- son, P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. Dowling, Heralded two-photon entanglement from probabilistic quantum logic operations on multiple parametric down-conversion sources, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics9, 1478 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Śliwa and K

    C. Śliwa and K. Banaszek, Conditional preparation of maximal polarization entanglement, Phys. Rev. A67, 030101 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Wagenknecht, C.-M

    C. Wagenknecht, C.-M. Li, A. Reingruber, X.-H. Bao, A. Goebel, Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, K. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of a heralded entangle- ment source, Nat. Photonics4, 549 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    D.R.Hamel, L.K.Shalm, H.Hübel, A.J.Miller, F.Mar- sili, V. B. Verma, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, K. J. Resch, and T. Jennewein, Direct generation of three-photon po- larization entanglement, Nat. Photonics8, 801 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    N. N. Skryabinet al., Heralded generation of pro- grammable two-qubit entangled states on a linear-optical platform, Optica Quantum3, 162 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    H. S. Eisenberg, J. F. Hodelin, G. Khoury, and D. Bouwmeester, Multiphoton path entanglement by non- local bunching, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 090502 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    H. Kim, H. S. Park, and S.-K. Choi, Three-photon N00N states generated by photon subtraction from double pho- ton pairs, Opt. Express17, 19720 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    B. J. Smith, P. J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, and I. A. Walm- sley, Heralded generation of two-photon NOON states for precision quantum metrology, inConference on Lasers and Electro-Optics/Quantum Electronics and Laser Sci- ence Conference and Photonic Applications Systems Tech- n...

    2008

  11. [19]

    Ra, H.-T

    Y.-S. Ra, H.-T. Lim, J.-E. Oh, and Y.-H. Kim, Phase and amplitude controlled heralding of N00N states, Opt. Express23, 30807 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Vergyris, T

    P. Vergyris, T. Meany, T. Lunghi, G. Sauder, J. Downes, M. J. Steel, M. J. Withford, O. Alibart, and S. Tanzilli, On-chip generation of heralded photon-number states, Sci. Rep.6, 35975 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    J. C. F. Matthews, A. Politi, D. Bonneau, and J. L. O’Brien, Heralding two-photon and four-photon path en- tanglementonachip,Phys.Rev.Lett.107,163602(2011). 6

    2011

  14. [22]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state, Nature429, 161 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Chenet al., Heralded three-photon entanglement from asingle-photonsourceonaphotonicchip,Phys.Rev.Lett

    S. Chenet al., Heralded three-photon entanglement from asingle-photonsourceonaphotonicchip,Phys.Rev.Lett. 132, 130603 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    H. Cao, L. M. Hansen, F. Giorgino, L. Carosini, P. Za- hálka, F. Zilk, J. C. Loredo, and P. Walther, Photonic source of heralded Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 130604 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Maringet al., A versatile single-photon-based quan- tum computing platform, Nat

    N. Maringet al., A versatile single-photon-based quan- tum computing platform, Nat. Photonics18, 603 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology – the lowdown on high-N00N states, Cont. Phys.49, 125 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Un- conditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics11, 700 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    S. Hong, J. ur Rehman, Y.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Cho, S.-W. Lee, H. Jung, S. Moon, S.-W. Han, and H.-T. Lim, Quan- tum enhanced multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode N00N states, Nat. Commun.12, 5211 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Lee, and H.-T

    S.Hong, J.u.Rehman, Y.-S.Kim, Y.-W.Cho, S.-W.Lee, S.-Y. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Practical sensitivity bound for multiple phase estimation with multi-mode N00N states, Laser Photonics Rev.16, 2100682 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Namkung, D.-H

    M. Namkung, D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Optimal multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode NOON states against photon loss, New J. Phys.26, 073028 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, K. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Distributed quantum sensing with multi- mode N00N states, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050802 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Barbieri, I

    M. Barbieri, I. Gianani, A. Z. Goldberg, and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Quantum multiphase estimation, Contemp. Phys.65, 112 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Gebhart, A

    V. Gebhart, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Bayesian quan- tum multiphase estimation algorithm, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 014035 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Zhang and K

    L. Zhang and K. W. C. Chan, Efficient methods for gen- erating multi-mode noon states, Opt. Commun.452, 258 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zhang and K

    L. Zhang and K. W. C. Chan, Scalable generation of multi-mode NOON states for quantum multiple-phase es- timation, Sci. Rep.8, 11440 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Dengis, S

    S. Dengis, S. Wimberger, and P. Schlagheck, Multimode NOON-state generation with ultracold atoms via geodesic counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. A112, 042610 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Vanhaele, A

    G. Vanhaele, A. Bäcker, R. Ketzmerick, and P. Schlagheck, Creating triple-NOON states with ul- tracold atoms via chaos-assisted tunneling, Phys. Rev. A 106, L011301 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Tsarev, S

    D. Tsarev, S. Osipov, R.-K. Lee, S. Kulik, and A. Alod- jants, Quantum sensor network metrology with bright soli- tons, Phys. Rev. A108, 062612 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Englert, C

    B.-G. Englert, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Universal unitary gate for single-photon two-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A63, 032303 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Huang, H

    C.-J. Huang, H. Ma, Q. Yin, J.-F. Tang, D. Dong, C. Chen, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Real- ization of a quantum autoencoder for lossless compression of quantum data, Phys. Rev. A102, 032412 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep.474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Palazuelos and J

    C. Palazuelos and J. I. De Vicente, Genuine multipar- tite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario, Quantum6, 735 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Bourennane, M

    M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. Weinfurter, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, M. Lewen- stein, and A. Sanpera, Experimental Detection of multi- partite entanglement using witness operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 087902 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walm- sley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 070403 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    S. Chin, J. Ryu, and Y.-S. Kim, Exponentially en- hanced scheme for the heralded qudit Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger state in linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 253601 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Bhatti and S

    D. Bhatti and S. Barz, Heralding higher-dimensional Bell and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states using multiport splitters, New J. Phys.27, 033006 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    G. Park, I. Matsumoto, T. Kiyohara, H. F. Hofmann, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, Realization of photon corre- lationsbeyondthelinearopticslimit,Sci.Adv.9,eadj8146 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    H. Wang, T. C. Ralph, J. J. Renema, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Scalable photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Mater. 24, 1883 (2025). Supplemental Material for: Heralded generation of a three-mode NOON state Sukhjit P. Singh,1 Elnaz Bazzazi,2 Diego N. Bernal-García,1, Simon White,...

    2025

  42. [50]

    ExtractV ij,φ ij andA ij from the measured coincidence fringes

  43. [51]

    Determine the feasible regionRin(r B, rC)satisfying the constraints in Eqs. (S21)

  44. [52]

    For each(rB, rC)∈ R, compute Fmax(rB, rC) = max δ ¯F(δ)

  45. [53]

    When population measurements are available, the population ratios(rB, rC)are fixed uniquely, collapsing the bounds to a single fidelity value

    The fidelity bounds follow as Flower = min (rB ,rC )∈R Fmax(rB, rC), F upper = max (rB ,rC )∈R Fmax(rB, rC).(S29) This procedure provides rigorous fidelity boundsF∈[F lower, Fupper]usingonlythe information contained in the coincidence measurements. When population measurements...

  46. [54]

    Englert, C

    B.-G. Englert, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Universal unitary gate for single-photon two-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032303 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Bourennane, M

    M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. Weinfurter, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Experimental Detection of multipartite entanglement using witness operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 087902 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    L. K. Shalmet al., Strong loophole-free test of local realism, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 250402 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Tischler, F

    N. Tischler, F. Ghafari, T. J. Baker, S. Slussarenko, R. B. Patel, M. M. Weston, S. Wollmann, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, H. C. Nguyen, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Conclusive experimental demonstration of one-way Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Steering, Phys. Rev. Lett....

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.