Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

On-Chip Generation of Co-Polarized and Spectrally Separable Photon Pairs

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that co-polarized photon pairs with inferred spectral purity above 94% can be produced on a thin-film lithium niobate chip without narrowband filtering, by letting the idler travel in a higher-order mode and apodizing the

desk verdict A well-executed engineering advance in co-polarized SPDC on TFLN, but the 94% purity headline is not backed by the paper's own phase-sensitive measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.13740 v1 pith:BWCKQD4E submitted 2026-01-20 quant-ph

Xiaojie Wang , Lin Zhou , Yue Li , Sakthi Sanjeev Mohanraj , Xiaodong Shi , Zhuoyang Yu , Ran Yang , Xu Chen
show 5 more authors
Guangxing Wu Hao Hao Sihao Wang Veerendra Dhyani Di Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spectrallyseparablephotonpairsthin-filmlithiumniobatespontaneousparametricdown-conversionhigher-orderspatialmodesgroup-velocitymatchingGaussian-apodizedpolingspectralpurityheraldedsinglephotons
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 claims a path to spectrally pure, heralded single photons that avoids the two standard fixes: narrowband filtering (lossy) and orthogonal-polarization phase matching (cumbersome). The strategy puts the pump and signal in the fundamental waveguide mode and the idler in a higher-order transverse-electric mode, adjusting the group velocities so that the phase-matching function becomes orthogonal to the pump envelope; a Gaussian-apodized poling profile then removes the sidelobes that ordinary periodic poling leaves behind. The fabricated lithium niobate chip yields a near-Gaussian joint spectral intensity with a Schmidt number of 1.06, corresponding to about 94% purity, and a phase-sensitive unheralded g(2) measurement gives signal and idler purities of 82% and 89%. A mode converter with over 95% efficiency brings the higher-order idler back to the fundamental mode and sends the two photons to separate output channels, so the approach is compatible with standard integrated circuits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint spectral amplitude f(ωs,ωi)=α(ωs+ωi)φ(ωs,ωi), whose factorability determines photon purity. The phase-matching function φ is shaped by two knobs: the dispersion slope tanθ = -(vp^-1-vs^-1)/(vp^-1-vi^-1), controlled by choosing the idler's transverse mode (TE2) so that the pump group velocity lies between signal and idler; and the poling profile g(z)=±1, chosen by a cumulative-error algorithm to approximate a Gaussian spatial profile and thus a Gaussian phase-matching function. Together these rotate the phase-matching function perpendicular to the pump envelope and suppress sidelobes. The on-chip mode converter (TE2 to TE0, greater than 95% efficiency) is

What would settle it

Perform a full-window, phase-sensitive measurement of the joint spectral amplitude—for example, stimulated-emission tomography or chirp-based interferometry—covering the entire phase-matching region including the corner cut off by the mode-converter bandwidth. If the reconstructed purity over the full window falls below about 85% or the phase is not factorable, the near-separable claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that spectral separability in spontaneous parametric down-conversion does not require cross-polarized signal and idler photons; it can be achieved with all fields co-polarized by using a higher-order TE2 mode for the idler. In a 2.0-micrometer-wide, 360-nanometer-etched thin-film lithium niobate waveguide, the TE2 mode's dispersion places the pump group index between signal and idler, satisfying group-velocity matching and orienting the phase-matching function orthogonal to the pump envelope. A Gaussian-apodized poling sequence, designed by matching the discrete cumulative nonlinearity to an error-function target, suppresses the sinc sidelobes of pe

Load-bearing premise

The 94% purity claim leans on the assumption that the unmeasured spectral phase of the photon pairs matches the Gaussian intensity map and that the mode-converter-limited cutoff in the measured phase-matching response (noted in Fig. 2b) hides no correlated tails; the paper's own phase-sensitive g(2) measurement yields lower purities (82% and 89%).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heralded single photons with purity near 90–94% can be generated without spectral filters, eliminating a major loss channel in integrated quantum sources.
  • All interacting fields share one polarization, so on-chip circuits need no polarization rotators, splitters, or combiners.
  • The higher-order-mode dispersion knob can be combined with thin-film lithium niobate electro-optic tuning to adjust the photon spectrum and temporal envelope after fabrication.
  • The Gaussian-apodization design exposes an explicit purity–brightness trade-off controlled by the poling width, letting future sources choose their operating point along that curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference beyond the paper: the same group-velocity-ordering criterion should transfer to other higher-order modes and other poled nonlinear materials, so the recipe may be a general substitute for type-II group-velocity matching rather than a single-device fix.
  • The gap between the intensity-inferred purity (94%) and the phase-sensitive g(2) purity (82–89%) suggests that phase-sensitive characterization of the joint spectral amplitude is the immediate next test; if residual phase correlations can be shaped by pump chirp or domain design, the source should move closer to the simulated 99% purity.
  • A testable extension would be to use the same Gaussian-apodization design at different pump bandwidths or center wavelengths, checking whether the factorability condition survives as the pump–PMF overlap is tuned.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an integrated thin-film lithium niobate source of co-polarized, spectrally separable photon pairs. The design uses a type-0 SPDC process in which the idler is generated in a higher-order TE2 mode to achieve group-velocity matching; a Gaussian-apodized poling profile is used to suppress the sinc sidelobes of the phase-matching function; and an integrated mode converter maps the idler back to the TE0 mode and routes the photons into separate channels. The authors characterize the device via SFG phase-matching mapping, joint spectral intensity (JSI) reconstruction with a fiber-dispersion spectrometer, single-photon spectral measurements, and unheralded g(2) measurements. They report a spectral purity of ~94% inferred from the Schmidt decomposition of the JSI and of 82±2% (signal) and 89±3% (idler) from the g(2) measurements, and claim the source operates in a nearly factorable regime without narrowband filtering.

Significance. If the 94% purity claim were fully supported, this would be a valuable contribution: it demonstrates a co-polarized path to high-purity heralded photons that avoids polarization management, and it shows that higher-order spatial modes are a useful dispersion-engineering knob in TFLN. The paper contains several strengths: a coherent design story, SFG PMF mapping that agrees with simulation, suppressed sidelobes, an independent g(2) measurement that is phase-sensitive, and a clear discussion of the intensity-only nature of JSI. However, the central quantitative claim is not fully supported because the JSI-derived purity is an intensity-only upper bound, the g(2)-derived values are lower, and the JSI is likely affected by the mode-converter spectral response. The device concept is credible and the manuscript is worth serious revision, but the purity claim needs to be reframed or supplemented with phase-sensitive characterization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section II.B; Eq. (7)] The 94% purity is obtained from a Schmidt decomposition of the reconstructed JSI (Fig. 3c), i.e., of |f|^2. Equation (2) shows the JSA contains phase information not represented in the JSI, and the paper itself states in Section II.B that 'residual phase correlations—though not visible in the intensity distribution—may persist.' The unheralded g(2) measurement (Fig. 4) gives P_signal=82±2% and P_idler=89±3%, which is the only phase-sensitive estimate in the paper. Therefore 'spectral purities exceeding 94%' and the conclusion's 'measured spectral purity of 94%' are not supported. This is load-bearing: report the g(2) values as the measured purities and state that 94% is an intensity-only upper bound, or supply a phase-sensitive JSA reconstruction.
  2. [Fig. 2b; Section II.B] The SFG PMF map shows a cutoff in the lower-left corner attributed to the idler mode-converter bandwidth. During SPDC and JSI characterization, the same on-chip converter is in the idler path. No calibration or deconvolution of the converter's spectral transmission is reported, so the measured JSI may be filtered by the converter passband, hiding correlated tails outside that band and inflating the Schmidt purity. Please characterize the converter spectral response, correct or bound the effect, and state whether the reconstructed JSI is truncated by this response. This concern directly affects the quantitative value of the claimed 94%.
  3. [Section II.B; Fig. 3a] The 94% estimate assumes a transform-limited Gaussian pump with optimally tailored bandwidth. The 4-f grating shaper sets the amplitude spectrum, but no measurement of the shaped pump's spectral phase (e.g., FROG, autocorrelation, or interferometric characterization) is described. Residual chirp or non-Gaussian phase would make the JSA less factorable while leaving the JSI unchanged. Please add a direct characterization of the pump spectral phase, or explicitly state that the JSI-derived purity is conditional on transform-limited operation and report the g(2)-inferred values as the unconditional measured purities.
  4. [Section II.B] No uncertainty is reported for the JSI-derived Schmidt purity, and the discrepancy between 94% and the g(2)-derived 82–89% is not quantitatively discussed. Since both numbers are presented as source purity, the manuscript should explain whether the discrepancy is due to phase correlations, mode-converter filtering, or systematic errors in the g(2) estimation, and should propagate uncertainties. Without this, the central quantitative claim is not robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Conclusions] The phrasing 'spectral purities exceeding 94% inferred from joint-spectral intensity' is internally accurate but easily misread as a measured purity; the conclusion's 'measured spectral purity of 94%' is stronger than warranted. Harmonize these statements with the g(2)-derived values.
  2. [Fig. 1e; Section II.A] The simulated purity increases from 84% (periodic poling) to 99% (Gaussian-apodized poling), while the measured JSI-derived purity is ~94%. Please clarify whether the 5% gap comes from apodization errors, pump-spectrum mismatch, or measurement noise.
  3. [Fig. 3; Methods] The effective spectral resolution is stated as about 0.15 nm from 40 km of SMF-28 and 100 ps timing jitter. Please show the calculation and state whether this resolution was calibrated or estimated.
  4. [General] Minor editorial issues: inconsistent spacing in author names ('Y ue', 'Y ang'), and pump bandwidth is quoted in nm while spectral correlations are discussed in frequency units; define the conversion. Also, the abbreviation 'SSPP' is used without a formal definition at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: design parameters are explicit engineering choices and the phase-sensitive g(2) provides an independent check; the 94% JSI purity is limited but not circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The JSA factorization (Eq. 2) and PMF integral (Eq. 3) are standard and cited to independent literature; the GVM slope (Eq. 5) follows from the wave-vector expansion, and the TE2-modal design is an engineering choice tested by SFG. The Gaussian target PMF (Eq. S2) is adopted as an explicit design target, not as a hidden fit to the reported purity: σ = L/5 is hand-picked for sidelobe/brightness trade-off, and the simulated purity increase is the direct Fourier consequence of that choice. The experimental section contains independent checks: SFG PMF, reconstructed JSI, independent single-photon spectra, and an unheralded g(2) HBT measurement. The g(2) result is phase-sensitive and gives 82±2% / 89±3%, which the paper explicitly cites as possible residual phase correlations: 'residual phase correlations—though not visible in the intensity distribution—may persist.' That is a limitation in supporting the 94% headline, not a circular step. Ref. 20 is a self-citation to the authors' earlier TFLN dispersion-engineered photon-pair work, but it appears as a type-II example in the introduction and is not used to justify the co-polarized higher-order-mode/Gaussian-poling scheme; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. Accordingly, no load-bearing reduction of a prediction to its inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is built on standard QPM/GVM theory plus two hand-chosen parameters (σ, pump bandwidth) and the assumption that unmeasured spectral phase is benign. The g(2) measurement is the main independent check; the JSI-derived 94% should be read as an intensity-level upper bound.

free parameters (2)
  • Gaussian-apodization width σ = σ = L/5 (L ≈ 9.2 mm)
    Hand-chosen in Eq. (6)/§II.A to balance sidelobe suppression against brightness; sets the target Gaussian PMF bandwidth and directly shapes the predicted and measured separability.
  • Shaped pump bandwidth = 4.5 nm at 784 nm
    Set by a photomask in the 4-f spectral filter to match the device PMF; the 94% purity estimate assumes an optimally tailored transform-limited Gaussian pump.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The biphoton JSA factorizes as PEF × PMF with a transform-limited Gaussian pump envelope (Eq. 2).
    Invoked in §II.A and §II.B; if the shaped pump has residual spectral phase, the JSA phase correlations reduce the true purity below the intensity-inferred value.
  • standard math Phase mismatch is expanded to first order in frequency detunings (Eq. 4).
    Truncating Δk at first order ignores higher-order dispersion, which could bend the PMF and degrade separability; standard for GVM design.
  • domain assumption The unheralded g(2)-to-purity relation P ≈ g(2)(0)/g(2)(∞) − 1 (Fig. 4).
    Valid for a low-gain multimode thermal (squeezed-vacuum) signal; used to convert HBT coincidence measurements into purity estimates.
  • domain assumption The mode converter bandwidth covers the full phase-matching function.
    The measured SFG PMF shows a cutoff attributed to the idler mode-converter bandwidth; if the same truncation affects the JSI, the Schmidt purity is computed on a restricted spectral window.
  • standard math Type-0 quasi-phase-matching in x-cut TFLN with TE modes couples via the d33 nonlinear coefficient.
    Standard QPM theory for lithium niobate; the device design assumes the simulated effective indices and poling period Λ = 3.08 µm are accurate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On-Chip Generation of Co-Polarized and Spectrally Separable Photon Pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWCKQD4E

@misc{pith2026260113740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On-Chip Generation of Co-Polarized and Spectrally Separable Photon Pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWCKQD4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.13740}
}
abstract

On-chip generation of high-purity single photons is essential for scalable photonic quantum technologies. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is widely used to generate photon pairs for heralded single-photon sources, but intrinsic spectral correlations of the pairs often limit the purity and interference visibility of the heralded photons. Existing approaches to suppress these correlations rely on narrowband spectral filtering, which introduces loss, or exploiting different polarizations, which complicates on-chip integration. Here, we demonstrate a new strategy for generating spectrally separable photon pairs in thin-film lithium niobate nanophotonic circuits by harnessing higher-order spatial modes, with all interacting fields residing in the same polarization. Spectral separability is achieved by engineering group-velocity matching using higher-order transverse-electric modes, combined with a Gaussian-apodized poling profile to further suppress residual correlations inherent to standard periodic poling. Subsequent on-chip mode conversion with efficiency exceeding 95\% maps the higher-order mode to the fundamental mode and routes the photons into distinct output channels. The resulting heralded photons exhibit spectral purities exceeding 94\% inferred from joint-spectral intensity and 89\% from unheralded $g^{(2)}$ measurement. This approach enables flexible spectral and temporal engineering of on-chip quantum light sources for quantum computing and quantum networking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13740 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Design principle and simulation of the co-polarized spectrally separable photon pair (SSPP) source. (a) Simulated group indices and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental characterization of the PMF via SFG process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Joint-spectral characterization of the co-polarized SSPP. (a) Experimental setup for spectral shaping of the pump light and coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Second-order correlation measurements of the signal/idler photons. (a) Schematic of measuring the unheralded second-order corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, et al., Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum in- formation processing: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Z.-Y . J. Ou, Multi-photon quantum interference , V ol. 43 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    team, A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum com- puting, Nature 641, 876 (2025)

    P . team, A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum com- puting, Nature 641, 876 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Hong, Z.-Y

    C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpi- cosecond time intervals between two photons by interference, Physical review letters 59, 2044 (1987)

  6. [6]

    Slussarenko and G

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Photonic quantum informa- tion processing: A concise review, Applied physics reviews 6, 041303 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    P . Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P . Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Reviews of modern physics 79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y .-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y .-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y . Hu,et al., Quantum com- putational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    P . J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, P . Wasylczyk, A. B. U’Ren, . f. C. Silberhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Heralded genera- tion of ultrafast single photons in pure quantum states, Physical Review Letters 100, 133601 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Grimau Puigibert, G

    M. Grimau Puigibert, G. Aguilar, Q. Zhou, F. Marsili, M. Shaw, V . V erma, S. Nam, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Heralded single photons based on spectral multiplexing and feed-forward con- trol, Physical Review Letters 119, 083601 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    W. P . Grice, A. B. U’Ren, and I. A. Walmsley, Eliminating fre- quency and space-time correlations in multiphoton states, Phys- ical Review A 64, 063815 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Meyer-Scott, N

    E. Meyer-Scott, N. Montaut, J. Tiedau, L. Sansoni, H. Her- rmann, T. J. Bartley, and C. Silberhorn, Limits on the herald- ing efficiencies and spectral purities of spectrally filtered sin- gle photons from photon-pair sources, Physical Review A 95, 061803 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Signorini and L

    S. Signorini and L. Pavesi, On-chip heralded single photon sources, A VS Quantum Science2, 041701 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    T. F. Weiss and A. Peruzzo, Nonlinear domain engineering for quantum technologies, Applied Physics Reviews 12, 011318 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Graffitti, J

    F. Graffitti, J. Kelly-Massicotte, A. Fedrizzi, and A. M. Bra´nczyk, Design considerations for high-purity heralded single-photon sources, Physical Review A 98, 053811 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Ma, J.-Y

    Z. Ma, J.-Y . Chen, Z. Li, C. Tang, Y . M. Sua, H. Fan, and Y .-P . Huang, Ultrabright quantum photon sources on chip, Physical Review Letters 125, 263602 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Mataji-Kojouri and M

    A. Mataji-Kojouri and M. Liscidini, Narrow-band photon pair generation through cavity-enhanced spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Physical Review A 108, 053714 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    W. P . Grice and I. A. Walmsley, Spectral information and dis- tinguishability in type-ii down-conversion with a broadband pump, Physical Review A 56, 1627 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Kuttner, A

    T. Kuttner, A. Sabatti, J. Kellner, R. Grange, and R. J. Chap- man, Scalable quantum interference in integrated lithium nio- bate nanophotonics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20519 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Xin, J. Mishra, C. Chen, D. Zhu, A. Shams-Ansari, C. Lan- grock, N. Sinclair, F. N. Wong, M. Fejer, and M. Lon ˇcar, Spec- trally separable photon-pair generation in dispersion engineered thin-film lithium niobate, Optics Letters 47, 2830 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    K.-H. Luo, S. Brauner, C. Eigner, P . R. Sharapova, R. Ricken, T. Meier, H. Herrmann, and C. Silberhorn, Nonlinear integrated quantum electro-optic circuits, Science advances 5, eaat1451 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Kellner, A

    J. Kellner, A. Sabatti, T. Kuttner, R. J. Chapman, and R. Grange, Counter-propagating spontaneous parametric down- conversion source in lithium niobate on insulator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21396 (2025). 7

    2025

  15. [23]

    Liu, D.-J

    Y .-C. Liu, D.-J. Guo, K.-Q. Ren, R. Y ang, M. Shang, W. Zhou, X. Li, C.-W. Sun, P . Xu, Z. Xie, et al. , Observation of frequency-uncorrelated photon pairs generated by counter- propagating spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Scien- tific Reports 11, 12628 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gatti and E

    A. Gatti and E. Brambilla, Heralding pure single photons: A comparison between counterpropagating and copropagating twin photons, Physical Review A 97, 013838 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    C. Wang, C. Langrock, A. Marandi, M. Jankowski, M. Zhang, B. Desiatov, M. M. Fejer, and M. Lon ˇcar, Ultrahigh-efficiency wavelength conversion in nanophotonic periodically poled lithium niobate waveguides, Optica 5, 1438 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    D. Zhu, C. Chen, M. Y u, L. Shao, Y . Hu, C. Xin, M. Y eh, S. Ghosh, L. He, C. Reimer, et al., Spectral control of nonclas- sical light pulses using an integrated thin-film lithium niobate modulator, Light: Science & Applications 11, 327 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    D. Zhu, L. Shao, M. Y u, R. Cheng, B. Desiatov, C. Xin, Y . Hu, J. Holzgrafe, S. Ghosh, A. Shams-Ansari, et al., Integrated pho- tonics on thin-film lithium niobate, Advances in Optics and Photonics 13, 242 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. Zhao, C. Ma, M. Rüsing, and S. Mookherjea, High qual- ity entangled photon pair generation in periodically poled thin- film lithium niobate waveguides, Physical review letters 124, 163603 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    A. B. U’Ren, C. Silberhorn, R. Erdmann, K. Banaszek, W. P . Grice, I. A. Walmsley, and M. G. Raymer, Generation of pure-state single-photon wavepackets by conditional prepara- tion based on spontaneous parametric downconversion, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0611019 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P . J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walms- ley, Conditional preparation of single photons using parametric downconversion: a recipe for purity, New Journal of Physics 10, 093011 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Graffitti, D

    F. Graffitti, D. Kundys, D. T. Reid, A. M. Bra ´nczyk, and A. Fedrizzi, Pure down-conversion photons through sub- coherence-length domain engineering, Quantum Science and Technology 2, 035001 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Graffitti, P

    F. Graffitti, P . Barrow, M. Proietti, D. Kundys, and A. Fedrizzi, Independent high-purity photons created in domain-engineered crystals, Optica 5, 514 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Gerrits, S

    T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T. S. Clement, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, A. L. Migdall, S. W. Nam, R. P . Mirin, and E. Knill, Generation of optical coherent-state superpositions by number- resolved photon subtraction from the squeezed vacuum, Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Mo...

    2010

  26. [34]

    Avenhaus, A

    M. Avenhaus, A. Eckstein, P . J. Mosley, and C. Silberhorn, Fiber-assisted single-photon spectrograph, Optics letters 34, 2873 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    C. Chen, C. Bo, M. Y . Niu, F. Xu, Z. Zhang, J. H. Shapiro, and F. N. Wong, Efficient generation and characterization of spectrally factorable biphotons, Optics express 25, 7300 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Zielnicki, K

    K. Zielnicki, K. Garay-Palmett, D. Cruz-Delgado, H. Cruz- Ramirez, M. F. O’Boyle, B. Fang, V . O. Lorenz, A. B. U’Ren, and P . G. Kwiat, Joint spectral characterization of photon-pair sources, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 1141 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Christ, K

    A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Sil- berhorn, Probing multimode squeezing with correlation func- tions, New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Jizan, B

    I. Jizan, B. Bell, L. G. Helt, A. C. Bedoya, C. Xiong, and B. J. Eggleton, Phase-sensitive tomography of the joint spectral am- plitude of photon pair sources, Optics letters 41, 4803 (2016). Supplementary Materials for On-Chip Generation of Co-Polarized and Spectrally Separab...

    2016

Pith tools

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