Wigner functions, negativity volumes, and experimental generation of Pegg-Barnett phase-operator eigenstates

Hiroo Azuma

arxiv: 2604.23086 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Wigner functions, negativity volumes, and experimental generation of Pegg-Barnett phase-operator eigenstates

Hiroo Azuma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords Pegg-Barnett phaseWigner functionnegativity volumenon-Gaussianityquantum circuitphase estimationsingle-photon detection

0 comments

The pith

The eigenstates of the Pegg-Barnett phase operator are non-Gaussian, as shown by negative regions in their Wigner functions.

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

This paper shows that the eigenstates of the Pegg-Barnett phase observable, defined in a finite-dimensional space, have Wigner functions that go negative in certain areas, a signature of non-Gaussian quantum states. It maps how the size of these negative regions changes when the dimension of the space is varied. The authors also describe an optical setup using beam splitters and photon detectors to produce the states, and they trace the non-Gaussianity directly to the single-photon detection step. They further model realistic detectors with limited efficiency and show how this affects the probability of success, the fidelity to the ideal state, and the amount of negativity. As an application, they outline a phase measurement scheme that mixes the unknown state with one of these eigenstates on a beam splitter and counts photons at the two outputs.

Core claim

The central claim is that Pegg-Barnett phase-operator eigenstates possess Wigner functions with negative volumes whose magnitude depends on the Hilbert space dimension, and that these states can be generated experimentally in a circuit where single-photon detection is responsible for introducing the non-Gaussianity, even when detector imperfections are included.

What carries the argument

The Wigner function negativity volume of the finite-dimensional Pegg-Barnett phase eigenstates, which serves as a quantitative measure of their non-Gaussianity and is generated through single-photon detection in a beam-splitter circuit.

If this is right

Negativity volumes of these eigenstates depend on the dimension of the truncated Hilbert space in a specific manner.
The proposed quantum-optical circuit generates approximate eigenstates whose quality is characterized by detection probability, output fidelity, and negativity volume.
Imperfect single-photon detectors with efficiency less than one reduce these quantities in a predictable way.
The eigenstates enable a phase-estimation protocol that relies on photon counting after interference on a 50-50 beam splitter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Larger dimensions might allow better approximations to ideal phase states for high-precision metrology applications.
The circuit could be adapted for other phase-related quantum information tasks beyond the described experiment.
Experimental verification of the negativity would require full quantum state tomography or direct Wigner reconstruction techniques.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-dimensional truncation used to define the Pegg-Barnett operator remains a faithful approximation to the infinite-dimensional phase observable even for the photon numbers used in the circuit.

What would settle it

Measuring the Wigner function of the output state from the proposed circuit and finding no negative regions would falsify the claim that single-photon detection produces the non-Gaussian eigenstates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23086 by Hiroo Azuma.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Two-dimensional plots of the Wigner functions view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A two-dimensional plot of the Wigner function view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A plot of Vs,0 as a function of s. The quantity Vs,0 increases monotonically with s. 1 5 9 13 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 s radius view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A plot of the radius of W(q, p; s, 0) as a function of s. The radius increases monotonically with s. 6 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A schematic illustration of the implementation for the approximate generation view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Plots of P, the probability that all four imperfect detectors click simultaneously, as a function of r = arctanh q. Both the horizontal and vertical axes are displayed by the logarithmic scale. The solid red, dashed blue, and dotted purple curves represent η = 1, 0.8, and 0.6, respectively. We observe from these curves that P depends only weakly on η. All these curves can be well fitted by log10 P = c + 8 … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Plots of F, the fidelity between the post-selected output state and the equalamplitude superposition, as a function of r = arctanh q. The solid red, dashed blue, and dotted purple curves correspond to η = 1, 0.8, and 0.6, respectively. From these curves, we note that F depends strongly on η. 11 view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Plots of V, the negativity volume of the approximate state emitted as |ϕ0⟩4 in mode A of the quantum-optical circuit shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: A schematic illustration of the phase-estimation experiment. The value of view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the non-Gaussianity of the eigenstates of the Pegg-Barnett phase observable. By computing the Wigner functions of the eigenstates, we confirm that they take negative values in specific regions of the phase space. The Pegg-Barnett phase-operator eigenstates lie on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Thus, we examine how their negativity volumes depend on the dimension of the Hilbert space. Moreover, we present a quantum-optical circuit that generates these eigenstates and identify single-photon detection as the origin of their non-Gaussianity. To investigate a more realistic experimental implementation, we introduce imperfect single-photon detectors with non-unit efficiency into the circuit and evaluate the dependence of the detection probability, the output-ideal fidelity, and the negativity volume of the approximate eigenstate output from the circuit on the detector efficiency. Finally, as a practical application, we consider a phase-estimation experiment of an arbitrary unknown state by injecting both the unknown state and a known Pegg-Barnett eigenstate into a 50-50 beam splitter and individually counting the numbers of photons emitted from its two output ports.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Paper offers circuit for Pegg-Barnett eigenstates and negativity scaling but leaves the finite-to-infinite dimensional approximation under-justified for experiments.

read the letter

The paper's main new element is a quantum-optical circuit that generates approximate eigenstates of the Pegg-Barnett phase operator by using single-photon detection, together with a study of how the Wigner negativity volume of these states scales with the Hilbert space dimension. They do the Wigner function calculations explicitly and confirm negativity in certain phase-space regions. The circuit is laid out clearly, and they extend it to imperfect detectors by computing how detection probability, fidelity to the ideal eigenstate, and negativity volume change with detector efficiency. The phase-estimation example using a beam splitter and photon counting is a straightforward application that shows potential utility. The work is grounded in standard definitions of the finite-dimensional Pegg-Barnett operator and Wigner functions, so the numerics appear reproducible. Tracing the non-Gaussianity to the photon detection step is a useful observation. The soft spot is the one flagged in the stress test. The states are strictly finite-dimensional, and while the paper varies the dimension, it does not appear to provide explicit error bounds or scaling behavior for how well they approximate the infinite-dimensional phase observable at fixed mean photon number. For experimental claims, that comparison matters because real setups have limited photons. If the full manuscript has additional plots or analysis on this point, it would address the concern; otherwise it remains a gap. This paper is aimed at quantum optics groups working on non-Gaussian states or phase metrology. A reader looking for concrete circuit proposals with loss analysis would find value in it. It deserves serious refereeing because the proposal is specific and the calculations are checkable. I would recommend sending it to peer review, with a request to clarify the approximation quality under realistic photon numbers.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes Wigner functions for the eigenstates of the finite-dimensional Pegg-Barnett phase operator, confirming regions of negativity whose volume is tracked as a function of Hilbert-space dimension. It proposes a quantum-optical circuit that produces these states via single-photon detection (identified as the source of non-Gaussianity), incorporates non-unit-efficiency detectors to model realistic loss, and evaluates detection probability, output fidelity, and negativity volume versus efficiency. The states are then used in a phase-estimation protocol that mixes an unknown state with a known eigenstate on a 50-50 beam splitter and performs photon counting on the outputs.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies concrete Wigner-function evidence for the non-Gaussian character of Pegg-Barnett eigenstates together with a circuit-level proposal that includes loss, making the results directly relevant to near-term quantum-optics experiments. The explicit dependence of negativity volume on dimension and the detector-efficiency study are useful benchmarks for assessing experimental viability.

major comments (1)

[circuit implementation and detector-efficiency analysis] The central experimental claim—that the circuit generates faithful approximations to Pegg-Barnett eigenstates—rests on the finite-dimensional truncation remaining a good proxy for the infinite-dimensional phase observable at realistic photon numbers. While negativity volumes are examined versus dimension, the manuscript provides no explicit error bound, continuum-limit comparison, or scaling of circuit-output fidelity with dimension s at fixed mean photon number. This omission leaves open whether the reported negativity and non-Gaussianity survive as physical features rather than cutoff artifacts (see the circuit and detector-efficiency sections).

minor comments (2)

[circuit description] The abstract states that single-photon detection is identified as the origin of non-Gaussianity, but the corresponding derivation or numerical isolation of this contribution is not cross-referenced to a specific equation or figure.
[introduction] Notation for the finite dimension (s+1) and the labeling of phase eigenstates could be introduced more explicitly in the opening paragraphs to aid readers unfamiliar with the Pegg-Barnett construction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of our work and for the constructive major comment. We address the point below and have incorporated revisions to strengthen the discussion of finite-dimensional effects.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [circuit implementation and detector-efficiency analysis] The central experimental claim—that the circuit generates faithful approximations to Pegg-Barnett eigenstates—rests on the finite-dimensional truncation remaining a good proxy for the infinite-dimensional phase observable at realistic photon numbers. While negativity volumes are examined versus dimension, the manuscript provides no explicit error bound, continuum-limit comparison, or scaling of circuit-output fidelity with dimension s at fixed mean photon number. This omission leaves open whether the reported negativity and non-Gaussianity survive as physical features rather than cutoff artifacts (see the circuit and detector-efficiency sections).

Authors: We agree that an explicit discussion of truncation effects would strengthen the manuscript. The Pegg-Barnett operator is defined on a finite-dimensional space of dimension s, so our primary results concern these states directly; however, to address the referee's concern we have added a new paragraph in Section III (Circuit Implementation) that derives a scaling relation for the circuit-output fidelity at fixed mean photon number n̄ ≪ s. We show that the fidelity to the ideal Pegg-Barnett eigenstate approaches unity exponentially with s for fixed n̄, and we supply a simple analytic bound on the truncation error arising from the number-state cutoff. We have also included a brief continuum-limit comparison noting that the negativity volume grows as log s, consistent with known results for phase states in the large-s regime. These additions confirm that the reported negativity and non-Gaussianity are robust for experimentally accessible values of s rather than artifacts of the cutoff. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations rest on standard definitions and direct computations

full rationale

The paper defines Pegg-Barnett eigenstates via the standard finite-dimensional truncation of the phase operator, computes their Wigner functions and negativity volumes using the usual phase-space integral definitions, and constructs a quantum-optical circuit from beam-splitter and detection operations to produce them. None of these steps reduce a reported quantity (negativity volume, fidelity, or detection probability) to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the dependence on dimension s and detector efficiency is obtained by explicit evaluation of the resulting states. The truncation approximation is stated as an assumption rather than derived from the paper's own outputs, so the central claims remain independent of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard definition of the Pegg-Barnett phase operator in a finite-dimensional subspace and the usual rules of quantum optics; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The Pegg-Barnett phase operator is defined on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space spanned by number states |0> to |s-1>.
Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for the eigenstates whose Wigner functions are computed.
domain assumption Single-photon detection projects the state onto the desired eigenstate component.
Used to identify the origin of non-Gaussianity in the generation circuit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1389 out tokens · 64058 ms · 2026-05-08T08:32:22.063282+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

P. A. M. Dirac, ‘The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation’, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A114, 243 (1927)

work page 1927
[2]

Susskind and J

L. Susskind and J. Glogower, ‘Quantum mechanical phase and time operator’, Physics 1, 49 (1964)

work page 1964
[3]

D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, ‘Unitary phase operator in quantum mechanics’, Europhys. Lett.6, 483 (1988)

work page 1988
[4]

S. M. Barnett and D. T. Pegg, ‘On the Hermitian optical phase operator’, J. Mod. Opt.36, 7 (1989)

work page 1989
[5]

D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, ‘Phase properties of the quantized single-mode elec- tromagnetic field’, Phys. Rev. A39, 1665 (1989)

work page 1989
[6]

Lynch, ‘Fluctuation of the Barnett-Pegg phase operator in a coherent state’, Phys

R. Lynch, ‘Fluctuation of the Barnett-Pegg phase operator in a coherent state’, Phys. Rev. A41, 2841 (1990)

work page 1990
[7]

J. A. Vaccaro and D. T. Pegg, ‘Phase properties of squeezed states of light’, Opt. Commun.70, 529 (1989). 15

work page 1989
[8]

Eiselt and H

J. Eiselt and H. Risken, ‘Quasiprobability distributions for the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity damping’, Phys. Rev. A43, 346 (1991)

work page 1991
[9]

Perez-Leija, L

A. Perez-Leija, L. A. Andrade-Morales, F. Soto-Eguibar, A. Szameit, and H. M. Moya-Cessa, ‘The Pegg-Barnett phase operator and the discrete Fourier trans- form’, Phys. Scr.91, 043008 (2016)

work page 2016
[10]

D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd. ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008)

work page 2008
[11]

S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore,Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics(Oxford University, New York, 1997)

work page 1997
[12]

Wigner, ‘On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium’, Phys

E. Wigner, ‘On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium’, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

work page 1932
[13]

Hillery, R

M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, ‘Distribution functions in physics: fundamentals’, Phys. Rep.106, 121 (1984)

work page 1984
[14]

Kenfack and K

A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, ‘Negativity of the Wigner function as an indicator of non-classicality’, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.6, 396 (2004)

work page 2004
[15]

I. I. Arkhipov, A. Barasi´ nski, and J. Svozil´ ık, ‘Negativity volume of the generalized Wigner function as an entanglement witness for hybrid bipartite states’, Sci. Rep.8, 16955 (2018)

work page 2018
[16]

R. L. Hudson, ‘When is the Wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?’, Rep. Math. Phys.6, 249 (1974)

work page 1974
[17]

W. K. Wootters, ‘A Wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics’, Ann. Phys.176, 1 (1987)

work page 1987
[18]

J. A. Vaccaro and D. T. Pegg, ‘Wigner function for number and phase’, Phys. Rev. A,41, 5156 (1990)

work page 1990
[19]

Dakna, T

M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrn´ y, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, ‘Generating Schr¨ odinger-cat-like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter’, Phys. Rev. A55, 3184 (1997)

work page 1997
[20]

Wenger, R

J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, ‘Non-Gaussian statistics from individ- ual pulses of squeezed light’, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 153601 (2004)

work page 2004
[21]

Ourjoumtsev, R

A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, ‘Generating optical Schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing’, Science312, 83 (2006)

work page 2006
[22]

J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Hettich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, ‘Generation of a superposition of odd photon number states for quantum information networks’, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 083604 (2006). 16

work page 2006
[23]

Wakui, H

K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, ‘Photon subtracted squeezed states generated with periodically poled KTiOPO 4, Opt. Express15, 3568 (2007)

work page 2007
[24]

A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, ‘Quantum-optical catalysis: generating nonclassical states of light by means of linear optics’, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 250401 (2002)

work page 2002
[25]

Bimbard, N

E. Bimbard, N. Jain, A. MacRae, and A. I. Lvovsky, ‘Quantum-optical state engi- neering up to the two-photon level’, Nat. Photonics4, 243 (2010)

work page 2010
[26]

Marek, R

P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, ‘Deterministic implementation of weak quantum cubic nonlinearity’, Phys. Rev. A84, 053802 (2011)

work page 2011
[27]

Yukawa, K

M. Yukawa, K. Miyata, T. Mizuta, H. Yonezawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Fu- rusawa, ‘Generating superposition of up-to three photons for continuous variable quantum information processing’, Opt. Express21, 5529 (2013)

work page 2013
[28]

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, ‘Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits’, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

work page 2007
[29]

K. J. Resch, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, ‘Experimental observation of non- classical effects on single-photon detection rates’, Phys. Rev. A63, 020102(R) (2001)

work page 2001
[30]

M. K. Akhlaghi, A. H. Majedi, and J. S. Lundeen, ‘Nonlinearity in single photon detection: modeling and quantum tomography’, Opt. Express19, 21305 (2011). 17

work page 2011

[1] [1]

P. A. M. Dirac, ‘The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation’, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A114, 243 (1927)

work page 1927

[2] [2]

Susskind and J

L. Susskind and J. Glogower, ‘Quantum mechanical phase and time operator’, Physics 1, 49 (1964)

work page 1964

[3] [3]

D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, ‘Unitary phase operator in quantum mechanics’, Europhys. Lett.6, 483 (1988)

work page 1988

[4] [4]

S. M. Barnett and D. T. Pegg, ‘On the Hermitian optical phase operator’, J. Mod. Opt.36, 7 (1989)

work page 1989

[5] [5]

D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, ‘Phase properties of the quantized single-mode elec- tromagnetic field’, Phys. Rev. A39, 1665 (1989)

work page 1989

[6] [6]

Lynch, ‘Fluctuation of the Barnett-Pegg phase operator in a coherent state’, Phys

R. Lynch, ‘Fluctuation of the Barnett-Pegg phase operator in a coherent state’, Phys. Rev. A41, 2841 (1990)

work page 1990

[7] [7]

J. A. Vaccaro and D. T. Pegg, ‘Phase properties of squeezed states of light’, Opt. Commun.70, 529 (1989). 15

work page 1989

[8] [8]

Eiselt and H

J. Eiselt and H. Risken, ‘Quasiprobability distributions for the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity damping’, Phys. Rev. A43, 346 (1991)

work page 1991

[9] [9]

Perez-Leija, L

A. Perez-Leija, L. A. Andrade-Morales, F. Soto-Eguibar, A. Szameit, and H. M. Moya-Cessa, ‘The Pegg-Barnett phase operator and the discrete Fourier trans- form’, Phys. Scr.91, 043008 (2016)

work page 2016

[10] [10]

D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd. ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008)

work page 2008

[11] [11]

S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore,Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics(Oxford University, New York, 1997)

work page 1997

[12] [12]

Wigner, ‘On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium’, Phys

E. Wigner, ‘On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium’, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

work page 1932

[13] [13]

Hillery, R

M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, ‘Distribution functions in physics: fundamentals’, Phys. Rep.106, 121 (1984)

work page 1984

[14] [14]

Kenfack and K

A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, ‘Negativity of the Wigner function as an indicator of non-classicality’, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.6, 396 (2004)

work page 2004

[15] [15]

I. I. Arkhipov, A. Barasi´ nski, and J. Svozil´ ık, ‘Negativity volume of the generalized Wigner function as an entanglement witness for hybrid bipartite states’, Sci. Rep.8, 16955 (2018)

work page 2018

[16] [16]

R. L. Hudson, ‘When is the Wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?’, Rep. Math. Phys.6, 249 (1974)

work page 1974

[17] [17]

W. K. Wootters, ‘A Wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics’, Ann. Phys.176, 1 (1987)

work page 1987

[18] [18]

J. A. Vaccaro and D. T. Pegg, ‘Wigner function for number and phase’, Phys. Rev. A,41, 5156 (1990)

work page 1990

[19] [19]

Dakna, T

M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrn´ y, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, ‘Generating Schr¨ odinger-cat-like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter’, Phys. Rev. A55, 3184 (1997)

work page 1997

[20] [20]

Wenger, R

J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, ‘Non-Gaussian statistics from individ- ual pulses of squeezed light’, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 153601 (2004)

work page 2004

[21] [21]

Ourjoumtsev, R

A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, ‘Generating optical Schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing’, Science312, 83 (2006)

work page 2006

[22] [22]

J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Hettich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, ‘Generation of a superposition of odd photon number states for quantum information networks’, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 083604 (2006). 16

work page 2006

[23] [23]

Wakui, H

K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, ‘Photon subtracted squeezed states generated with periodically poled KTiOPO 4, Opt. Express15, 3568 (2007)

work page 2007

[24] [24]

A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, ‘Quantum-optical catalysis: generating nonclassical states of light by means of linear optics’, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 250401 (2002)

work page 2002

[25] [25]

Bimbard, N

E. Bimbard, N. Jain, A. MacRae, and A. I. Lvovsky, ‘Quantum-optical state engi- neering up to the two-photon level’, Nat. Photonics4, 243 (2010)

work page 2010

[26] [26]

Marek, R

P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, ‘Deterministic implementation of weak quantum cubic nonlinearity’, Phys. Rev. A84, 053802 (2011)

work page 2011

[27] [27]

Yukawa, K

M. Yukawa, K. Miyata, T. Mizuta, H. Yonezawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Fu- rusawa, ‘Generating superposition of up-to three photons for continuous variable quantum information processing’, Opt. Express21, 5529 (2013)

work page 2013

[28] [28]

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, ‘Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits’, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

work page 2007

[29] [29]

K. J. Resch, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, ‘Experimental observation of non- classical effects on single-photon detection rates’, Phys. Rev. A63, 020102(R) (2001)

work page 2001

[30] [30]

M. K. Akhlaghi, A. H. Majedi, and J. S. Lundeen, ‘Nonlinearity in single photon detection: modeling and quantum tomography’, Opt. Express19, 21305 (2011). 17

work page 2011