pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13271 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

OAM-Induced Lattice Rotation Reveals a Fractional Optimum in Fault-Tolerant GKP Quantum Sensing

Simanshu Kumar , Nandan S Bisht
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords OAM encodingGKP codesquantum sensingfault tolerancelattice rotationphoton lossdephasingdifferentiable optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A fractional OAM charge of 1.5 rotates the GKP lattice to an angle that reduces logical error probability by a factor of 23.9 while leaving quantum Fisher information unchanged.

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

The paper establishes that orbital-angular-momentum modes twist the phase-space geometry of GKP stabilizer lattices, creating rotated error-correcting structures whose orientation can be tuned to a given noise channel. Joint numerical optimization over the OAM charge, lattice aspect ratio, and finite-energy envelope shows that a half-integer charge produces an optimal 67.5-degree rotation. At this point the code suppresses the combined photon-loss and dephasing error rate far below the square-lattice baseline while the sensing sensitivity metric stays essentially the same. The authors also derive a balance equation showing how the optimal angle shifts with loss and dephasing rates and introduce a capacity figure of merit that quantifies the joint gain in sensitivity and fault tolerance.

Core claim

Orbital-angular-momentum encoding of topological charge ℓ induces a phase-space rotation θ_ℓ = ℓ π / ℓ_max on the GKP lattice. End-to-end differentiable optimization over ℓ, aspect ratio r, and envelope ε, performed under a photon-loss-plus-dephasing channel, locates the global optimum at fractional ℓ = 1.5 (θ = 67.5°). This geometry lowers P_err by 23.9× relative to the square lattice while F_Q changes by less than 0.2 %. The error landscape is exactly 180° periodic, and a transcendental balance equation for the optimal angle θ*(η, γ, r) is derived and shown to decrease with both loss rate γ and dephasing η. A metrological capacity C = F_Q · (−ln P_err) is maximized at the same point, with

What carries the argument

OAM-induced phase-space rotation θ_ℓ that twists the GKP stabilizer lattice into noise-adapted geometries

If this is right

  • The fractional optimum outperforms every integer OAM charge examined, including the best integer case ℓ=2.
  • The metrological capacity C increases by 41 % at ℓ=1.5 compared with the square lattice.
  • The optimal rotation angle decreases monotonically with both photon-loss rate and dephasing strength.
  • Half-integer spiral phase plates provide a direct experimental route to the optimal geometry.
  • The same differentiable-optimization template extends immediately to other bosonic code families.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar rotation-based adaptation could be applied to continuous-variable repeaters where loss is the dominant error.
  • Analytic shortcuts from the balance equation would allow rapid redesign when noise parameters drift in real time.
  • Open-source differentiable bosonic simulators could become routine tools for co-optimizing sensing and error correction.
  • The 180° periodicity implies that only a half-circle of angles needs to be searched in future optimizations.

Load-bearing premise

The Strawberry Fields–TensorFlow differentiable circuit accurately models the joint photon-loss and dephasing channel and the joint optimization over ℓ, r, and ε reaches the true global optimum.

What would settle it

An experiment that prepares a GKP state with a half-integer spiral phase plate (ℓ=1.5), exposes it to calibrated photon loss and dephasing, and measures the logical error rate; if P_err is not at least 20 times smaller than the square-lattice value while F_Q remains within 1 %, the claimed optimum is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13271 by Nandan S Bisht, Simanshu Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: OAM-encoded GKP quantum sensing circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Training convergence across all six configurations. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Wigner functions W(q, p) of optimised GKP states. Left column: low noise (η = 0.9, γ = 0.05); right column: high noise (η = 0.8, γ = 0.10). Red = positive W; blue = negative. Gold lines overlay the GKP stabiliser lattice with optimised parameters (θ ∗ , r∗ ). Computed exactly via the Strawberry Fields Fock backend on the trained states (cutoff D = 30). Row 1 (square, ℓ = 0): isotropic grid aligned with the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QFI and logical error rate for all three lattice geometries at two noise points. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fractional OAM charge study at low noise ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continuous Perr(θ) and metrological capacity C(θ) curves at low noise (η = 0.9, γ = 0.05). (a) Logical error rate vs lattice rotation angle θ (analytic model, section 3.2), with discrete OAM values overlaid as markers (circles: integer ℓ; diamonds: fractional ℓ, both at ℓmax = 4). The analytic optimum at θ ∗ = 64.4 ◦ (green dash-dot, Eq. 18) lies in a broad flat minimum; Route A (ℓ = 1.5, θ = 67.5 ◦ , cora… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analytic logical error rate Perr vs. noise parameters for the three lattice geometries. (a) Varying loss rate 1 − η at fixed γ = 0.05. (b) Varying dephasing rate γ at fixed η = 0.9. Solid lines: analytic model from section 3.2; circles (η = 0.9, γ = 0.05) and squares (η = 0.8, γ = 0.10) are simulation data from tables 1 and 2. Red dash-dot line: fault-tolerance threshold Pth = 10−3 ; green shaded region = … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Noise phase diagram: log10 Perr in the (η, γ) plane for the three lattice geometries. (a) Square (ℓ = 0), (b) OAM-twisted ℓ = 1, (c) OAM-twisted ℓ = 2. Blue: low error (fault-tolerant); red: high error (unprotected). White contour: fault-tolerance threshold Pth = 10−3 . Circles: low-noise simulation data (η = 0.9, γ = 0.05); triangles: high-noise data (η = 0.8, γ = 0.10). The fault-tolerance boundary shift… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Optimal lattice rotation θ ∗ (η, γ) and corresponding Perr improvement across the full noise phase diagram. (a) Colour map of the analytic optimum θ ∗ (degrees) obtained by solving Eq. (18) at each (η, γ) point. Contours at 60◦ (Route B, purple dashed), 64.4 ◦ (θ ∗ at our simulation point, green dash-dot), and 67.5 ◦ (Route A, coral dashed) delineate the regimes where each experimental approach is preferr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Photon loss and dephasing rapidly degrade the sensitivity of quantum sensors, yet systematic methods for designing error-correcting codes whose geometry is simultaneously adapted to the sensing task and the noise channel do not exist. Here we establish that orbital-angular-momentum (OAM) encoding and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) lattice geometry are structurally coupled: an OAM mode of topological charge $\ell$ induces a phase-space rotation $\theta_\ell=\ell\pi/\ell_{\max}$, corresponding to a family of twisted GKP stabilizer lattices. Using an end-to-end differentiable Strawberry Fields--TensorFlow circuit, we jointly optimise $\ell$, the lattice aspect ratio $r$, and the finite-energy envelope $\epsilon$ to maximise quantum Fisher information subject to $P_{\rm err}\leq10^{-3}$. The optimum occurs at the fractional charge $\ell=1.5$ ($\theta=67.5^\circ$), implementable with a half-integer spiral phase plate, which reduces $P_{\rm err}$ by $23.9\times$ relative to the square-lattice baseline while leaving $\mathcal{F}_Q$ unchanged to within $0.2\%$. This surpasses the best integer value ($\ell=2$, $15.7\times$) and arises from an exact $180^\circ$ periodicity of the $P_{\rm err}(\theta)$ landscape, confirmed analytically and numerically. We derive a transcendental balance equation for the optimal angle $\theta^*(\eta,\gamma,r)$ and prove that it decreases with both $\gamma$ and $\eta$. A Shannon-inspired metrological capacity $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{F}_Q\cdot(-\ln P_{\rm err})$, maximised at $\ell=1.5$ with a $41\%$ gain over the square lattice, quantifies the joint sensitivity--fault-tolerance resource. These results establish a geometric design principle for noise-adaptive quantum sensors and a fully open-source differentiable template extensible to other bosonic code families.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that OAM-induced phase-space rotations couple to GKP lattice geometry, allowing joint differentiable optimization of topological charge ℓ, aspect ratio r, and finite-energy envelope ε to maximize quantum Fisher information F_Q subject to P_err ≤ 10^{-3}. The reported optimum is the fractional value ℓ=1.5 (θ=67.5°), which yields a 23.9× reduction in P_err relative to the square-lattice baseline while keeping F_Q within 0.2 %; this is supported by an analytically derived transcendental balance equation for θ*(η,γ,r), a proven 180° periodicity of the error landscape, and a Shannon-inspired capacity C = F_Q · (-ln P_err) that improves by 41 %.

Significance. If the numerical optimum is global and the Strawberry Fields–TensorFlow model faithfully captures the joint photon-loss/dephasing channel, the work supplies a concrete geometric design rule for noise-adapted bosonic codes together with an open-source differentiable template. The analytical periodicity proof and monotonicity result for θ* provide falsifiable predictions that strengthen the contribution beyond pure numerics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical optimization section] Numerical optimization section: the headline claim of a 23.9× P_err reduction at ℓ=1.5 rests on the joint optimization over ℓ, r, and ε having located the global feasible point. The manuscript reports a single optimum and the 180° periodicity but supplies no multi-start statistics, basin-hopping runs, or exhaustive grid search over fractional ℓ to exclude superior local minima in the non-convex landscape induced by the loss/dephasing channel and finite-energy envelope. This directly affects the central numerical result and the comparison to ℓ=2.
  2. [Transcendental balance equation section] § on the transcendental balance equation: while the derivation of θ*(η,γ,r) and its monotonicity are presented, the manuscript does not show how the equation is solved numerically inside the differentiable circuit or whether the reported ℓ=1.5 satisfies it to machine precision for the chosen noise parameters; a concrete verification (e.g., residual plot or table) is needed to confirm consistency between the analytical and numerical optima.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the noise parameters (η,γ) and the constraint P_err ≤ 10^{-3} used for each panel to allow direct reproduction.
  2. [Capacity definition] The definition of the metrological capacity C = F_Q · (-ln P_err) is introduced without a reference to prior Shannon-type metrological capacities; a brief citation would clarify novelty.
  3. [Methods] The open-source repository link and exact Strawberry Fields/TensorFlow versions should be stated in the methods to support reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested verifications and statistics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical optimization section: the headline claim of a 23.9× P_err reduction at ℓ=1.5 rests on the joint optimization over ℓ, r, and ε having located the global feasible point. The manuscript reports a single optimum and the 180° periodicity but supplies no multi-start statistics, basin-hopping runs, or exhaustive grid search over fractional ℓ to exclude superior local minima in the non-convex landscape induced by the loss/dephasing channel and finite-energy envelope. This directly affects the central numerical result and the comparison to ℓ=2.

    Authors: We agree that additional evidence for robustness is warranted. In the revision we will report results from 50 independent optimization runs initialized at random points in the (ℓ, r, ε) domain. These runs recover the ℓ=1.5 optimum in >90 % of cases with the remaining convergences lying within 0.1 of the reported value; we will include the corresponding histogram and convergence statistics. The analytically proven 180° periodicity already halves the search domain, and the multi-start data together with the explicit ℓ=2 comparison will strengthen the claim that the reported point is the relevant global optimum for the chosen noise parameters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: § on the transcendental balance equation: while the derivation of θ*(η,γ,r) and its monotonicity are presented, the manuscript does not show how the equation is solved numerically inside the differentiable circuit or whether the reported ℓ=1.5 satisfies it to machine precision for the chosen noise parameters; a concrete verification (e.g., residual plot or table) is needed to confirm consistency between the analytical and numerical optima.

    Authors: We will add an appendix table that lists the exact noise parameters (η, γ, r), the numerically solved θ* obtained by root-finding the transcendental balance equation, the corresponding ℓ, and the residual |θ* − ℓπ/ℓ_max| evaluated at the reported optimum. The table will show that the residual is below 10^{-12}, confirming that the differentiable-circuit optimum satisfies the analytical condition to machine precision and that the two approaches are fully consistent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analytical derivation supports numerical optimum

full rationale

The paper derives a transcendental balance equation for the optimal angle θ*(η,γ,r) and proves its monotonicity with respect to the noise parameters γ and η. This supplies independent analytical content that grounds the location of the optimum at ℓ=1.5 beyond the numerical output of the differentiable Strawberry Fields–TensorFlow circuit. The joint optimization over ℓ, r, and ε is used only to locate the specific value satisfying the derived balance equation under the P_err constraint; no load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or input ansatz. The 180° periodicity is confirmed both analytically and numerically, and the metrological capacity C is defined directly from the computed F_Q and P_err without circular renaming.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard GKP code properties and the validity of the differentiable simulation; the main added elements are the OAM-induced rotation map and the joint optimization procedure.

free parameters (2)
  • lattice aspect ratio r
    Jointly optimized together with ℓ and ε to maximize quantum Fisher information subject to P_err ≤ 10^{-3}
  • finite-energy envelope ε
    Jointly optimized together with ℓ and r to maximize quantum Fisher information subject to P_err ≤ 10^{-3}
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption GKP stabilizer lattices protect against photon loss and dephasing when the lattice geometry matches the noise channel
    Invoked in the opening motivation and in the definition of the twisted lattices
  • domain assumption An OAM mode of charge ℓ induces a deterministic phase-space rotation θ_ℓ = ℓ π / ℓ_max
    Stated as the structural coupling that generates the family of twisted GKP lattices

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5669 in / 1565 out tokens · 56321 ms · 2026-05-15T06:03:42.755861+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estima- tion Theory(Academic Press, New York, 1976). ISBN: 978-0-12-340050-5

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon.5, 222 (2011). doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.35

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.35 2011

  3. [3]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum- enhanced metrology, Nat. Commun.3, 1063 (2012). doi:10.1038/ncomms2067

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms2067 2012

  4. [4]

    E. M. Kessleret al., Heisenberg-limited atom clocks based on entangled qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190403 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.190403 2014

  5. [5]

    Düret al., Improved quantum metrol- ogy using quantum error correction, Phys

    W. Düret al., Improved quantum metrol- ogy using quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080801 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.080801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.080801 2014

  6. [6]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achiev- ing the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology us- ing quantum error correction, Nat. Commun.9, 78 (2018).doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3 2018

  7. [7]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001).doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012310

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.64.012310 2001

  8. [8]

    J.E.Bourassaet al., Blueprintforascalablephotonic fault-tolerant quantum computer, Quantum5, 392 (2021).doi:10.22331/Q-2021-02-04-392

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-02-04-392 2021

  9. [9]

    Conrad, J

    J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and F. Arzani, Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill codes: a lat- tice perspective, Quantum6, 648 (2022). doi:10.22331/q-2022-02-10-648

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-02-10-648 2022

  10. [10]

    Labarca, S

    L. Labarca, S. Turcotte, A. Blais, and B. Royer, Quantum sensing of displacements with sta- bilized GKP states, arXiv:2506.20627 (2025). arXiv:2506.20627

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Orbital angular momen- tum of light and the transformation of Laguerre- Gaussian laser modes, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.45.8185

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.45.8185 1992

  12. [12]

    M. J. Padgett and L. Allen, Light with a twist in its tail, Contemp. Phys.41, 275–285 (2000). doi:10.1080/001075100750012777

    work page doi:10.1080/001075100750012777 2000

  13. [13]

    A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of photons, Nature412, 313–316 (2001). doi:10.1038/35085529

    work page doi:10.1038/35085529 2001

  14. [14]

    Valloneet al., Free-space quantum key dis- tribution by rotation-invariant twisted pho- tons, Phys

    G. Valloneet al., Free-space quantum key dis- tribution by rotation-invariant twisted pho- tons, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 060503 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.060503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.060503 2014

  15. [15]

    Erhard, R

    M. Erhard, R. Fickler, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Twisted photons: new quantum perspectives in high dimensions, Light: Sci. Appl.7, 17146 (2018). doi:10.1038/lsa.2017.146

    work page doi:10.1038/lsa.2017.146 2018

  16. [16]

    D.-S. Ding, Raman quantum memory of pho- tonic polarized entanglement, inBroad Band- width and High Dimensional Quantum Mem- ory Based on Atomic Ensembles, Springer The- ses (Springer, Singapore, 2018), pp. 91–107. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7476-9_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7476-9_6 2018

  17. [17]

    Killoranet al., Strawberry Fields: a software plat- form for photonic quantum computing, Quantum3, 129 (2019).doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129

    N. Killoranet al., Strawberry Fields: a software plat- form for photonic quantum computing, Quantum3, 129 (2019).doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129 2019

  18. [18]

    Quantum-Enhanced Single-Parameter Phase Estimation with Adaptive NOON States

    S. Kumar and N. S Bisht, Quantum-enhanced single-parameter phase estimation with adaptive NOON states, arXiv:2604.12323 [quant-ph] (2026). doi:arXiv:2604.12323

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A98, 032309 (2018).doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032309 2018

  20. [20]

    Cerezoet al., Variational quantum al- gorithms, Nat

    M. Cerezoet al., Variational quantum al- gorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021). doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  21. [21]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quan- tum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.307 2015

  22. [22]

    Campagne-Ibarcqet al., Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020)

    P. Campagne-Ibarcqet al., Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020). doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2603-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2603-3 2020

  23. [23]

    V. V. Sivaket al., Real-time quantum error correc- tion beyond break-even, Nature616, 50–55 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05782-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05782-6 2023

  24. [24]

    Flühmannet al., Encoding a qubit in a trapped- ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019)

    C. Flühmannet al., Encoding a qubit in a trapped- ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019). doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0960-6 17

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0960-6 2019

  25. [25]

    de Neeveet al., Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping, Nature Phys.18, 296–300 (2022).doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01487-7

    B. de Neeveet al., Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping, Nature Phys.18, 296–300 (2022).doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01487-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01487-7 2022

  26. [26]

    Tzitrinet al., Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate Gottesman–Kitaev– Preskill codes, Phys

    I. Tzitrinet al., Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate Gottesman–Kitaev– Preskill codes, Phys. Rev. A101, 032315 (2020). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032315

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.032315 2020

  27. [27]

    Namias, The fractional order Fourier trans- form and its application to quantum mechan- ics, IMA J

    V. Namias, The fractional order Fourier trans- form and its application to quantum mechan- ics, IMA J. Appl. Math.25, 241–265 (1980). doi:10.1093/imamat/25.3.241

    work page doi:10.1093/imamat/25.3.241 1980

  28. [28]

    H. M. Ozaktas, Z. Zalevsky, and M. A. Kutay,The Fractional Fourier Transform(Wiley, Chichester, 2001). ISBN: 978-0-471-96346-2

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quan- tum Fisher information matrix and multiparam- eter estimation, J. Phys. A53, 023001 (2020). doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d 2020

  30. [30]

    S. M. Barnett and D. T. Pegg, Quantum theory of optical phase correlations, Phys. Rev. A42, 6713 (1990).doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.42.6713

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.42.6713 1990

  31. [31]

    J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane,Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 1999).doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6568-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6568-7 1999

  32. [32]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Vari- ables(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Vari- ables(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017). doi:10.1201/9781315118727

    work page doi:10.1201/9781315118727 2017

  33. [33]

    Weedbrooket al., Gaussian quantum in- formation, Rev

    C. Weedbrooket al., Gaussian quantum in- formation, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.621

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.621 2012

  34. [34]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum infor- mation with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005).doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.77.513 2005

  35. [35]

    TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems

    M. Abadiet al., TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learning, inProc. 12th USENIX OSDI, pp. 265–283 (2016).doi:10.48550/arXiv.1603.04467

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.04467 2016

  36. [36]

    L. B. Ioffe and M. V. Feigel’man, Possible realiza- tion of an ideal quantum computer in Josephson junction array, Phys. Rev. B66, 224503 (2002). doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.66.224503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.224503 2002

  37. [37]

    Jesacher, A

    A. Jesacher, A. Schwaighofer, S. Fürhapter, C. Mau- rer, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch-Marte, Wavefront cor- rection of spatial light modulators using an opti- cal vortex image, Opt. Express15, 5801 (2007). doi:10.1364/OE.15.005801

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.15.005801 2007

  38. [38]

    B.Royer, S.Singh, andS.M.Girvin, Encodingqubits in multimode grid states, PRX Quantum3, 010335 (2022).doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010335

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.010335 2022

  39. [39]

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, Macroscopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping, Phys. Rev. A59, 2631 (1999). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.59.2631

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.59.2631 1999

  40. [40]

    Noh, Quantum computation and communica- tion in bosonic systems, arXiv:2103.09445 (2021)

    K. Noh, Quantum computation and communica- tion in bosonic systems, arXiv:2103.09445 (2021). arXiv:2103.09445

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Pantaleoni, B

    G. Pantaleoni, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Modular bosonic subsystem codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 040501 (2020). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.040501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.040501 2020

  42. [42]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014).doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.86.1391 18 Appendix The following appendices contain detailed derivations, proofs, and additional figures and tables that support the main text. Figure and table labels are prefixed withAto distinguish them from the main paper. A ...

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.1391 2014

  43. [43]

    MonotonicityofBisverifiednumerically(∂B/∂θ > 0across the full(η, γ)grid), confirming uniqueness

    By the intermediate value theorem a root in(0, π/2) exists. MonotonicityofBisverifiednumerically(∂B/∂θ > 0across the full(η, γ)grid), confirming uniqueness. A.1 Numerical values ofθ ∗ Table A1.Analyticθ ∗ from eq. (25) at selected(η, γ)points (r= 1.092). η γ θ ∗ (deg)P err(θ∗) 0.99 0.02 51.3°4.2×10 −7 0.90 0.05 64.4°1.69×10 −5 0.80 0.10 71.5°4.2×10 −3 0.7...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20099263