Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Non-Gaussianity in cat codes: global incompatibility and local geometric alignment with the magic resource

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cat codes do not inherit the global, value-preserving GKP magic–non-Gaussianity equivalence, but a sector-adapted SU(d) asymptotic cat code aligns the local level-set geometry of Wigner logarithmic negativity with that of the phase-operator

desk verdict Useful asymptotic WLN result and a correct qubit-level incompatibility claim, but the general-d local alignment rests on an unproved sector-eigenvector assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15739 v1 pith:EMQFJZUV submitted 2026-07-17 quant-ph

Yuwei Zhu , Seungbeom Chin , William J. Munro , Kae Nemoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords catcodesWignerlogarithmicnegativitymagicresourcenon-GaussianityGKPencodingasymptoticcodephase-operatorbasislevel-setalignment
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 asks whether the exact magic–non-Gaussianity correspondence discovered for GKP codes survives in cat codes, and it answers both yes and no. It proves that in the large-separation limit a d-peaked cat state has Wigner logarithmic negativity WLN∞ = log2[1 + (4/π)Σ|cicj|], so the WLN level sets are organized by coefficient amplitudes and invariant under relative phase rotations. The phase-operator magic measure, by contrast, is organized locally by sign sectors and sector-dependent eigenbases, so the two global level-set structures cannot be matched. The constructive part is that both resources share a local U(1)^{d-1} phase-rotation invariance; by choosing the cat-code basis from the magic measure's sector eigenbasis through an SU(d) transformation, the WLN contours and magic-measure contours align locally in the chosen sign sector. The paper also benchmarks physical finite-amplitude cat codes against approximate GKP states and finds that moderate cat amplitudes reach the same contour-deviation tolerance as much larger GKP scale separations.

What carries the argument

The paper's central objects are (i) the asymptotic WLN formula of Theorem 1, obtained by high-frequency averaging of pairwise interference fringes in Eq. (9); (ii) the sign-sector decomposition of the magic measure, generated by the Hermitian signature operator Aε = Σ εl,m Ol,m, whose largest-eigenvalue eigenvector is the local magic maximizer and whose eigenbasis carries a U(1)^{d-1} phase-rotation invariance (Lemma 1); and (iii) the SU(d) asymptotic cat code |μ⟩(∞)ε,L = Σi (Ũε)μi|αi⟩, which aligns these two local geometries by mapping the sector eigenbasis onto the coherent-component axes. The WLN level-set structure supplies the rigid circular geometry; the signature-operator eigenbasis s

What would settle it

Take a concrete dimension (e.g. d=3) and the sign pattern of Eq. (28), diagonalize Aε, and test whether vmax satisfies sgn[Tr(Ol,m|vmax⟩⟨vmax|)] = εl,m for every l,m; a single sign mismatch would show the claimed sector has no state at the supposed maximizer. Then compute exact finite-|α| WLN contours and magic-measure contours under the SU(d) ACC on a grid; if the contour-radius deviations do not vanish as |α|→∞ in the target sector, the local alignment claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the non-degenerate large-separation limit, the paper claims, the Wigner function of a d-peaked cat state decomposes into separated Gaussian peaks and interference fringes, each fringe's absolute value averaging to 2/π. This yields the closed-form asymptotic WLN of Theorem 1, which depends only on the amplitudes |ci| and is invariant under all relative phases: the equal-WLN surfaces are circular level sets in coefficient space. The phase-operator magic measure, however, is organized by sign sectors; inside a sector its value depends only on amplitudes in the eigenbasis of the signature operator Aε, with a local U(1)^{d-1} phase invariance. The paper shows these two global landscape stru

Load-bearing premise

The alignment construction assumes that, for the chosen sign sector, the largest-eigenvalue eigenvector vmax of the signature operator Aε lies inside that sector and is its local magic maximizer; the paper does not prove this for arbitrary d, and if vmax falls outside Sε the local level-set alignment is not realized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No universal, encoding-independent magic–non-Gaussianity relation exists: the form of any such relation depends on the bosonic code, since cat codes and GKP codes give incompatible global level-set structures.
  • For any dimension d and any sign sector, one can construct a sector-adapted SU(d) cat code whose asymptotic WLN level sets locally coincide with the magic measure's level sets in that sector.
  • The local alignment is geometric rather than value-preserving, so high non-Gaussianity does not correspond to high magic in the aligned sector; the WLN minimum is placed at the magic maximum.
  • In finite-parameter physical realizations, the SU(2) cat code reaches a 1% contour-deviation tolerance at |α|≈2.04, while the approximate GKP family considered here needs Δ/σ≈20.7 under the same metric, suggesting the cat route is more accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to define a sector-by-sector alignment map for cat codes, treating the magic–NG relation as a piecewise local correspondence patched across sign sectors rather than a single global function.
  • Because the alignment depends only on amplitude and phase-rotation invariance, the same SU(d) construction should apply to other multi-component coherent-state superpositions, not just displaced equal-amplitude cats.
  • The contour-deviation benchmark suggests a practical experimental probe: measuring the circularity of equal-WLN contours in generated cat states would directly test whether the local magic–NG alignment is present, without demanding GKP-scale squeezing.
  • The two-sector alignment seen in the qubit example may be exceptional; an interesting open question is how many sign sectors can be simultaneously aligned in higher dimensions d.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether the magic–non-Gaussianity correspondence established for GKP codes survives in cat codes. It computes the asymptotic Wigner logarithmic negativity [Eq. (10)] for non-degenerate d-peaked cat states, shows that its level sets are governed by coherent-state amplitudes and have a U(1)^{d−1} phase-rotation symmetry, and contrasts this with a magic measure defined through a phase-operator basis, whose level sets are organized by sign sectors and sector eigenbases. For the even/odd qubit cat code the two global foliations are incompatible (Theorem 2). The paper then constructs an "SU(d) asymptotic cat code" [Eq. (31)] whose sector eigenbasis is identified with the coherent-state basis, and claims a constructive local alignment between WLN and magic-measure level sets. A numerical benchmark compares the circularity of finite-cat and approximate-GKP WLN contours.

Significance. The asymptotic WLN formula is clean; the averaging lemma is sound and the non-overlap argument is justified. The qubit incompatibility theorem is correct, and the observation that any magic–NG relation is encoding-dependent is a useful conceptual point. If the d-dimensional local-alignment construction were fully justified, the paper would provide a genuine geometry-based route beyond GKP. However, two load-bearing points need repair: the sector-eigenvector assumption and the mismatch between L1-type WLN level sets and quadratic magic-measure level sets for d≥3. With these fixed, or with the claims appropriately scoped, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Lemma 1/3 (Appendix C), Eq. (31)] The construction assumes vmax ∈ S_epsilon. Lemma 3 only proves a conditional statement: if |ψ⟩ is already in S_epsilon, then M depends on the amplitudes. It does not show that the largest-eigenvalue eigenvector of A_epsilon has the sign pattern epsilon, nor that S_epsilon is nonempty. If vmax lies outside S_epsilon, the unconstrained maximum is not in the sector, the sector's local maximum is on a boundary, and the phase orbits around vmax leave the sector, so the ACC alignment is undefined. The qubit example verifies the property; the qutrit example (Eq. (28)) does not check the signature of vmax, and no general argument is given. Please prove this property or restrict the construction to sectors for which it holds.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (10), Appendix C Eq. (C8)] For d≥3 the claimed 'level-set alignment' is not established. After the identification (30), WLN∞ = log2[1 + (4/π)Σ_{i<j}|a_i a_j|] and dM = λ_max − Σ_j(λ_max−λ_j)|a_j|² are different functions of the amplitudes. Near vmax the WLN has a term linear in Σ_{j>0}|a_j|, while M is a smooth quadratic form. The level sets are therefore different surfaces; the two functions share only the U(1)^{d−1} phase-rotation symmetry (torus orbits). For d=2 a single transverse radius makes this distinction invisible, but for general d the abstract's and Sec. III.B's 'local level-set alignment' overstates what is proven. Please either prove a genuine level-set matching under the ACC or explicitly formulate the result as phase-orbit compatibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4] The abscissa labels are garbled ('j,j2') and the dual scale (|α| and Δ/σ) is confusing; please redraw with a clear dual axis and legend.
  2. [Eq. (31)] U_epsilon is a unitary rather than strictly SU(d); specify the global-phase convention that makes the code SU(d).
  3. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (19)] There are at most 2^{d²} sign sectors, and many may be empty; write 'at most' rather than O(2^{d²}) unless counting nonempty sectors.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C8)] The factor d in d·M arises from the normalization in Eq. (C4); state this explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [Lemma 1 statement] The lemma should not refer to vmax as the local maximum unless vmax ∈ S_epsilon is added as a hypothesis; as written, Lemma 1 is valid for arbitrary states in the sector, and the vmax claim is a separate unproven assertion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the asymptotic WLN derivation and global-incompatibility comparison are self-contained, and the SU(d) local alignment is an explicit basis construction rather than a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The main quantitative result, Theorem 1 (Eq. 10), is derived from Lemma 2, which is an independent Fourier-averaging statement about |cos| integrals; the WLN value depends on coherent amplitudes exactly as computed, with no input containing the output. The global incompatibility claim (Theorem 2) is a direct comparison of two explicitly computed level-set structures: WLN circles around the coherent axis versus magic-measure circles around sector-dependent eigenaxes; it is an observation, not a circular reduction. The SU(d) asymptotic cat code is introduced in Sec. III B as an explicit construction: the code basis is chosen as the magic sector eigenbasis (Eqs. 30-31), so the shared U(1)^{d-1} phase-rotation invariance is imposed by definition. This is the standard form of an existence/construction theorem, not a hidden fit, because the paper never claims to predict the alignment for an unmodified cat code; it says it constructs a code under which alignment holds. The one genuine gap is that Appendix C's Lemma 3 does not prove that vmax lies inside the sign sector S_epsilon, nor that S_epsilon is nonempty for general d; the proof asserts only a conditional amplitude-dependence for states already in the sector. That is a rigor/correctness issue for the arbitrary-d construction, but it is not circularity: the magic measure is not defined in terms of WLN, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The finite-parameter benchmark in Sec. IV is an independent numerical comparison, not an input to the resource-geometry claims. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central asymptotic results rest on standard coherent-state Wigner analysis and a clear non-degenerate large-separation limit. The main additional assumptions are the sector-eigenvector sign condition, which is not proved, and the restriction of the phase-operator basis to Z_d. No empirical constants are fitted to data; the free parameters listed are numerical benchmarks and tolerance choices. The SU(d) ACC is a deliberately constructed code, not an independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (3)
  • Geometric-error tolerances E1, E2 = 1e-2, 5e-3
    Chosen thresholds in Sec. IV for the cat-vs-GKP benchmark; the qualitative conclusion about experimental accessibility depends on these arbitrary tolerances, though the authors also cite experimental parameter ranges.
  • GKP spike width sigma_0 = ≈0.28
    Fixed in Appendix D.1 so that 6 sigma_0 ≤ sqrt(pi); this choice affects the numerical E_GKP thresholds.
  • Phase-space and contour-sampling parameters = 80x80 grid; 80 contours; various dx, dp
    Numerical choices in Appendix D.1 used to compute the geometric error; the paper states that convergence was checked but no data/code is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Wigner-function decomposition of a coherent-state superposition into diagonal Gaussians and pairwise cosine interference terms (Eqs. 3-4).
    Standard quantum-optics result, used throughout Sec. II as the starting point for the WLN computation.
  • domain assumption Non-degenerate large-separation limit: alpha_i = R beta_i with R -> infinity and beta_i+beta_j distinct (Eqs. 5-6).
    Ensures all Wigner-envelope centers separate so that absolute-value integrals decompose into independent contributions; this is the key asymptotic assumption behind Theorem 1.
  • standard math High-frequency averaging lemma: for f in L^1, integral f|cos(k·r+phi)| -> (2/pi) integral f as |k| -> infinity (Appendix A).
    Used to prove Eq. (9) and hence Theorem 1; the proof via Fourier expansion and Riemann-Lebesgue is standard and correct.
  • ad hoc to paper The largest-eigenvalue eigenvector v_max of the sector signature operator A_epsilon lies in the sign sector S_epsilon and is the local magic-measure maximizer.
    Appendix C's proof of Lemma 3 assumes states in S_epsilon and uses v_max as the unconstrained maximum of Tr(A_epsilon rho); no proof is given that v_max itself has the sign pattern epsilon. This is the least-supported premise in the construction.
  • domain assumption The phase-operator basis restricted to l,m in Z_d gives the relevant magic measure, with sign factors absorbed into the sector pattern.
    Appendix C states this restriction without detailed justification; it relies on Ref. [20]'s construction of the phase-operator magic measure.
invented entities (2)
  • SU(d) asymptotic cat code (ACC)
    purpose: A code basis constructed by mapping the magic sector eigenbasis to an asymptotically orthogonal coherent-state constellation, so that WLN and magic-measure level sets share local U(1)^{d-1} phase-rotation geometry.
    This is a theoretical construction in Sec. III.B; it has no falsifiable empirical handle outside the paper, though finite-cat approximations are numerically benchmarked.
  • Delta-cat encoding
    purpose: A nonphysical reference model in Appendix B whose Wigner function exactly reproduces the asymptotic WLN structure of the even/odd cat code.
    Introduced as a limiting mathematical model, not as a physical state or code.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Gaussianity in cat codes: global incompatibility and local geometric alignment with the magic resource." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMQFJZUV

@misc{pith2026260715739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Gaussianity in cat codes: global incompatibility and local geometric alignment with the magic resource},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMQFJZUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15739}
}
abstract

Non-Gaussianity is an essential resource for genuine quantum advantages in continuous-variable quantum systems and is regarded as a counterpart of the magic resource in discrete-variable systems. Recently, an exact correspondence between non-Gaussianity (NG) and the magic resource was identified within the Gottesman--Kitaev--Preskill (GKP) encoding framework. Whether such a relation persists beyond GKP encoding, however, remains unclear. Here, we address this question in the cat-code setting. By comparing the Wigner logarithmic negativity (WLN) and a magic measure defined from a phase-operator basis, we analyze the resource geometry of non-degenerate $d$-peaked cat states. We find that cat codes do not inherit the global value-preserving GKP magic--NG equivalence, but their asymptotic WLN geometry allows a constructive local alignment with the magic-measure geometry. Specifically, under a distinguished SU($d$) asymptotic cat code, we establish a sector-dependent alignment between WLN level sets and magic-measure level sets based on their intrinsic local geometries. These results identify both the global incompatibility and the locally constructive relation between magic and non-Gaussian resources in cat codes, suggesting a geometry-based approach to resource correspondences beyond the GKP framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Asymptotic upper bound of the WLN for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. WLN contours on the logical Bloch sphere for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Qubit illustration of the local level-set alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Geometric error for the approximate qubit GKP en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Veitch, N

    V. Veitch, N. Wiebe, C. Ferrie, and J. Emerson, New Journal of Physics15, 013037 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Rahimi-Keshari, T

    S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. C. Ralph, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. X6, 021039 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Science383, 289 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk7560

    doi:10.1126/science.adk7560 2024

  8. [8]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, 396 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Fer- raro, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. Hamed Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, New Journal of Physics16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Gross, Journal of Mathematical Physics47, 122107 (2006)

    D. Gross, Journal of Mathematical Physics47, 122107 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    O. Hahn, A. Ferraro, L. Hultquist, G. Ferrini, and L. Garc ´ ıa-´Alvarez, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 210502 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences120, e2304589120 (2023), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2304589120

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Feng and S

    L. Feng and S. Luo, International Journal of Theoretical Physics63, 40 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    O. Hahn, G. Ferrini, and R. Takagi, PRX Quantum6, 010330 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A59, 2631 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, Phys. Rev. A68, 042319 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Bergmann and P

    M. Bergmann and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. A94, 042332 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Mirrahimi, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 778 (2016), quantum microwaves / Micro-ondes quantiques

    M. Mirrahimi, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 778 (2016), quantum microwaves / Micro-ondes quantiques

    2016

  19. [27]

    Guillaud and M

    J. Guillaud and M. Mirrahimi, Phys. Rev. X9, 041053 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    S. Puri, L. St-Jean, J. A. Gross, A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, P. S. Iyer, A. Krishna, S. Touzard, L. Jiang, A. Blais, S. T. Flammia, and S. M. Girvin, Science Advances6, eaay5901 (2020), 10 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay5901

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    W. Cai, Y. Ma, W. Wang, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, Fun- damental Research1, 50 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science342, 607 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1243289

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Ha- tridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mir- rahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Science347, 853 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaa2085

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Grimm, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, P. Reinhold, C. Axline, M. Reagor, K. Chou, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X8, 021005 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Nature Physics16, 509 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Glancy and E

    S. Glancy and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. A73, 012325 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Matsuura, H

    T. Matsuura, H. Yamasaki, and M. Koashi, Phys. Rev. A102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Nature566, 513 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    de Neeve, T.-L

    B. de Neeve, T.-L. Nguyen, T. Behrle, and J. P. Home, Nature Physics18, 296 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Nature Physics21, 1664 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, R. Noro, G. Roeland, R. Baby, H. Chen, P. Contu, I. Di Luch, C. Drago, M. Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Science312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    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, Phys. Rev. A82, 031802(R) (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Takase, J.-i

    K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A103, 013710 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    M. Endo, R. He, T. Sonoyama, K. Takahashi, T. Kashi- wazaki, T. Umeki, S. Takasu, K. Hattori, D. Fukuda, K. Fukui,et al., Optics Express31, 12865 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    M. Endo, T. Nomura, T. Sonoyama, K. Takahashi, S. Takasu, D. Fukuda, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, R. Nehra, P. Marek, R. Filip, K. Takase, W. Asavanant, and A. Furusawa, High-rate four pho- ton subtraction from squeezed vacuum: Preparing cat state for optical quantum co...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. J. Pizzimenti and D. Soh, Phys. Rev. A110, 062619 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, N. Mahuli, J. Rose, J. C. Owens, H. Levine, E. Rosenfeld, P. Reinhold, L. Mon- celsi, J. A. Alcid, N. Alidoust, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, J. Barnett, ...

    2025

  41. [49]

    − q− qa+qb 2 2 σ2 −σ 2p2 # exp i(qa −q b)p .(D5) One then obtains W00(q, p) =N 2 0 π X a,b cacb exp

    O. Casta˜ nos, R. L´ opez-Pe˜ na, and V. I. Man’ko, Journal of Russian Laser Research16, 477 (1995). 11 Appendix A: High-frequency averaging of|cos|-function In this section, we prove Eq. (9), which yields the analytical WLN results in the large-separation limit. Lemma 2.Letf∈...

    1995

  42. [50]

    Numerical details for the finite-parameter benchmark Here we summarize the numerical choices used in the finite-parameter comparison between the approximate GKP encoding and the finite SU(2) cat encoding. The benchmark quantity is the geometric errorE, defined from the radial ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.