Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Coincidence free certification and quantification of spatial entanglement with stimulated parametric down conversion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Spatial entanglement of photon pairs can be certified from bright idler intensity images alone, without coincidence counting.

desk verdict Solid methods result: continuous spatial entanglement/steering witnesses from bright idler images alone, with a real but fixable calibration soft spot on the seed-width budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24718 v1 pith:4MF44KXR submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph physics.optics

M. G. Damaceno , G. H. dos Santos , N. Rubiano da Silva , S. P. Walborn , P. H. Souto Ribeiro This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords stimulatedparametricdown-conversionspatialentanglementEPRsteeringcontinuousvariablesFedorovratiocoincidence-freecertificationSPDC
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

Photon pairs from spontaneous parametric down-conversion are entangled in transverse position and momentum, but proving that usually means slow two-photon coincidence scans. This paper shows that seeding the signal mode with a bright classical beam turns the stimulated idler into a conditional distribution of the pair, readable with ordinary cameras. From those idler images the authors evaluate standard variance witnesses for entanglement and EPR steering, and the Fedorov ratio that tracks how tightly the pump is focused. The measured products sit well below the classical bounds, and the method stays conservative when the seed is not a perfect point or plane wave. The practical payoff is a way to characterize spatial entanglement when alignment is hard and photon counting is slow or inefficient.

What carries the argument

The StimPDC–SPDC isomorphism: the stimulated idler density operator equals the spontaneous conditional state, ρ_stim_i = ⟨v_s|ρ_SPDC|v_s⟩_s. With a near-point or plane-wave seed this supplies P(ρ₂|ρ₁) and P(q₂|q₁) as classical intensities, so variance-based witnesses become single-arm measurements.

What would settle it

Run the same seed configurations while deliberately increasing seed or pump brightness into a regime with measurable multi-pair emission, and check whether the Reid and MGVT products rise above 1/4 and 1 or diverge from a true coincidence-based measurement on the same source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A focused or collimated seed makes each stimulated-idler intensity pattern a conditional position or momentum distribution of the SPDC pair. From those idler-only conditionals one can evaluate the Reid steering product and the MGVT inseparability product, both well below their bounds (W ≈ 0.05 < 1/4 and MGVT ≈ 0.05 < 1), and a Fedorov ratio that falls from about 4 to about 2 as the pump is focused, certifying and quantifying spatial entanglement without detecting the signal photon.

Load-bearing premise

The bright stimulated idler must still be a faithful stand-in for the weak spontaneous conditional state; if multi-pair or depletion effects break that match, the witnesses no longer certify the actual photon-pair entanglement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spatial entanglement tests on SPDC sources can be done with ordinary CCD/CMOS cameras instead of coincidence electronics.
  • Pump-waist tuning of entanglement strength can be tracked in real time via the Fedorov ratio from idler images.
  • The same idler-only protocol extends in principle to other continuous-variable witnesses that need only conditional or joint second moments.
  • Sources that are faint, poorly aligned, or at awkward wavelengths become practical to characterize for spatial entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be adapted to certify entanglement in other continuous degrees of freedom (time-frequency, path) wherever a bright seed can replace a projective filter.
  • Because finite seed width only broadens variances, the protocol is naturally one-sided and could be used as a quick go/no-go screen before investing in full coincidence tomography.
  • Combining StimPDC intensity maps with compressed or adaptive sampling might push high-dimensional spatial entanglement tests into even lower-flux regimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies stimulated parametric down conversion (StimPDC) to certify continuous-variable spatial entanglement and EPR steering of an SPDC biphoton using only classical intensity images of the stimulated idler — no coincidence counting. The theory section lifts the known SPDC-StimPDC amplitude correspondence (Eq. 6) to a density-operator statement (Eq. 9): the stimulated idler state equals the spontaneous conditional idler state heralded by projecting the signal onto the seed mode. A focused (collimated) seed then yields the position (momentum) conditional distribution, from which the authors evaluate the Reid steering product W = 0.05 ± 0.02 < 1/4 (Table I), reconstruct the MGVT inseparability product 0.05 ± 0.01 < 1 via the law of total variance (Eq. 16), and measure a Fedorov ratio that drops from R = 4.06 to 1.97 when the pump is focused, tracking the expected loss of spatial entanglement. A finite-seed-width analysis (Eq. 14) argues the witnesses are conservative: seed width only broadens measured variances, so no false positives are possible.

Significance. If the calibration issues are resolved, this is a useful and credible methodological advance: it extends stimulated-emission tomography to the continuous spatial domain and shows that steering-level certification is possible with a CCD and no coincidence electronics — valuable for faint sources, awkward wavelengths, and low-quantum-efficiency detectors. Strengths worth naming: the witnesses are evaluated against external, literature-standard bounds (Reid 1/4, MGVT 1) rather than fitted; conditional widths are model-independent second moments with repetition error bars; the violation is robust across all six seed steps; and the Fedorov ratio tracks the pump waist in the physically expected direction, an independent consistency check that the conditional widths probe pump-shaped correlations. The 5x margin below the steering bound is substantial. The practical impact, however, depends on the measured idler widths faithfully equaling the SPDC conditional widths, which is precisely where the manuscript is currently under-documented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (14); Figs. 3-4; Sec. VI] The conservative-bias safeguard appears contradicted by the paper's own calibration data. Eq. (14) (variance addition for a finite seed) implies the measured conditional width cannot be smaller than the seed width at the interaction plane; I verified this convolution bound directly from Eq. (6) for a Gaussian seed and broad collimated pump. Yet Fig. 3 (Fig. 4) reports signal widths of 0.7 mm (12.2 mm^-1) — about 9x (5x) LARGER than the inferred conditional idler widths 0.08 mm (2.48 mm^-1) — while Sec. VI and the Fig. 1 caption state the signal camera calibrates 'the seed profile at the crystal' at unit magnification. The seed waist at the crystal is never independently reported. The authors must close this budget: document the seed profiles at the interaction plane in both configurations and explain the discrepancy (e.g., reference camera imaging a different plane, non-unit reference-ar
  2. [Sec. VII, Table I and Eq. (12)] W combines a near-field mm scale with a far-field mm^-1 scale, so any length-calibration error multiplies the dimensionless witness directly. The centroid slopes 0.77 +/- 0.04 and -0.79 +/- 0.01 (Figs. 5-6) deviate from +/-1; the text attributes this to the seed/idler wavelength difference and 'technical issues affecting the calibration of the length scales,' but lambda_s/lambda_i = 0.93 accounts for only ~7%, and none of this uncertainty is propagated into W or into the MGVT product of Eq. (17). With W = 0.05 against a bound of 0.25, a ~20% scale error per arm (~40% in the product) is material to the certification claim. Please provide an explicit calibration-uncertainty budget for W and for the MGVT product.
  3. [Sec. II Eq. (6); Sec. III Eq. (9)] The StimPDC-to-SPDC isomorphism of Eqs. (6)-(9) holds in the low-gain, undepleted regime, but no gain characterization is reported. At the seed brightness used, multi-pair stimulated emission or pump depletion would break the identification rho_stim_i = <v_s|rho_SPDC|v_s> on which all three witnesses rest. A simple idler-power vs. seed-power linearity measurement, or at least a gain estimate with a citation of the regime's validity bounds, should be added to Sec. VI/VII.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figs. 3-4; Table I] Notation: the quantities labeled sigma^2 in the Fig. 3/4 captions and the Table I header carry units of mm and mm^-1, i.e., they are standard deviations; W is then the product of variances (squared widths). Please make the sigma vs. sigma^2 convention consistent throughout.
  2. [Sec. VII, after Eq. (17)] The text 'well below the MGVT bound of 1 in Eq. (17)' should reference Eq. (13).
  3. [Sec. VII, Eq. (15)] Eq. (15): second moments are sensitive to tails and background. Please describe background subtraction, region-of-interest choice, and camera-noise handling used before evaluating the widths.
  4. [Sec. VII, Eq. (16)] The law-of-total-variance reconstruction samples the signal marginal at only six seed steps. Please state the scan range relative to the signal marginal width and comment on discretization bias in the Term A average, even though Term A dominates Term B.
  5. [Sec. VII] Only the vertical (y) direction is analyzed. A brief statement on why the 1D marginal analysis suffices (or on transverse isotropy of the source) would help.
  6. [References] Refs. [18] and [47] appear to be the same Tasca et al. PRA 78, 010304 (2008).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standard external witnesses applied to measured idler conditionals; StimPDC isomorphism is prior theory, not a fit or self-definition.

full rationale

The load-bearing claims are experimental comparisons of measured conditional variances to literature-standard external bounds (Reid product W ≥ 1/4, MGVT product ≥ 1, Fedorov R > 1). Those bounds are not fitted from the present data, nor defined in terms of the StimPDC observables. The map ρ_stim_i = ⟨v_s|ρ_SPDC|v_s⟩ (Eqs. 6–9) is taken from established SPDC/StimPDC amplitude theory and used only to justify reading idler intensities as conditionals; it does not algebraically force W or the MGVT product below threshold. Finite-seed broadening (Eq. 14) is argued to make violations conservative, which is a one-sided bias claim, not a tautological construction of the result. Pump-waist dependence of the Fedorov ratio is an independent consistency check. Self-citations supply background on spatial SPDC and SET but are not uniqueness theorems that forbid alternatives or force the numerical violations. Any concerns about seed-width calibration or low-gain validity are correctness/experimental issues, not circular reductions of prediction to input. Derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The claim rests on standard SPDC angular-spectrum theory, established StimPDC amplitude isomorphism, and textbook CV entanglement/steering inequalities. No new particles or forces. Experimental free choices (seed and pump waists, scan steps) are calibrated or scanned, not fitted to force a violation.

free parameters (2)
  • seed position width σ_ρ and momentum width σ_q
    Real seeds are not eigenstates; their widths enter the measured variance as a positive bias (Eq. 14). Values are set by focusing/collimation optics and could be subtracted after calibration; uncorrected analysis treats them as unknown positive offsets.
  • pump waist inside crystal = two settings; R=4.06±0.32 and 1.97±0.06
    Deliberately varied (collimated vs f=750 mm focus) to change entanglement strength; not fitted to the witness bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Paraxial quasi-monochromatic SPDC biphoton amplitude Φ(q1,q2)=v(q1+q2)γ(q1−q2) with sinc phase matching (Sec. II, Eqs. 1–4).
    Standard angular-spectrum treatment of type-I SPDC; underpins all conditional-width interpretations.
  • domain assumption StimPDC idler amplitude equals the SPDC conditional amplitude when the seed is the complex conjugate of the signal filter (Eqs. 5–6), lifting to ρ_stim_i=⟨vs|ρ_SPDC|vs⟩ (Eqs. 7–9).
    Established SET correspondence; load-bearing for reading classical intensities as entanglement witnesses of the spontaneous pair.
  • standard math Reid product Δ²(ρ2|ρ1)Δ²(q2|q1)≥1/4 for non-steerable states; MGVT product Δ²(ρ1−ρ2)Δ²(q1+q2)≥1 for separable states (ℏ=1 units as used).
    Standard CV criteria applied without modification (Secs. I, V).
  • domain assumption Finite seed width only broadens measured conditional variances: Δ²_meas=Δ²_true+σ²_seed, so uncorrected violations are conservative (Eq. 14, Sec. V).
    Justifies claiming certification despite imperfect seeds; false if seed structure could narrow an apparent conditional width.
  • domain assumption Fedorov ratio R=σ_SPDC/σ_conditional equals the Schmidt number for Gaussian biphoton states and quantifies entanglement.
    Used as quantifier in Sec. VII; relies on cited Gaussian-state equivalence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coincidence free certification and quantification of spatial entanglement with stimulated parametric down conversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MF44KXR

@misc{pith2026260724718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coincidence free certification and quantification of spatial entanglement with stimulated parametric down conversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MF44KXR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24718}
}
read the original abstract

Using stimulated emission, a photon pair source can be characterized by seeding the signal mode with a bright classical beam and measuring the stimulated idler field, thus replacing two-photon coincidence counting with classical intensity detection. We apply this approach to the continuous transverse spatial degrees of freedom of a down conversion source and show that it is possible to certify spatial entanglement with only intensity measurements. We demonstrate this capability through variance-based entanglement and steering witnesses, as well as the Fedorov ratio. This method is useful for studying entanglement properties of photon pair sources in conditions where alignment and photon counting measurements are difficult and time-consuming.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Conceptual diagram of the two seed beam config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup. See main text for details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Position correlation: idler near field centroid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Momentum anticorrelation: idler far field centroid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between the stimulated and sponta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between the stimulated and sponta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (7) becomes ρstim i (q2,q ′

    =ρ vs (q′ 1,q 1), Eq. (7) becomes ρstim i (q2,q ′

  2. [2]

    The stimulated idler is the outer product of the ampli- tude (6) with itself,ρ stim i (q2,q ′

    = Φ(q1,q 2) Φ∗(q′ 1,q ′ 2), and the seed operatorρ vs =|v s⟩ ⟨vs|withρ vs (q,q ′) =v s(q)v ∗ s (q′). The stimulated idler is the outer product of the ampli- tude (6) with itself,ρ stim i (q2,q ′

  3. [3]

    =ϕ i(q2)ϕ ∗ i (q′ 2), which expands to ρstim i (q2,q ′

  4. [4]

    (7) Usingv ∗ s (q1)v s(q′

    = Z Z dq1 dq′ 1 Φ(q1,q 2)Φ∗(q′ 1,q ′ 2)v ∗ s (q1)v s(q′ 1). (7) Usingv ∗ s (q1)v s(q′

  5. [5]

    = Z Z dq1 dq′ 1 ρSPDC(q1,q 2;q ′ 1,q ′ 2)ρ vs (q′ 1,q 1), (8) 3 beam block f_fourier f_fourier Signal Idler Fourier plane NLC b) Seed momentum configuration f3 f_im f_im Image plane NLC a) Seed position configuration Signal Idler beam block FIG. 1. Conceptual diagram of the two seed beam config- urations used to obtain the conditional distributions of the...

    2014

  6. [6]

    D. P. Ryan and J. H. Werner, Materials Today Quantum 6, 100044 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Kues, T. Ikuta, H. Takesue, D. Bajoni, D. J. Moss, R. Morandotti, A. Forbes, S. Walborn, E. Karimi, Y. Ding, S. Paesani, C. Vigliar, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, F. Bouchard, M. Karpi´ nski, B. Sussman, J. M. Lukens, Y. Bromberg, R. Fickler, T. Giordani, F. Sciarrino, Y. Zheng, J. Wang, M. Huber, A. Tavakoli, R. Uola, N. Brunner, N. Friis, N. H....

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    C. H. Monken, P. S. Ribeiro, and S. P´ adua, Physical Review A57, 3123 (1998)

    1998

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    S. P. Walborn, C. Monken, S. P´ adua, and P. S. Ribeiro, Physics Reports495, 87 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Schneeloch and J

    J. Schneeloch and J. C. Howell, Journal of Optics18, 053501 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Simon, Phys

    R. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2726 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2722 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    Mancini, V

    S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 120401 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Shchukin and W

    E. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230502 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    S. P. Walborn, B. G. Taketani, A. Salles, F. Toscano, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 160505 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Toscano, A

    F. Toscano, A. Saboia, A. T. Avelar, and S. P. Walborn, Phys. Rev. A92, 052316 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    R. M. Gomes, A. Salles, F. Toscano, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106, 21517 (2009), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0908329106

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    M. D. Reid, Physical Review A40, 913 (1989)

    1989

  13. [21]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    J. C. Howell, R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 210403 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    D. S. Tasca, S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and F. Toscano, Phys. Rev. A78, 010304 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    D. S. Tasca, S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, F. Toscano, and P. Pellat-Finet, Phys. Rev. A79, 033801 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    S. S. Straupe, D. P. Ivanov, A. A. Kalinkin, I. B. Bobrov, and S. P. Kulik, Phys. Rev. A83, 060302(R) (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Giovannini, J

    D. Giovannini, J. Romero, J. Leach, A. Dudley, A. Forbes, and M. J. Padgett, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 8 143601 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    E. C. Paul, M. Hor-Meyll, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn, Scientific Reports4, 10.1038/srep05337 (2014)

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Bavaresco, N

    J. Bavaresco, N. Herrera Valencia, C. Kl¨ ockl, M. Pivo- luska, P. Erker, N. Friis, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Nature Physics14, 1032 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hor-Meyll, J

    M. Hor-Meyll, J. O. de Almeida, G. B. Lemos, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 053602 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Moreau, J

    P.-A. Moreau, J. Mougin-Sisini, F. Devaux, and E. Lantz, Phys. Rev. A86, 010101(R) (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    M. P. Edgar, D. S. Tasca, F. Izdebski, R. E. Warburton, J. Leach, M. Agnew, G. S. Buller, R. W. Boyd, and M. J. Padgett, Nature Communications3, 984 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Ndagano, H

    B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, A. Lyons, I. Starshynov, F. Villa, S. Tisa, and D. Faccio, npj Quantum Informa- tion6, 94 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Prasad, S

    R. Prasad, S. Wanare, S. Karan, M. K. Joshi, A. Bhat- tacharjee, and A. K. Jha, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 064034 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    G. A. Howland and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. X3, 011013 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Tonolini, S

    F. Tonolini, S. Chan, M. Agnew, A. Lindsay, and J. Leach, Scientific Reports4, 6542 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    D. S. Tasca, L. Rudnicki, R. S. Aspden, M. J. Padgett, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042312 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Schneeloch, C

    J. Schneeloch, C. C. Tison, M. L. Fanto, P. M. Alsing, and G. A. Howland, Nature Communications10, 2785 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Z. Y. Ou, L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Physical Review A41, 1597 (1990)

    1990

  31. [39]

    L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Physical Review A44, 4614 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Journal of the Optical Society of America B8, 978 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Liscidini and J

    M. Liscidini and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 193602 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    L. A. Rozema, C. Wang, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, A. M. Steinberg, J. E. Sipe, and M. Liscidini, Optica2, 430 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    B. Fang, M. Liscidini, J. E. Sipe, and V. O. Lorenz, Opt. Express24, 10013 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Keller, A

    A. Keller, A. Z. Khoury, N. Fabre, M. Amanti, F. Baboux, S. Ducci, and P. Milman, Phys. Rev. A106, 063709 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Y. Xu, S. Choudhary, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042047 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    M. V. Fedorov, M. A. Efremov, P. A. Volkov, E. V. Moreva, S. S. Straupe, and S. P. Kulik, Physical Review Letters99, 063901 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Y. M. Mikhailova, P. A. Volkov, and M. V. Fedorov, Phys. Rev. A78, 062327 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Di Lorenzo Pires, C

    H. Di Lorenzo Pires, C. H. Monken, and M. P. van Exter, Phys. Rev. A80, 022307 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    C. K. Law and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 127903 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. P´ adua, and C. H. Monken, Phys. Rev. A60, 5074 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    de Oliveira, N

    A. de Oliveira, N. Rubiano da Silva, R. Medeiros de Ara´ ujo, P. Souto Ribeiro, and S. Walborn, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024048 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    D. S. Tasca, S. P. Walborn, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and F. Toscano, Physical Review A78, 010304 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    D. S. Tasca, L. Rudnicki, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano, and S. P. Walborn, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 210502 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.