Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Reconfigurable Optical Platform for One-way Quantum Communication Complexity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Multimode-fiber wavefront shaping is a reconfigurable optical platform that can run genuine one-way quantum communication complexity tasks on present-day photonics.

desk verdict Solid methods demo of programmable MMF decoding for one-way QCC; the βPM experiment is real, the “roadmap to advantage” is still aspirational. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27181 v1 pith:QCWGVQOT submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Francesco Mazzoncini , Hugo Defienne , Romain Alléaume , Sylvain Gigan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumcommunicationcomplexitymultimodefiberwavefrontshapingβ-partialmatchingvectorinasubspacecoherentstatesphotonicadvantageone-way
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 sets out to show that a multimode fiber plus wavefront shaping can act as a programmable decoder for one-way quantum communication complexity, replacing the fixed interferometers used in earlier demos. The authors run the genuine β-Partial Matching problem—an established task with an exponential quantum–classical one-way gap—for small input sizes and measure how much optical information must be sent to keep the error under 20 percent. Numerical work with the same decoding architecture shows it can also realize the harder Vector-in-a-Subspace measurement at comparable visibility, and that more fiber modes with quieter detection would push performance toward classical one-way bounds. A sympathetic reader cares because communication complexity is one of the few settings where current photonic hardware might demonstrate a practical quantum advantage without a large-scale quantum computer. The work therefore supplies both a working apparatus and a concrete hardware roadmap (mode count, loss, noise) for stronger separations.

What carries the argument

Digital phase conjugation on a calibrated multimode-fiber transmission matrix: each SLM input port encodes one column of Bob’s linear operator so that fiber mode-mixing plus wavefront shaping realizes a programmable high-dimensional linear optical network whose two camera regions implement the boolean decision.

What would settle it

Repeat β-Partial Matching on a fiber with thousands of modes and substantially lower detection noise; if the measured information cost at 20 percent error does not move toward the classical one-way bounds the way the ideal simulations predict, the platform roadmap fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Multimode-fiber wavefront shaping is a versatile reconfigurable platform for one-way quantum communication complexity. The authors experimentally implement the genuine β-Partial Matching protocol, for which an exponential quantum–classical one-way separation is known, at error 0.2 for n = 4, 6 and 8, and show by simulation that the same programmable decoding stage supports more general one-way tasks such as Vector in a Subspace with comparable performance and a route to higher dimension without increasing hardware complexity.

Load-bearing premise

That average transmitted information defined as mean photon number times log of the mode count is a fair comparison between the coherent-state optical protocol and classical bit communication once real loss and camera noise are included.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single programmable multimode-fiber decoder can replace fixed interferometer setups for many one-way communication-complexity problems.
  • Increasing physical mode count and detection signal-to-noise can bring a one-way quantum implementation into a regime that beats best-known classical one-way bounds for Vector in a Subspace.
  • Spectral, temporal, or polarization multiplexing, or multi-photon Fock inputs, can enlarge the usable Hilbert space without changing the hardware topology.
  • The platform yields explicit experimental targets—mode count, end-to-end efficiency, and camera noise—for protocols with stronger quantum–classical separations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Lab demos that share one SLM between Alice and Bob understate the channel loss a true separated Alice–Bob link would face, so any field demonstration will need separate modulators and a revised loss budget.
  • If the conjectured Ω(√n) classical two-way lower bound for Vector in a Subspace is proved with tight constants, the same hardware targets become a direct test of one-way quantum advantage against interactive classical strategies.
  • Once Alice gains amplitude as well as phase control, the same decoder can host a wider family of linear-optics communication tasks beyond phase-only matching problems.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a reconfigurable optical platform for one-way quantum communication complexity that uses multimode-fiber mode mixing and SLM wavefront shaping to implement programmable high-dimensional linear optical networks. It experimentally implements the genuine β-Partial Matching (βPM) problem for n=4,6,8 input ports at error ε=0.2, reporting transmitted information |α|² log n ≈ (5×10³, 2×10⁴, 2.5×10⁴), and transmits a binary fingerprint image as a communication demonstration. Complementary simulations with measured transmission matrices compare ideal vs realistic (loss + EMCCD noise) performance, argue that the same decoding stage can support Vector-in-a-Subspace (VS) measurements with similar visibility, and present an explicit classical one-way VS error bound (Theorem 2 and closed-form Corollary 1) used as a stringent benchmark. The authors conclude that MMF wavefront shaping is a versatile hardware platform and sketch a roadmap toward regimes where one-way quantum protocols could beat known classical bounds.

Significance. If the platform claims hold, this is a useful methods contribution: prior photonic communication-complexity experiments used fixed interferometers tailored to narrow operator families, whereas a programmable MMF decoder can in principle address problems (notably VS) that require many distinct high-dimensional linear measurements. The experimental βPM implementation is a genuine one-way task (unlike Sampling Matching), the Supplement supplies a full operator construction, a careful EMCCD noise model, and a nontrivial expansion of Raz’s sketched classical VS protocol into an explicit error bound with prefactors—valuable for future benchmarking. The work is therefore significant as a flexible hardware architecture and as a carefully documented proof-of-principle, even if a practical quantum–classical separation is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Results Fig. 4; Discussion] Abstract, Fig. 4, and Discussion frame a “concrete roadmap” to quantum advantage, but under the noise/loss model that matches the data the curves remain far above the classical VS benchmark and hit barriers; only ideal simulations (η=1, noiseless camera, perfect wavefront control) with N_modes up to 5000 approach or cross that line. Experiment is limited to βPM at n≤8 with |α|² log n ~ 10³–10⁴, orders of magnitude above both βPM and VS classical one-way needs at those n. The text correctly notes missing Alice amplitude control, finite SLM fill, η_ports≈8%, and detection SNR as gaps, but does not show that simultaneous improvements suffice under the same realistic model. Please either (i) add realistic-parameter projections that close the gap with explicit mode-count/loss/SNR targets, or (ii) substantially tone down “concrete roadmap / practical advantage” language to match what is demons
  2. [Results “Quantum βPM and classical benchmark with VS”; Fig. 4; Theorem 1–2] Benchmarking experimental βPM optical cost against the classical one-way VS upper bound (Theorem 2 / Corollary 1) mixes two different problems. VS is the harder classical target and is not run experimentally (phase-only SLM); support for VS is only the ≤4% visibility gap in Fig. 7 under lossless single-photon numerics. Fig. 1 already compares the two classical bounds fairly; Fig. 4 should either (a) also plot the βPM classical bound of Theorem 1 at the same ε, and/or (b) clearly label the VS curve as an aspirational cross-problem benchmark, not as the classical cost of the implemented task. Otherwise readers can misread the experiment as nearly competitive with the relevant classical protocol.
  3. [Results “Alice’s encoding”; Setup efficiency; Supplement “Modeling losses”] The cost metric |α|² log(n) is motivated by the Holevo bound for an n-dimensional quantum state (Results, Alice’s encoding), but the implemented resource is a product of n coherent states, often bright, whose total extractable information is not simply |α|² log n. The multi-copy single-photon / Poisson-copy analogy (Arrazola–Lütkenhaus) is the real justification and should be stated as primary; Holevo language should be qualified or removed. Please also discuss how end-to-end loss (shared SLM counted as information-carrying, η≈50%, η_ports≈8%) and multi-photon occupancy affect fairness versus classical bit cost, including whether lost photons are charged consistently with a one-way communication-complexity accounting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2; Bob’s decoding] Fig. 2 caption and main text say n=4 ports and k=4 detection modes in the illustration; ensure consistent use of n (Alice modes) vs k (Bob detection ports) throughout, including when β=1/2 makes k=n for βPM.
  2. [Table I; Setup efficiency] Table I lists component efficiencies whose product does not obviously equal the stated η≈50% once η_ports≈8% is separated; a one-line breakdown of which factors enter η vs η_ports would help.
  3. [Reconfigurable spatial-mode platform] The shared single-SLM architecture (Alice phases added on Bob’s ports) is acknowledged; a short paragraph on what changes in a two-SLM separated implementation (channel loss, independent calibration, timing) would clarify the path from proof-of-principle to a true communication experiment.
  4. [Throughout] Typographical/spacing issues appear in several places (e.g., “communicationcomplexityoffersapromisingroute”, “β-Partial Matching”, figure labels). A full copy-edit pass is needed.
  5. [Fig. 1; Fig. 4] Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 would benefit from explicit statement of β and of whether classical curves are worst-case or average-case error, matching the theorems.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: experimental costs and classical benchmarks are independent; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation for an explicit classical protocol formula.

  1. self citation load bearing [Results, Theorem 1 (βPM best-known classical protocol); ref. [23]]
    "Theorem 1 (βPM best-known classical protocol [23]). Let d be an integer. An explicit one-way classical protocol exists with communication cost d bits which solves the n-dimensional βPM protocol with error probability, for any input, at most ϵ_βPM(d)=..."

    The explicit classical upper-bound formula for βPM is taken from the authors’ own prior work [23] rather than re-derived here. This is only weakly circular: the bound is a mathematical communication-complexity statement, not fitted to the present optical data, and Fig. 4’s primary experimental benchmark is the VS classical protocol (expanded from Raz), not this βPM formula. It does not force the platform or roadmap claims by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s central chain is experimental and comparative, not definitional. Alice’s coherent-state encoding and Bob’s programmed linear operator are implemented via measured multimode-fiber transmission matrices and wavefront shaping; error rates and mean photon number |α|² are measured quantities, not fitted to equal a target claim. Classical comparison points are external mathematical upper bounds: the exponential one-way separation for βPM is from Gavinsky et al., and the VS one-way classical protocol is an expansion of Raz’s sketch with original prefactor analysis (Theorem 2 / Corollary 1). Figure 4 and the roadmap compare measured/simulated optical cost |α|² log n against those bounds and against higher-mode simulations—not against quantities defined to match the claim. Visibility simulations (Fig. 7) compare βPM vs VS operators on the same measured-TM model and do not close a definitional loop. The only self-touch is citation [23] (overlapping authors) for the explicit βPM classical protocol formula (Theorem 1); that formula is not used as the primary experimental benchmark in Fig. 4 (VS is), and it is a parameter-free communication-complexity bound rather than a fit to the optical data. Choosing |α|² log n as a Holevo-motivated cost metric is a methodological assumption (correctness risk if misapplied to bright multi-mode coherent states), not circular derivation. Overall circularity is negligible.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on standard quantum optics and communication-complexity definitions, the coherent-state/linear-optics mapping of one-way protocols, digital phase conjugation through a measured MMF transmission matrix, and a chosen information metric |α|² log n. No new physical entities are postulated. Free choices are hardware/efficiency parameters and protocol thresholds (ε=0.2, β, port counts) that set operating points rather than force the qualitative result.

free parameters (6)
  • Target error threshold ε = 0.2
    Operating point for reporting transmitted information and classical comparisons; chosen as 0.2 throughout main plots.
  • Mean photon number |α|² / exposure and source intensity = set per n to meet ε=0.2
    Tuned so empirical error on l instances falls under target ε; directly sets reported communication cost.
  • Detection port count k and macro-pixel geometry = k illustrated as 4; ports ~speckle grain
    Chooses which camera regions define H/V answers; drives η_ports≈8% and noise collection tradeoff.
  • End-to-end efficiency factors (η_SLM, η_MMF, η_det, η_ports) = η≈50–54%; η_ports≈8%
    Estimated component efficiencies used in cost accounting and realistic simulations; η_ports emerges from TM+operator but collection strategy is chosen.
  • β matching fraction = 1/2
    Problem parameter; set to 1/2 in visibility comparisons and experiment fairness arguments.
  • Simulated mode counts N_modes = 200, 1000, 5000
    200/1000/5000 used to project scaling; higher counts built by reshuffling/copying measured TMs.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption One-way quantum protocols for βPM and VS achieve O(log n) qubit communication with constant error, while stated classical lower/upper bounds hold (βPM Ω(√n) one-way classical; VS classical two-way Ω(n^{1/3}) and conjectured Ω(√n); explicit one-way classical O(√n)).
    Imported from cited QCC literature (Gavinsky et al., Regev–Klartag, Raz, etc.) as the separation the platform aims to approach.
  • domain assumption Coherent-state product encodings with mean |α|² reproduce the relevant photon statistics of Poisson-many single-photon copies, and |α|² log n is a meaningful transmitted-information metric via Holevo.
    Arrazola–Lütkenhaus-style mapping used to justify the experimental encoding and classical comparison axis.
  • domain assumption Digital phase conjugation through measured port TMs implements Bob’s intended linear operator up to the fidelity scaling set by mode count (RMT-style F = 1 − O(√(nk/N_modes))).
    Core wavefront-shaping model from Popoff et al. / programmable MMF network literature; Methods cite RMT fidelity scaling.
  • domain assumption EMCCD noise follows the Poisson–gamma mixture plus Gaussian readout model with datasheet parameters used in realistic simulations.
    Supplement camera-noise section; underpins agreement between realistic sims and experiment.
  • standard math Standard probability inequalities used in classical VS analysis (Borell-TIS, Lévy’s lemma, chi-square tails) apply to the public-coin Gaussian protocol.
    Supplement proof of VS classical error bound.
  • ad hoc to paper Shared single-SLM encoding (Alice phases added on Bob’s ports) adequately simulates a one-way optical protocol for proof-of-principle performance, with SLM loss counted as information-carrying loss.
    Experimental simplification stated in Results; not a separated Alice–Bob channel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconfigurable Optical Platform for One-way Quantum Communication Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCWGVQOT

@misc{pith2026260727181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconfigurable Optical Platform for One-way Quantum Communication Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCWGVQOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27181}
}
read the original abstract

Demonstrating a practical quantum advantage remains a central goal in quantum information science. While quantum computational supremacy is still technologically demanding, communication complexity offers a promising route to showcase quantum advantage with current photonic platforms. Here we introduce a reconfigurable optical platform for one-way quantum communication complexity based on multimode fibers and wavefront shaping. We experimentally validate it by implementing a genuine one-way quantum communication complexity problem for which an exponential quantum--classical communication separation is known. Complementary numerical simulations show that the same reconfigurable decoding architecture can support more general one-way communication tasks with comparable performance, while also offering a route to higher-dimensional implementations without increasing hardware complexity. Together, these results establish multimode-fiber wavefront shaping as a versatile hardware platform for one-way quantum communication complexity and provide a concrete roadmap toward more demanding protocols, where stronger quantum--classical separations could enable practical demonstrations of quantum advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison between the required number of transmitted bits/qubits for classical and quantum upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Setup configuration to solve a one-way boolean quantum communication complexity problem. Alice’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Pictorial representation of the construction of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plot of the transmitted information vs. the input size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Experimental transmission of a binary classical fingerprint image with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Plot of error probabilities of the experimental transmission of a binary classical fingerprint solving the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Numerical simulation for the visibility of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Analysis of the active zone of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Illustration of the division of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum computational supremacy.Nature549, 203–209 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    S.et al.Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions.Software: Practice and Experience52, 66–114 (2022)

    Gill, S. S.et al.Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions.Software: Practice and Experience52, 66–114 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    & Zbinden, H

    Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W. & Zbinden, H. Quantum cryptography.Reviews of Modern Physics74, 145–195 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Pirandola, S.et al.Advances in quantum cryptography.Advances in Optics and Photonics12, 1012–1236 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Quantum communication and complexity.Theoretical Computer Science287, 337–353 (2002)

    de Wolf, R. Quantum communication and complexity.Theoretical Computer Science287, 337–353 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    & de Wolf, R

    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Massar, S. & de Wolf, R. Nonlocality and communication complexity.Reviews of Modern Physics82, 665–698 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Yao, A. C. Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. In18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Sfcs 1977), 222–227 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity

    Raz, R. Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity. InProceedings of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’99, 358–367 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1999)

    1999

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    & Kerenidis, I

    Bar-Yossef, Z., Jayram, T. & Kerenidis, I. Exponential separation of quantum and classical one-way com- munication complexity. InElectronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 128–137 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    & de Wolf, R

    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J. & de Wolf, R. Quantum Fingerprinting.Physical Review Letters87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    & Klartag, B

    Regev, O. & Klartag, B. Quantum one-way communication can be exponentially stronger than classical communication. InProceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 31–40 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Arrazola, J. M. & Lütkenhaus, N. Quantum communication with coherent states and linear optics.Physical Review A90, 042335 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Arrazola, J. M. & Lütkenhaus, N. Quantum fingerprinting with coherent states and a constant mean number of photons.Physical Review A89, 062305 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Xu, F.et al.Experimental quantum fingerprinting with weak coherent pulses.Nature Communications6, 8735 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    & Qian, L

    Zhong, X., Xu, F., Lo, H.-K. & Qian, L. Efficient experimental quantum fingerprinting with channel multi- plexing and simultaneous detection.Nature Communications12, 4464 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Experimentaldemonstrationofquantumadvantageforone-waycom- munication complexity surpassing best-known classical protocol.Nature Communications10, 4152 (2019)

    Kumar, N., Kerenidis, I.&Diamanti, E. Experimentaldemonstrationofquantumadvantageforone-waycom- munication complexity surpassing best-known classical protocol.Nature Communications10, 4152 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    M.et al.Measuring the Transmission Matrix in Optics: An Approach to the Study and Control of Light Propagation in Disordered Media.Physical Review Letters104, 100601 (2010)

    Popoff, S. M.et al.Measuring the Transmission Matrix in Optics: An Approach to the Study and Control of Light Propagation in Disordered Media.Physical Review Letters104, 100601 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    & Gigan, S

    Rotter, S. & Gigan, S. Light fields in complex media: Mesoscopic scattering meets wave control.Reviews of Modern Physics89, 015005 (2017). 1702.05395

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Leedumrongwatthanakun, S.et al.Programmable linear quantum networks with a multimode fibre.Nature Photonics14, 139–142 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Optics Express30, 30058–30065 (2022)

    Cavaillès, A.et al.High-fidelity and large-scale reconfigurable photonic processor for NISQ applications. Optics Express30, 30058–30065 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Makowski, A.et al.Large reconfigurable quantum circuits with SPAD arrays and multimode fibers.Optica 11, 340–343 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    & de Wolf, R

    Gavinsky, D., Kempe, J., Kerenidis, I., Raz, R. & de Wolf, R. Exponential separations for one-way quantum communication complexity, with applications to cryptography. InProceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’07, 516–525 (Association ...

    2007

  15. [23]

    & Alléaume, R

    Mazzoncini, F., Bauer, B., Brown, P. & Alléaume, R. Hybrid Quantum Cryptography from Communication Complexity.Quantum9, 1862 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Sampling on the Sphere by Mutually Orthogonal Subspaces.Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms973–983 (2017)

    Grupel, U. Sampling on the Sphere by Mutually Orthogonal Subspaces.Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms973–983 (2017). 1607.03714

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    W., del Hougne, P., de Rosny, J., Lerosey, G

    Matthès, M. W., del Hougne, P., de Rosny, J., Lerosey, G. & Popoff, S. M. Optical complex media as universal reconfigurable linear operators.Optica6, 465–472 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Holevo, A. S. Bounds for the Quantity of Information Transmitted by a Quantum Communication Channel. Problems Inform. Transmission9, 177–183 (1973). 14

    1973

  19. [27]

    A.Optical Phase Conjugation(Academic Press, 1983)

    Fisher, R. A.Optical Phase Conjugation(Academic Press, 1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Setup efficiency

    Defienne, H., Barbieri, M., Walmsley, I. A., Smith, B. J. & Gigan, S. Two-photon quantum walk in a multimode fiber.Science Advances2, e1501054 (2016). 15 Supplementary Material: Reconfigurable Optical Network for Quantum Communication Complexity Francesco Mazzoncini,1,2 Hugo D...

    2016

  21. [29]

    A Stochastic Model for Electron Multiplication Charge-Coupled Devices – From Theory to Practice

    Michael Hirsch, Richard J. Wareham, Marisa L. Martin-Fernandez, Michael P. Hobson, and Daniel J. Rolfe. “A Stochastic Model for Electron Multiplication Charge-Coupled Devices – From Theory to Practice”. PLOS ONE8, e53671 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Hybrid Quantum Cryptog- raphy from Communication Complexity

    Francesco Mazzoncini, Balthazar Bauer, Peter Brown, and Romain Alléaume. “Hybrid Quantum Cryptog- raphy from Communication Complexity”. Quantum9, 1862 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity

    Ran Raz. “Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity”. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Pages 358–367. STOC ’99New York, NY, USA (1999). Association for Computing Machinery

    1999

  24. [32]

    Gaussian Inequalities

    Robert J. Adler and Jonathan E. Taylor. “Gaussian Inequalities”. In Random Fields and Geometry. Pages 49–64. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, NY (2007). 25

    2007

  25. [33]

    Bounds on the Expectation of the Maximum of Samples from a Gaussian

    Gautam Kamath. “Bounds on the Expectation of the Maximum of Samples from a Gaussian”. http://www.gautamkamath.com/writings/gaussian_max.pdf

  26. [34]

    Alice and Bob Meet Banach

    Guillaume Aubrun and Stanisław Szarek. “Alice and Bob Meet Banach”. Volume 223 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society. Providence, Rhode Island (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection

    B. Laurent and P. Massart. “Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection”. The Annals of Statistics28, 1302–1338 (2000)

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.