Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Bimodal non-Gaussian photonic states from a single quantum emitter in a waveguide

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single two-level emitter driven by squeezed vacuum can herald large squeezed cat states, with |α|²=3.5 and stellar rank ≥3, at 15% success probability.

desk verdict A genuinely new single-emitter route to squeezed cat states, but the headline numbers rest on an unvalidated two-mode truncation and need a third-mode check before I would trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03658 v1 pith:EH5GS6WR submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Thomas Copie , Ofer Firstenberg , G. P. Teja , Radim Filip , Hanna Le Jeannic This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Ex03.67.-a
keywords non-GaussianlightwaveguidequantumelectrodynamicssqueezedvacuumSchrödingercatstatesstellarrankWignernegativitytemporalmodespulsegate
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 tries to show that a single two-level emitter in a waveguide—the simplest possible quantum nonlinearity—can turn Gaussian light into genuinely non-Gaussian states useful for optical quantum computing. For a pulsed squeezed-vacuum input, the output field splits into two dominant temporal modes whose photon-number parities are locked together, and this two-mode state can be harvested: detecting a single photon in one mode leaves the other mode in a large squeezed Schrödinger-cat state, with stellar rank at least 3 and near-99% fidelity to an ideal odd cat of size |α|² = 3.5, at about 15% success probability. The same emitter driven by a coherent pulse already makes deterministic Wigner-negative states, but only rank-1 states of the vacuum/single-photon type. The paper also shows Wigner negativity survives down to 50% coupling efficiency and that a simple interferometer can restore an effectively chiral interaction in a bidirectional waveguide. If right, this offers a comparatively simple, high-repetition-rate route to non-Gaussian resources such as cat states for GKP error correction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint density matrix of the two dominant output temporal modes, decomposed into even- and odd-parity branches. Squeezed vacuum populates only even Fock states and the emitter interaction conserves total photon number, so the parity of the two output modes is locked together; this is what lets a parity or single-photon measurement on one mode herald a specific non-Gaussian branch in the other. The authors rotate the mode basis with a virtual beam splitter and use the virtual-cavity formalism to compute the states, then certify non-Gaussianity through k-robustness stellar-rank witnesses.

What would settle it

Set up a waveguide-coupled two-level emitter driven by an 8 dB squeezed-vacuum pulse with γτ = 0.25, separate the two dominant output temporal modes with a quantum pulse gate, and perform two-mode homodyne tomography conditioned on single-photon detection in one mode. The central claim would be contradicted if the two modes account for substantially less than 99.7% of the output population, if the joint state's purity is far below 99.5%, or if the heralded mode's Wigner function does not show the three negative lobes and ~99% fidelity to a squeezed odd cat with |α|² ≈ 3.5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single two-level emitter driven by a pulsed squeezed vacuum creates a two-mode output state whose photon-number parities are locked: both modes are even together or odd together. Selecting the output mode basis and detecting one photon in one mode picks the odd branch, which the paper identifies as a squeezed odd Schrödinger cat with |α|² = 3.5, 99.3% fidelity, stellar rank at least 3, and 15% heralding probability; projecting exactly onto one photon gives a similar cat at |α|² = 3.1, 98.7% purity, 99.4% fidelity, and 14% probability. Coherent pulses give deterministic Wigner-negative states, but only within the vacuum/single-photon subspace.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing approximation, stated in Section IV, is that the two dominant output modes capture 99.7% of the population and that the joint state can be treated as pure at 99.5% purity; if the discarded 0.3% or the 0.5% impurity breaks the parity correlations, the quoted fidelities and stellar ranks shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coherent drive: within the explored parameter range, the deterministic output is a high-purity displaced superposition of |0⟩ and |1⟩, with Wigner negativity volume up to 88% of a single photon's and a core state confined to the two lowest Fock levels.
  • Squeezed drive, deterministic path: in the mode basis that maximizes single-mode purity, the output is a squeezed even cat state (purity 0.86), whose even-parity component reaches 99.4% fidelity to an ideal squeezed even cat.
  • Squeezed drive, heralded path: a photon-number parity or single-photon detection on the second temporal mode produces a squeezed odd cat with |α|² = 3.5 at 15% probability and 99.3% fidelity, or with |α|² = 3.1 and purity 0.987 under exact |1⟩⟨1| projection at 14% probability.
  • Loss and directionality: Wigner negativity of the coherent-pulse output survives until about 50% total coupling efficiency; a beam-splitter arrangement recombining left- and right-moving fields turns a bidirectional waveguide into an effectively chiral one, so the 50% collection limit can be bypassed when the relative phase is stabilized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the two-mode state itself, rather than a single heralded mode, can be consumed directly as a resource; if its even and odd branches are correlated in the right way, parity measurements on one mode could implement the breeding step of GKP-state preparation without first collapsing to a single mode.
  • Because the mode rotation is done numerically as a virtual beam splitter, an experimental implementation could tune the temporal-mode basis in real time; a natural extension is to search over input pulse shapes, not just mode bases, to push the odd-cat branch above 15%.
  • The near-overlap between one optimized output mode and the incoming pulse shape suggests a simplified variant: use the transmitted pulse mode directly and rely on photon-number-resolving detection alone, accepting lower Wigner negativity to avoid the quantum pulse gate.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-Gaussian state generation from a single two-level emitter in a waveguide, driven by pulsed coherent or squeezed vacuum inputs. Using the virtual-cavity input-output formalism, the authors identify two dominant output temporal modes, optimize a linear mode rotation, and characterize the resulting two-mode state by purity, Wigner negativity, core-state structure, and stellar-rank witnesses. For coherent pulses they report deterministic Wigner-negative states with core confined to {|0>,|1>} and stellar rank 1. For squeezed vacuum pulses they report a bimodal non-Gaussian state; in a particular rotated-mode basis, projecting one mode onto an odd-parity or single-photon state heralds in the other mode a squeezed odd cat state with size |alpha|^2 = 3.5, squeezing 8 dB, fidelity ~99.3%, stellar rank >=3, and success probability ~15%. The paper also analyzes losses and proposes a beam-splitter arrangement that restores an effective chiral interaction in a bidirectional waveguide.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, this would be a useful proposal: a deterministic Gaussian drive plus a single two-level nonlinearity, followed by temporal-mode sorting and PNR heralding, could provide high-rate non-Gaussian resources relevant for cat and GKP state preparation. The chiral-recovery beam splitter is a clean and potentially practical idea. The numerical work is described with explicit Hilbert-space dimensions, and the parity decomposition is physically transparent. However, the central fidelity and rank claims rest on a two-mode pure-state approximation whose error is not controlled; this is the main obstacle to accepting the results as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (1)] The parity decomposition assumes the output is confined to v1⊗v2. The statement that n1 and n2 must have the same parity is only true modulo n_rest; since total parity is even, n1+n2 has the parity of n_rest. With only 99.7% of the population in v1,v2 and purity 99.5%, the pure-state approximation discards opposite-parity sectors (even,odd) and (odd,even) that arise when n_rest is odd. A |1><1| projection on mode 2 can then accept these sectors. A Markov bound gives P(n_rest≥1) ≤ ⟨n_rest⟩ ≈ 0.0035; relative to the 14–15% herald probability this is a worst-case conditional contamination of ≈2.5%, larger than the 0.6–0.7% infidelity implied by the claimed fidelities. A third-mode simulation or a rigorous conditional-state error bound is needed.
  2. [Section IV.B / Table I] The headline results (99.3% fidelity for the θ3 odd component; stellar rank ≥3) are computed in the purified two-mode model. The purity 99.5% of ρ1,2 does not by itself bound the error of the herald-conditioned state, because postselection can amplify small components. The paper should either include the third mode in the simulation or provide an explicit amplitude-level bound. Until then, the quantitative claims are not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV] The phrase "We’ll focus here also on one set of parameters" is informal; also, the approximation "we will therefore approximate it as a pure state" should be accompanied by at least a quantitative statement of the fidelity between ρ1,2 and the adopted pure state.
  2. [Section V.B, Eq. (5)] The beam-splitter parameters t and r conflict with time t and stellar rank r*; consider renaming them (e.g., η, ξ) to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Appendix B] "Scarce matrix" should be "sparse matrix".
  4. [Table I] The condition F > F*_k ⇒ r* ≥ k+1 is only stated in Appendix B; a one-line reminder in the caption would make the table self-contained.
  5. [Section V.A] The loss analysis is performed for coherent input, while the heralded squeezed-vacuum protocol is the main resource; the robustness of the latter to loss is not shown. A sentence explaining the intended transferability would be helpful.
  6. [Abstract] Use "non-Gaussian" consistently; the lowercase "non-gaussian" in the abstract should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the simulation is independent of the claimed outputs, and the squeezed-cat parameters are characterizations rather than inputs. The main caveat is the two-mode pure-state approximation behind the parity-heralded cat claims, which is a robustness gap rather than a circular step.

  1. other [Section IV and Section IV.A, Eq. (1), after the 99.7%-population and 99.5%-purity statements]
    "The input squeezed vacuum state is by definition a superposition of even Fock states, and in the absence of loss or noise, the total photon number is conserved. Consequently, the photon numbers in output modes v1 and v2 must have the same parity: an even (odd) photon number in one mode is necessarily accompanied by an even (odd) photon number in the other."

    This inference is exact only if the two output modes exhaust the field. The paper itself restricts to v1,v2 carrying 99.7% of the population and approximates the joint state as pure (99.5% purity), so the parity decomposition of Eq. (1) is an additional reduced-model assumption rather than a rigorous conservation-law consequence. The central quantitative predictions—99.3% fidelity to a squeezed odd cat, stellar rank >=3, and the ~14-15% heralding probability—are all evaluated in this truncated pure model. I flag this as a missing-support gap in the derived chain, not as a fitted-parameter or self-citation circularity; a three-mode simulation would be needed to validate the parity herald.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The scattering calculations are direct numerical solutions of the input-output/master equation for fixed physical parameters; the squeezed-cat parameters (z, alpha) are characterization/fidelity values found after the simulation, not inputs to the dynamics. The output-mode rotation theta is a physical basis choice (implementable with a QPG), so optimizing it does not smuggle in the result. Stellar-rank bounds come from external k-robustness witnesses [46] applied to the computed states, and the paper is explicit that its core-state search is not proven optimal. The only notable weakness is the two-mode pure-state approximation used for the parity herald; this is an openly stated approximation whose effect on the discrete parity postselection could be non-negligible, but it is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. Hence score 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard input-output theory plus several numerical and modeling assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are protocol controls, and the main ad hoc element is the heuristic core-state estimator in Appendix B.

free parameters (5)
  • coherent pulse intensity |alpha|^2 = 0.1 to 2.0; representative 0.5
    Chosen by hand for parameter scan; central for Wigner-negativity and core-state claims.
  • coherent pulse duration gamma tau = 0.1 to 2.0; representative 0.5 to 0.6
    Chosen by hand; determines mode population, purity, and non-Gaussian features.
  • squeezing parameter z = 8 dB squeezing at gamma tau = 0.25
    Chosen representative operating point; input mean photon number is 1.15.
  • output-mode rotation angle theta = theta1 = 0.26 pi, theta2 = -0.02 pi, theta3 = 0.09 pi
    Optimized to maximize reduced-state purity or parity-resolved purity; directly selects which states are identified as squeezed cats.
  • target squeezed-cat parameters (z_cat, alpha_cat) = e.g., z=7 dB, |alpha|^2=1 for even cat; z=8 dB, |alpha|^2=3.5 for odd cat
    Adjusted to maximize fidelity with the simulated reduced state; reported fidelities are best-fit values rather than independent predictions.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Rotating-wave and flat-coupling approximations for the TLS-waveguide interaction
    Used in the Hamiltonian in Section II; standard in waveguide QED.
  • domain assumption Markovian one-dimensional chiral input-output relation a_out = a_in + sqrt(gamma) sigma_-
    Used throughout Section II; assumes ideal chirality, no back-scattering, and flat coupling.
  • domain assumption Virtual cavity formalism of Kiilerich and Molmer accurately describes pulsed scattering with a finite cavity set
    Used to define input and output temporal modes and to compute the joint density matrix; not independently validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption The emitter starts and ends in the ground state, so the total field photon number is conserved
    Used in Eq. (1) to decompose the joint output into even and odd parity sectors; the paper states photon number is conserved without explicitly proving the emitter is unexcited at final time.
  • domain assumption Two dominant output temporal modes capture all properties relevant to the claims
    Justified only by population fraction (99.7%) in Section IV; no error bound is given for Wigner negativity or stellar rank.
  • ad hoc to paper Heuristic core-state estimation via the loss function in Appendix B finds a faithful core state
    The authors state 'We have not proven that our strategy to find the core state is optimal'; stellar-rank lower bounds depend on this heuristic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bimodal non-Gaussian photonic states from a single quantum emitter in a waveguide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EH5GS6WR

@misc{pith2026260803658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bimodal non-Gaussian photonic states from a single quantum emitter in a waveguide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EH5GS6WR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03658}
}
abstract

We investigate the generation of deterministic and heralded non-Gaussian states of light, using a single two-level system coupled to a chiral waveguide. We study the case of a single two level system driven by pulsed coherent and squeezed drive in a chiral waveguide. For coherent input pulses, we show that the emitter can deterministically generate Wigner-negative states, albeit of limited rank. Going beyond, using squeezed-vacuum inputs, we show that the interaction produces bimodal non-Gaussian states from which higher-stellar-rank states, including large squeezed cat states, can be experimentally extracted with a substantial success rate. Motivated by experimental implementations, we further analyze the effect of imperfect coupling and of the intrinsic $50\%$ collection limit of symmetric, non-chiral waveguides. Finally, we propose a simple interferometric scheme that recovers an effectively chiral interaction in an otherwise bidirectional waveguide.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Scheme of the proposed protocol. A propa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Maps of selected properties of ρ1 as functions of the coherent input pulse intensity |α| 2 and normalized duration γτ . (a) Impurity 1 − Tr(ρ 2 1) of the first output mode ρ1. (b) Wigner negativity volume of ρ1 normalized to that of a single-photon. (c) Coherence |ρ core 01 | = | ⟨0| ρ core 1 |1⟩ | of the corresponding core state. (d) Single photon population ρ core 11 = ⟨1| ρ core 1 |1⟩ of the core state. (e-g) Wig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bi-modal non-Gaussian output from a squeezed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simplified experimental protocol. A coherent pulse is sent on an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Evolution of the Wigner negativity of the out [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distance to the bi-modal regime for either a coher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (b) Wigner negativity volume ofρ 1 normalized to that of a single-photon

    of the first output modeρ 1. (b) Wigner negativity volume ofρ 1 normalized to that of a single-photon. (c) Coherence|ρ core 01 |=| ⟨0|ρcore 1 |1⟩ |of the corresponding core state. (d) Single photon populationρ core 11 =⟨1|ρ core 1 |1⟩of the core state. (e-g) Wigner functions ofρ 1 for three representative values ofα 2 andγτ. The insets shows the density m...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Let’s consider again two 5 orthogonal modes upon the most populated mode basis that we can choose

    ofV. Let’s consider again two 5 orthogonal modes upon the most populated mode basis that we can choose. By tracing out the other still popu- lated mode, the reduced state in modev θ i can therefore be written as: ρi,θ =|a| 2ρeven i,θ +|b| 2ρodd i,θ (2) The conditional statesρ even i,θ andρ odd i,θ are not necessarily pure. This is illustrated in Figure 3(...

    work page

  3. [3]

    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]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    ing another output-mode basis

    One can then perform tomography on the bimodal output field or implement a heralding protocol. ing another output-mode basis. The blue point shown in Figure 3(a), corresponding toθ 3 = 0.09π, marks a local minimum in the purity ofρ even 1,θ3 (at 0.93), while the pu- rity ofρ odd 1,θ3 remains high (0.98). Figure 3(e) shows the corresponding output states. ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    However, we know that all states studied here have a stellar rankr ∗ ≥1, as they all display Wigner negativity

    is not pure enough to guarantee a stellar rankr ∗ >1 with this method. However, we know that all states studied here have a stellar rankr ∗ ≥1, as they all display Wigner negativity. ρeven 1,θ has a stellar rankr ∗ ≥2 for the three different bases. Forθ 1 andθ 3,ρ odd 1,θ has a stellar rankr ∗ ≥3. Conversely,ρ odd 1,θ2 is a nearly pure squeezed single pho...

    work page

  6. [6]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen,et al., Science366, 369 (2019), arXiv:1906.08709 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, et al., Nature642, 587 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, S. Daiss, A. Shaukat,et al., Nature Photonics13, 110–115 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

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

    2002

  2. [10]

    Gottesman, A

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

    2001

  3. [11]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond,Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons(Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Honer, R

    J. Honer, R. L¨ ow, H. Weimer, T. Pfau,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 093601 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    M. M. Lund, F. Yang, V. R. Christiansen, D. Kornovan, et al., Physical Review Letters133, 103601 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Magro, J

    V. Magro, J. Vaneecloo, S. Garcia, and A. Ourjoumtsev, Nature Photonics17, 688 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. C. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, B. Reznychenko, P. Hilaire,et al., Nature Photonics13, 803 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V. Paulisch, D. E. Chang, H. J. Kimble,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 163603 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    More generally, squeezed few-photon superposition states have recently been identified as efficient intermediate re- sources for optical cat-state generation [20]

    or in driven steady-state configurations [18, 19]. More generally, squeezed few-photon superposition states have recently been identified as efficient intermediate re- sources for optical cat-state generation [20]. Building on these developments, we investigate protocols for g...

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Paulisch, H

    V. Paulisch, H. J. Kimble, J. I. Cirac, and A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, Phys. Rev. A97, 053831 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, New Journal of Physics 26, 113022 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    H. Luo, P. S. Shah, F. Yang, M. Mirhosseini,et al., Dynamic stimulated emission for deterministic addi- tion and subtraction of propagating photons (2025), arXiv:2512.09711 [quant-ph]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Bouchereau, L

    Y. Bouchereau, L. Weitzel, V. Thiel, V. Parigi,et al., Temporal modes of quantum states of light scattered by a two-level system (2026), arXiv:2606.29974 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kleinbeck, H

    K. Kleinbeck, H. Busche, N. Stiesdal, S. Hofferberth, et al., Physical Review A107, 013717 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Quijandr ´ ıa, I

    F. Quijandr ´ ıa, I. Strandberg, and G. Johansson, Physical Review Letters121, 263603 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    M. J. Leonhardt and S. Parkins, Physical Review A112, 013715 (2025), arXiv:2408.01698 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Luo and S

    H. Luo and S. Mahmoodian, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 024046 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, P. Schneeweiss, et al., Nature541, 473 (2017), arXiv:1608.00446 [quant- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    S. P. Prasad, M. Maffei, P. A. Camati, C. Elouard,et al., Closing Optical Bloch Equations in waveguide QED: Dy- namics, Energetics (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Physical Review A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  22. [30]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Physical Review Letters 123, 123604 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Physical Review A102, 023717 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Brecht, A

    B. Brecht, A. Eckstein, R. Ricken, V. Quiring,et al., Phys. Rev. A90, 030302(R) (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    K. H. Lim, K. T. Laverick, S. S. Jafar, S. P. Prasad,et al., Optimizing wigner negativity in scattering processes us- ing energetic cost functions (2026), arXiv:2606.15101 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Menzies and R

    D. Menzies and R. Filip, Phys. Rev. A79, 012313 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Lachman, I

    L. Lachman, I. Straka, J. Hlouˇ sek, M. Jeˇ zek,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 043601 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, Opt

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Opt. Express30, 30630 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Chabaud and M

    U. Chabaud and M. Walschaers, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 090602 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    S. Ast, M. Mehmet, and R. Schnabel, Optics Express21, 13572 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Terrasson, L

    A. Terrasson, L. Madsen, J. Grim, and W. Bowen, Bright pulsed squeezed light for quantum-enhanced precision microscopy (2026), arXiv:2601.15565 [quant-ph]

    2026

  32. [40]

    Eckstein, B

    A. Eckstein, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Opt. Express 19, 13770 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Serino, J

    L. Serino, J. Gil-Lopez, M. Stefszky, R. Ricken,et al., PRX Quantum4, 020306 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    V. R. Christiansen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A113, 013730 (2026)

    2026

  35. [43]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Na- gayoshi,et al., Science383, 289 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk7560

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. S¨ ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 093603 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Lahad and O

    O. Lahad and O. Firstenberg, Physical Review Letters 119, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    J. Yang, I. Strandberg, A. Vivas-Via˜ na, A. Gaikwad, et al., npj Quantum Information11, 69 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Kiryu, Y

    S. Kiryu, Y. Chin, M. Takeoka, and K. Fukui, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19870 10.48550/arXiv.2603.19870 (2026)

    2026 doi

  40. [48]

    C. Ding, X. Zhang, J. Xiong, Y. Xiao,et al., ACS Pho- tonics12, 4924–4931 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Eaton, R

    M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, New Journal of Physics21, 113034 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    M. S. Winnel, J. J. Guanzon, D. Singh, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 230602 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Roeland, M. Walschaers, F. Grosshans, et al., PRX Quantum2, 020333 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 063605 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu‘ere, P. Menczel, B. Li,et al., Physics Reports1153, 1 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Kenfack and K

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

    2004

  48. [56]

    Jozsa, Journal of Modern Optics41, 2315 (1994)

    R. Jozsa, Journal of Modern Optics41, 2315 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.