Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Fundamental limits of parameter estimation with heralded optical non-Gaussian states generated from Gaussian resources

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For phase estimation, heralded non-Gaussian probe states offer no net advantage over the Gaussian inputs that generate them.

desk verdict A correct and important no-go for heralded non-Gaussian phase estimation; the proof is clean, Eq. (25) is actually right, and only the mixed-Gaussian extension needs to be written out. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06239 v1 pith:4RWTLHF6 submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph

Shohei Kiryu , Kazufumi Tanji , Yoshihiro Ueda , Kosuke Fukui , Masahiro Takeoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P5081V80
keywords quantumFisherinformationheraldednon-GaussianstatesphaseestimationmetrologyGaussianpassivelinearopticsphoton-number-resolvingdetectionresourcecounting
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

Single-parameter phase estimation is a core task in quantum sensing, and non-Gaussian light states can show large quantum Fisher information (the standard measure of the best precision a probe state can deliver). But in most photonic schemes these states are produced probabilistically: a detection event 'heralds' the state, and most runs are discarded. This paper proves that once the success probability is counted, such heralded probes never beat the Gaussian state they came from: the success-probability-weighted Fisher information of the output is bounded by the Fisher information of the original Gaussian input. The reason is photon-number conservation, which lets preparation-stage heralding be reformulated as measurement-stage postselection. A resource-fair comparison therefore strips away the apparent metrological advantage of these non-Gaussian states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective quantum Fisher information (EQFI), defined as the success-probability-weighted sum of the QFIs of all heralded output states. The key mechanism is the pair of relations $[\hat{U}, e^{i\theta \hat{N}}]=0$, which follows from photon-number conservation in passive linear optics, and $\langle n_B| e^{i\theta \hat{N}_B} = e^{i\theta N_B} \langle n_B|$, which makes the phase on the detected modes irrelevant. Together they convert conditionally prepared probes into postselected measurement outcomes, so that the success probability enters through the classical Fisher-information chain rule rather than as an afterthought.

What would settle it

Evaluate the success-probability-weighted QFI for a squeezed vacuum split at a beam splitter with a herald that counts exactly one photon; the theorem predicts it never exceeds the squeezed vacuum's own QFI, so a calculation, simulation, or experiment that finds a larger value would refute the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is an inequality: for any separable pure Gaussian input state, any passive linear-optical network, and any photon-number-resolving measurement used to herald a single-mode non-Gaussian probe, the effective quantum Fisher information $\bar{F}_Q^{\mathrm{out}} = \sum_{n_B} P(n_B) F_Q(|\psi(\theta,n_B)\rangle)$ satisfies $\bar{F}_Q^{\mathrm{out}} \le F_Q^{\mathrm{in}}$, where $F_Q^{\mathrm{in}}$ is the QFI of the original Gaussian input under the same phase shift. The proof routes through a mapping: because the linear-optical unitary commutes with the total photon number, the phase rotation can be moved before the circuit; because the herald is a Fock-state projection, a phase rotation on the measured modes reduces to a global phase. The heralding thus becomes a postselection after encoding, and the chain rule of classical Fisher information shows the heralding pattern itself carries no phase information. The result is a no-go theorem that quantifies the cost of probabilistic state generation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the heralding measurement counts exact photon numbers (a photon-number-resolving projection); only then does a phase shift on the measured modes reduce to a global phase, so the preparation-to-postselection mapping (and with it the bound) is established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any attempt to claim a phase-estimation advantage for a photon-subtracted or cat-state probe must compare against a Gaussian input with the same resource cost; under the assumptions here, the comparison always favors the Gaussian.
  • The optimal Gaussian probe under an average power constraint is a single-mode squeezed vacuum, with QFI $8\bar{n}(\bar{n}+1)$, attainable by homodyne detection; this sets the benchmark any heralded scheme must be measured against.
  • The bound covers continuous-variable, discrete-variable, and hybrid bosonic resources, as long as they are generated from Gaussian inputs by passive linear optics and photon-number-resolving detection.
  • The no-go applies to linear phase encoding; the authors state that nonlinear parameter encoding, measurement constraints, or detector limitations may still allow a practical advantage from probabilistic generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A plausible corollary is that the same bound applies whenever the encoded unitary commutes with the total photon number, not just the specific phase shift considered, which would widen the class of no-go settings beyond the paper's explicit statement.
  • An experimental test of the boundary: replacing the ideal photon-number-resolving herald with a threshold or homodyne measurement breaks the Fock-state eigenvalue argument, so the bound may fail; demonstrating this would precisely map where the no-go does and does not hold.
  • The result strengthens the case that the practical value of heralded non-Gaussian states lies in tasks that do not reduce to per-copy Fisher information, such as quantum error correction, or in regimes with loss and noise where the deterministic Gaussian baseline itself degrades.
  • The proof technique suggests a general principle for linear-optical state generation: conditional measurements can concentrate but cannot create metrological information, a wording more general than the paper's own conclusion.
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 single-parameter optical phase estimation using non-Gaussian probe states that are probabilistically generated from Gaussian resources by passive linear optics and photon-number-resolving heralding. The authors define an effective QFI (EQFI), \bar F_Q^out = \sum_{n_B} P(n_B) F_Q(|\psi(\theta,n_B)\rangle), which weights the QFI of each heralded output by its generation probability. The central result, Eq. (19), is the inequality \bar F_Q^out \le F_Q^in, where F_Q^in is the QFI of the original M-mode separable pure Gaussian input under a global phase. The proof proceeds by (i) expressing the EQFI as the CFI of a joint measurement via the CFI chain rule, (ii) inserting a dummy phase on the heralded modes and using its cancellation on photon-number projections, (iii) commuting the total phase with the passive linear circuit by photon-number conservation, and (iv) bounding any measurement CFI by the QFI. The paper also analyzes an SPDC-based heralded single-photon example and derives the power-constrained optimal Gaussian input QFI 8\bar n(\bar n+1).

Significance. If correct, the theorem provides a clean resource-counting no-go statement: for single-parameter phase estimation with passive linear optics, probabilistically generated non-Gaussian states cannot outperform the original Gaussian resource when the success probability is accounted for. The proof is self-contained and uses only standard tools (CFI chain rule, QFI bound, photon-number conservation), and the central inequality is not obtained by fitting data. The paper correctly identifies that pre-encoding heralding is not directly covered by the prior postselection no-go results of Refs. [44,45]. The SPDC example, once Eq. (25) is corrected, illustrates the bound, and the power-constrained Gaussian optimization is a useful benchmark. The result is likely to be a valuable reference for resource-fair comparisons in optical quantum sensing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (25)] The stated formula for the total QFI of the two initial squeezed vacuum states is arithmetically incorrect. For a single-mode squeezed vacuum, F_Q = 8 sinh^2 r cosh^2 r, so the two-mode sum is 16 sinh^2 r cosh^2 r. The text instead gives 2F_Q(|\xi\rangle) = 16(sinh^2 r + 1) sinh 2r = 32 sinh r cosh^3 r, which overstates the correct value by a factor of 2 coth r. This affects the quantitative comparison in the SPDC example; although the main inequality (19) and the qualitative conclusion survive, the formula and the surrounding scaling statements must be corrected.
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (19)] The sentence 'Note that this statement holds for any Gaussian input states' is not supported by the proof, which is carried out entirely for separable pure Gaussian states. The chain-rule and CFI\le QFI steps do extend to mixed states if the argument is repeated with density operators, but that argument is not given. Please add the density-matrix proof or restrict the theorem to pure separable Gaussian inputs in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) contains the typo 'Gaussian sate'; it should read 'Gaussian state'.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (25)] The notation F_Q(|\xi\rangle) in Eq. (25) is not defined; please define it as the QFI of a single-mode squeezed vacuum.
  3. [Section V] In the conclusion, 'This conludes' should be 'This concludes'.
  4. [Section III, text after Eq. (21)] The sentence 'Since Eqs. (21) is a convex function' should be 'Since the function in Eq. (21) is convex'.
  5. [Section IV, Eq. (26)] The state in Eq. (26) is described as 'n-photon path entanglement'; this is the binomial state obtained by sending |n\rangle through a 50:50 beam splitter, not a NOON state. Please clarify the terminology to avoid confusion.
  6. [Figure 1] The panels (a)–(d) are not described in the caption; add a short sentence identifying each panel and its role in the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EQFI bound is derived from standard Fisher-information identities and photon-number conservation, with self-citations appearing only in non-load-bearing context lists.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (19) (\bar F_Q^{out} \le F_Q^{in}), is obtained by a self-contained chain of arguments that does not presuppose the conclusion. The paper defines the effective QFI as the success-probability-weighted sum of conditional QFIs in Eq. (8), then uses the chain rule of classical Fisher information, Eq. (10), to equate this to the CFI of a joint measurement (herald outcome plus final measurement). The key equivalence between pre-encoding heralding and post-encoding postselection, Eqs. (12)-(13), follows from the photon-number-diagonality of the PNRD projectors, and the commutation of the passive linear optical unitary with the total photon-number phase, Eqs. (14)-(16), is proved in Appendix A via standard beam-splitter decomposition. The final inequality, Eq. (18), uses only the fact that any measurement's CFI is upper bounded by the QFI of the input state. No parameter is fitted to data, no quantity is defined in terms of the bound it is supposed to establish, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation. The self-citations [61] and [63] appear only in a concluding list of DV-CV hybrid resources and are not part of the proof. External references such as [46] provide an independent Gaussian QFI formula, and [44,45] are cited only as prior context, not used to justify the main theorem. The derivation therefore stands independently of any circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the only numbers in the paper are input state parameters (squeezing r, displacement α) and detected photon numbers. The proof uses standard QFI/CFI identities and four physical assumptions: pure Gaussian inputs, passive linear optics, ideal PNRD, and linear phase encoding. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information of a pure state under phase encoding equals 4(ΔN)^2, and classical Fisher information is upper bounded by quantum Fisher information.
    Invoked in Section III, Eq. (6) for QFI and Eq. (18) for the measurement bound.
  • standard math Chain rule for classical Fisher information of a joint outcome (n_B, x).
    Used in Eq. (10) to equate the EQFI with the CFI of a joint measurement.
  • standard math Passive linear optical unitaries conserve total photon number, so [U, e^{i\theta N}]=0.
    Proved in Appendix A via Reck and Clements decompositions; used in Eqs. (14)-(16).
  • domain assumption Input states are pure separable M-mode Gaussian states of the form ⊗_k G_k |0⟩.
    Assumed in Eq. (1); the extension to arbitrary Gaussian inputs is asserted but not proven.
  • domain assumption The heralding measurement is an ideal photon-number-resolving projection onto multi-mode Fock states.
    Used in Eq. (3) and crucial for Eqs. (12)-(13) where the added phase in subsystem B becomes a global phase.
  • domain assumption The output subsystem A is single-mode.
    Stated in Section III; generalization to multi-mode is claimed but not shown.
  • domain assumption The unknown parameter is encoded as a linear phase shift e^{i\theta n} on each mode.
    Used throughout; the conclusion explicitly excludes nonlinear parameter encoding.
  • standard math An optimal measurement attaining the QFI exists for each single-parameter conditional pure state.
    Used in Eq. (8) to replace CFI with QFI for each herald outcome.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental limits of parameter estimation with heralded optical non-Gaussian states generated from Gaussian resources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RWTLHF6

@misc{pith2026260806239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental limits of parameter estimation with heralded optical non-Gaussian states generated from Gaussian resources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RWTLHF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06239}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Gaussian states can exhibit large quantum Fisher information (QFI) in quantum sensing. In optical systems, however, its generation is often probabilistic via the boson-sampling type conditional operation and thus its generation rate is limited. This probabilistic generation of non-Gaussian resource should be taken into account for evaluation of the sensing performance. Then a natural question arising is whether the use of heralded probabilistic non-Gaussian states is better than that of the original deterministic Gaussian states for quantum sensing. In this paper, we answer to this question for single-parameter phase-estimation. By using photon-number conservation in passive linear optical systems, we show that heralded state preparation before parameter encoding can be mapped to a postselection problem after parameter encoding for phase estimation. This mapping allows the success probability of heralding to be included naturally in the metrological performance. We introduce an effective quantum Fisher information (EQFI), defined as the success-probability-weighted QFI of the heralded outputs, and prove that it cannot exceed the QFI of the original Gaussian inputs. The result highlights the importance of resource counting in quantum sensing toward better understanding of the resource efficient advantage of optical quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Quantum sensing with a non-Gaussian state and (b) heralded non-Gaussian states. (c) Equivalent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical setup to generate single-photon entangled states. The input single photons are heralded from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Toward large- scale fault-tolerant universal photonic quantum com- puting.APL Photonics, 4(6), 2019

    Shuntaro Takeda and Akira Furusawa. Toward large- scale fault-tolerant universal photonic quantum com- puting.APL Photonics, 4(6), 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Demonstration of deterministic and high fidelity squeezing of quantum information.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 76(6):060301, 2007

    Jun-ichi Yoshikawa, Toshiki Hayashi, Takayuki Akiyama, Nobuyuki Takei, Alexander Huck, Ulrik L Andersen, and Akira Furusawa. Demonstration of deterministic and high fidelity squeezing of quantum information.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 76(6):060301, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Demonstration of a controlled-phase gate for continuous-variable one- way quantum computation.Physical review letters, 107(25):250501, 2011

    Ryuji Ukai, Shota Yokoyama, Jun-ichi Yoshikawa, Pe- ter van Loock, and Akira Furusawa. Demonstration of a controlled-phase gate for continuous-variable one- way quantum computation.Physical review letters, 107(25):250501, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Gate sequence for continuous variable one-way quantum computation.Nature communica- tions, 4(1):2828, 2013

    Xiaolong Su, Shuhong Hao, Xiaowei Deng, Lingyu Ma, Meihong Wang, Xiaojun Jia, Changde Xie, and Kunchi Peng. Gate sequence for continuous variable one-way quantum computation.Nature communica- tions, 4(1):2828, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Fabrication of low-loss quasi-single-mode ppln waveguide and its application to a modularized broadband high-level squeezer.Applied Physics Letters, 119(25), 2021

    Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Taichi Yamashima, Naoto Takanashi, Asuka Inoue, Takeshi Umeki, and Akira Furusawa. Fabrication of low-loss quasi-single-mode ppln waveguide and its application to a modularized broadband high-level squeezer.Applied Physics Letters, 119(25), 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Deterministic multi-mode gates on a scalable pho- tonic quantum computing platform.Nature Physics, 17(9):1018–1023, 2021

    Mikkel V Larsen, Xueshi Guo, Casper R Breum, Jonas S Neergaard-Nielsen, and Ulrik L Andersen. Deterministic multi-mode gates on a scalable pho- tonic quantum computing platform.Nature Physics, 17(9):1018–1023, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Few-cycle vacuum squeezing in nanophoton- ics.Science, 377(6612):1333–1337, 2022

    Rajveer Nehra, Ryoto Sekine, Luis Ledezma, Qiushi Guo, Robert M Gray, Arkadev Roy, and Alireza 7 Marandi. Few-cycle vacuum squeezing in nanophoton- ics.Science, 377(6612):1333–1337, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Generation of 10- db squeezed light from a broadband waveguide opti- cal parametric amplifier with improved phase locking method.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15082, 2025

    Kazuki Hirota, Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Gyeongmin Ha, Taichi Yamashima, Pawaphat Jaturaphagorn, Takumi Suzuki, Kazuma Takahashi, Akito Kawasaki, Asuka Inoue, Warit Asavanant, et al. Generation of 10- db squeezed light from a broadband waveguide opti- cal parametric amplifier with improved phase locking method.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15082, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Sequential and programmable squeezing gates for optical non-gaussian input states.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010311, 2025

    Takato Yoshida, Daichi Okuno, Takahiro Kashi- wazaki, Takeshi Umeki, Shigehito Miki, Fumihiro China, Masahiro Yabuno, Hirotaka Terai, and Shuntaro Takeda. Sequential and programmable squeezing gates for optical non-gaussian input states.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010311, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Quantum compu- tation over continuous variables.Physical Review Let- ters, 82(8):1784, 1999

    Seth Lloyd and Samuel L Braunstein. Quantum compu- tation over continuous variables.Physical Review Let- ters, 82(8):1784, 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro. Macroscopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping.Phys. Rev. A, 59:2631–2634, 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator.Phys

    Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. Encoding a qubit in an oscillator.Phys. Rev. A, 64:012310, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes

    Stephen D Bartlett, Barry C Sanders, Samuel L Braun- stein, and Kae Nemoto. Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes. Physical Review Letters, 88(9):097904, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Jeong and M

    H. Jeong and M. S. Kim. Efficient quantum compu- tation using coherent states.Phys. Rev. A, 65:042305, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy. Quantum computation with optical co- herent states.Phys. Rev. A, 68:042319, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Loss-tolerant optical qubits.Physical review letters, 95(10):100501, 2005

    Timothy C Ralph, AJF Hayes, and Alexei Gilchrist. Loss-tolerant optical qubits.Physical review letters, 95(10):100501, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Universal quantum computation with continuous-variable cluster states.Physical review let- ters, 97(11):110501, 2006

    Nicolas C Menicucci, Peter Van Loock, Mile Gu, Chris- tian Weedbrook, Timothy C Ralph, and Michael A Nielsen. Universal quantum computation with continuous-variable cluster states.Physical review let- ters, 97(11):110501, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Loss tolerance in one-way quantum computation via counterfactual error correction.Physical review letters, 97(12):120501, 2006

    MichaelVarnava, DanielEBrowne, andTerryRudolph. Loss tolerance in one-way quantum computation via counterfactual error correction.Physical review letters, 97(12):120501, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Linear optical log- ical bell state measurements with optimal loss-tolerance threshold.PRX Quantum, 4(4):040322, 2023

    Paul Hilaire, Yaron Castor, Edwin Barnes, Sophia E Economou, and Frédéric Grosshans. Linear optical log- ical bell state measurements with optimal loss-tolerance threshold.PRX Quantum, 4(4):040322, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Optimal logical bellmeasurementsonstabilizercodeswithlinearoptics

    Simon D Reiß and Peter van Loock. Optimal logical bellmeasurementsonstabilizercodeswithlinearoptics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08820, 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Hamilton, Regina Kruse, Linda Sansoni, Sonja Barkhofen, Christine Silberhorn, and Igor Jex

    Craig S. Hamilton, Regina Kruse, Linda Sansoni, Sonja Barkhofen, Christine Silberhorn, and Igor Jex. Gaus- sian boson sampling.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:170501, Oct 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Logical states for fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with propagating light.Science, 383(6680):289–293, 2024

    Shunya Konno, Warit Asavanant, Fumiya Hanamura, Hironari Nagayoshi, Kosuke Fukui, Atsushi Sakaguchi, Ryuhoh Ide, Fumihiro China, Masahiro Yabuno, Shige- hito Miki, et al. Logical states for fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with propagating light.Science, 383(6680):289–293, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    High-rate four photon sub- traction from squeezed vacuum: Preparing cat state for optical quantum computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08952, 2025

    Mamoru Endo, Takefumi Nomura, Tatsuki Sonoyama, Kazuma Takahashi, Sachiko Takasu, Daiji Fukuda, Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Asuka Inoue, Takeshi Umeki, Rajveer Nehra, et al. High-rate four photon sub- traction from squeezed vacuum: Preparing cat state for optical quantum computation...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In- tegrated photonic source of gottesman–kitaev–preskill qubits.Nature, 642(8068):587–591, 2025

    Mikkel V Larsen, J Eli Bourassa, Sacha Kocsis, Joel F Tasker, Robert S Chadwick, Carlos González- Arciniegas, Jacob Hastrup, Carlos E Lopetegui- González, Filippo M Miatto, A Motamedi, et al. In- tegrated photonic source of gottesman–kitaev–preskill qubits.Nature, 642(8068):58...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Extensible universal photonic quan- tum computing with nonlinearity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06544, 2026

    Shang Yu, Jinzhao Sun, Kuan-Cheng Chen, Zhi-Huai Yang, Zhenghao Li, Ewan Mer, Yazeed K Alwehaibi, Shana H Winston, Dayne Marcus D Lopena, Zi-Cheng Zhang, et al. Extensible universal photonic quan- tum computing with nonlinearity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06544, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Generating schrödinger-cat- like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter.Physical Review A, 55(4):3184, 1997

    Mohammed Dakna, Tiemo Anhut, T Opatrn` y, Ludwig Knöll, and D-G Welsch. Generating schrödinger-cat- like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter.Physical Review A, 55(4):3184, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Conditional production of superpositions of coherent states with inefficient photon detection.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(2):020101, 2004

    AP Lund, H Jeong, TC Ralph, and MS Kim. Conditional production of superpositions of coherent states with inefficient photon detection.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(2):020101, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Gottesman-kitaev-preskill qubit synthesizer for propagating light.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):98, 2023

    KanTakase, KosukeFukui, AkitoKawasaki, WaritAsa- vanant, Mamoru Endo, Jun-ichi Yoshikawa, Peter van Loock, and Akira Furusawa. Gottesman-kitaev-preskill qubit synthesizer for propagating light.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):98, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Scaling and network- ing a modular photonic quantum computer.Nature, 638(8052):912–919, 2025

    H Aghaee Rad, T Ainsworth, RN Alexander, B Al- tieri, MF Askarani, R Baby, L Banchi, BQ Baragiola, JE Bourassa, RS Chadwick, et al. Scaling and network- ing a modular photonic quantum computer.Nature, 638(8052):912–919, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    The loss tolerance of cat breeding for fault-tolerant grid state generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06193, 2025

    Olga Solodovnikova, Ulrik L Andersen, and Jonas S Neergaard-Nielsen. The loss tolerance of cat breeding for fault-tolerant grid state generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06193, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Beyond stellar rank: Control parameters for scalable opti- cal non-gaussian state generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06255, 2025

    Fumiya Hanamura, Kan Takase, Hironari Nagayoshi, Ryuhoh Ide, Warit Asavanant, Kosuke Fukui, Petr Marek, Radim Filip, and Akira Furusawa. Beyond stellar rank: Control parameters for scalable opti- cal non-gaussian state generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06255, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature pho- tonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature pho- tonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Beating the stan- dard quantum limit with four-entangled photons.Sci- ence, 316(5825):726–729, 2007

    Tomohisa Nagata, Ryo Okamoto, Jeremy L O’brien, Keiji Sasaki, and Shigeki Takeuchi. Beating the stan- dard quantum limit with four-entangled photons.Sci- ence, 316(5825):726–729, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Entangled fock states for robust quantum optical metrology, imaging, and sensing.Physical 8 Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 78(6):063828, 2008

    Sean D Huver, Christoph F Wildfeuer, and Jonathan P Dowling. Entangled fock states for robust quantum optical metrology, imaging, and sensing.Physical 8 Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 78(6):063828, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Quantum metrology with entangled coherent states

    Jaewoo Joo, William J Munro, and Timothy P Spiller. Quantum metrology with entangled coherent states. Physical review letters, 107(8):083601, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Experimental tomography of noon states with large photon numbers.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(2):022115, 2012

    Yonatan Israel, Itai Afek, Shamir Rosen, Oron Am- bar, and Yaron Silberberg. Experimental tomography of noon states with large photon numbers.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(2):022115, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Ex- perimental optical phase measurement approaching the exact heisenberg limit.Nature communications, 9(1):4606, 2018

    Shakib Daryanoosh, Sergei Slussarenko, Dominic W Berry, Howard M Wiseman, and Geoff J Pryde. Ex- perimental optical phase measurement approaching the exact heisenberg limit.Nature communications, 9(1):4606, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Metrological nonlinear squeezing parameter.Physical review letters, 122(9):090503, 2019

    Manuel Gessner, Augusto Smerzi, and Luca Pezzè. Metrological nonlinear squeezing parameter.Physical review letters, 122(9):090503, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Quantum metrology with generalized cat states.Physical Review A, 100(3):032318, 2019

    Mamiko Tatsuta, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, and Akira Shimizu. Quantum metrology with generalized cat states.Physical Review A, 100(3):032318, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Optical estimation of unitary gaussian processes without phase reference using fock states.New Journal of Physics, 22(12):123039, 2020

    Changhun Oh, Kimin Park, Radim Filip, Hyunseok Jeong, and Petr Marek. Optical estimation of unitary gaussian processes without phase reference using fock states.New Journal of Physics, 22(12):123039, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Estimation of gaussian random displacement using non-gaussian states.Physical Review A, 104(6):062601, 2021

    Fumiya Hanamura, Warit Asavanant, Kosuke Fukui, Shunya Konno, and Akira Furusawa. Estimation of gaussian random displacement using non-gaussian states.Physical Review A, 104(6):062601, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Phase sensitivity via photon-subtraction operations inside mach-zehnder in- terferometer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04499, 2025

    Qisi Zhou, Qinqian Kang, Tao Jiang, Zekun Zhao, Teng Zhao, Cunjin Liu, and Liyun Hu. Phase sensitivity via photon-subtraction operations inside mach-zehnder in- terferometer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04499, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantum phase estimation beyond the gaussian limit.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13046, 2025

    Kimin Park, Tanjung Krisnanda, Yvonne Gao, and Radim Filip. Quantum phase estimation beyond the gaussian limit.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13046, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quantum limits on postselected, probabilistic quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 89(5):052117, 2014

    Joshua Combes, Christopher Ferrie, Zhang Jiang, and Carlton M Caves. Quantum limits on postselected, probabilistic quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 89(5):052117, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Non-hermitian sensing from the perspec- tive of postselected measurements.Physical Review Re- search, 7(4):043219, 2025

    Neng Zeng, Tao Liu, Keyu Xia, Yu-Ran Zhang, and Franco Nori. Non-hermitian sensing from the perspec- tive of postselected measurements.Physical Review Re- search, 7(4):043219, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Optimalgaussianmeasurementsforphasees- timation in single-mode gaussian metrology.npj Quan- tum Information, 5(1):10, 2019

    Changhun Oh, Changhyoup Lee, Carsten Rockstuhl, Hyunseok Jeong, Jaewan Kim, Hyunchul Nha, and Su- YongLee. Optimalgaussianmeasurementsforphasees- timation in single-mode gaussian metrology.npj Quan- tum Information, 5(1):10, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Optimal phase measurements with pure gaussian states.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics, 73(3):033821, 2006

    Alex Monras. Optimal phase measurements with pure gaussian states.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics, 73(3):033821, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Quan- tum metrology with a continuous-variable system.Re- ports on Progress in Physics, 88(10):106001, 2025

    Matteo Fadel, Noah Roux, and Manuel Gessner. Quan- tum metrology with a continuous-variable system.Re- ports on Progress in Physics, 88(10):106001, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Tomographic reconstruction of the single-photon fock state by high-frequency homodyne detection.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(5):053821, 2004

    Alessandro Zavatta, Silvia Viciani, and Marco Bellini. Tomographic reconstruction of the single-photon fock state by high-frequency homodyne detection.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(5):053821, 2004

    2004

  42. [50]

    Heralded generation of ultrafast sin- gle photons in pure quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 100(13):133601, 2008

    Peter J Mosley, Jeff S Lundeen, Brian J Smith, Piotr Wasylczyk, Alfred B U’Ren, Christine Silberhorn, and Ian A Walmsley. Heralded generation of ultrafast sin- gle photons in pure quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 100(13):133601, 2008

    2008

  43. [51]

    Time-multiplexed heralded single-photon source.Optica, 2(12):1010–1013, 2015

    Fumihiro Kaneda, Bradley G Christensen, Jia Jun Wong, Hee Su Park, Kevin T McCusker, and Paul G Kwiat. Time-multiplexed heralded single-photon source.Optica, 2(12):1010–1013, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Heralded single-photon source utilizing highly nondegenerate, spectrally fac- torable spontaneous parametric downconversion.Op- tics express, 24(10):10733–10747, 2016

    Fumihiro Kaneda, Karina Garay-Palmett, Alfred B U’Ren, and Paul G Kwiat. Heralded single-photon source utilizing highly nondegenerate, spectrally fac- torable spontaneous parametric downconversion.Op- tics express, 24(10):10733–10747, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information.Nature Physics, 11(9):713–719, 2015

    Ulrik L Andersen, Jonas S Neergaard-Nielsen, Peter Van Loock, and Akira Furusawa. Hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information.Nature Physics, 11(9):713–719, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    Seung-Woo Lee and Hyunseok Jeong. Near- deterministic quantum teleportation and resource- efficient quantum computation using linear optics and hybrid qubits.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 87(2):022326, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    Generation of hy- brid entanglement of light.Nature Photonics, 8(7):564– 569, 2014

    Hyunseok Jeong, Alessandro Zavatta, Minsu Kang, Seung-Woo Lee, Luca S Costanzo, Samuele Grandi, Timothy C Ralph, and Marco Bellini. Generation of hy- brid entanglement of light.Nature Photonics, 8(7):564– 569, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Nearly deterministic bell measure- ment for multiphoton qubits and its application to quantum information processing.Physical review let- ters, 114(11):113603, 2015

    Seung-Woo Lee, Kimin Park, Timothy C Ralph, and Hyunseok Jeong. Nearly deterministic bell measure- ment for multiphoton qubits and its application to quantum information processing.Physical review let- ters, 114(11):113603, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Resource-efficient topological fault-tolerant quantum computation with hybrid entanglement of light.Physi- cal Review Letters, 125(6):060501, 2020

    SrikrishnaOmkar, YongSiahTeo, andHyunseokJeong. Resource-efficient topological fault-tolerant quantum computation with hybrid entanglement of light.Physi- cal Review Letters, 125(6):060501, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Highly photon-loss-tolerant quantum computing using hybrid qubits.Physical Review A, 103(3):032602, 2021

    Srikrishna Omkar, YS Teo, Seung-Woo Lee, and Hyun- seok Jeong. Highly photon-loss-tolerant quantum computing using hybrid qubits.Physical Review A, 103(3):032602, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Fault- tolerant quantum computation by hybrid qubits with bosonic cat code and single photons.PRX Quantum, 5(3):030322, 2024

    Jaehak Lee, Nuri Kang, Seok-Hyung Lee, Hyunseok Jeong, Liang Jiang, and Seung-Woo Lee. Fault- tolerant quantum computation by hybrid qubits with bosonic cat code and single photons.PRX Quantum, 5(3):030322, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Resource- efficient high-threshold fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with weak nonlinear optics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16536, 2024

    Kosuke Fukui and Peter van Loock. Resource- efficient high-threshold fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with weak nonlinear optics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16536, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Linear optical quantum computing with a hybrid squeezed-cat code.Physical Review A, 112(4):042615, 2025

    Shohei Kiryu, Kosuke Fukui, Atsushi Okamoto, and Akihisa Tomita. Linear optical quantum computing with a hybrid squeezed-cat code.Physical Review A, 112(4):042615, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    Long-distance bell nonlo- cality and teleportation with hybrid entangled states

    Subhankar Bera, Soumyakanti Bose, Hyunseok Jeong, and Archan S Majumdar. Long-distance bell nonlo- cality and teleportation with hybrid entangled states. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2502, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    Linear-optical generation of hybrid gkp entanglement from small-amplitude cat states.arXiv 9 preprint arXiv:2603.19870, 2026

    Shohei Kiryu, Yohji Chin, Masahiro Takeoka, and Ko- suke Fukui. Linear-optical generation of hybrid gkp entanglement from small-amplitude cat states.arXiv 9 preprint arXiv:2603.19870, 2026

    2026

  56. [64]

    Experimental realization of any dis- crete unitary operator.Physical review letters, 73(1):58, 1994

    Michael Reck, Anton Zeilinger, Herbert J Bernstein, and Philip Bertani. Experimental realization of any dis- crete unitary operator.Physical review letters, 73(1):58, 1994

    1994

  57. [65]

    Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers

    William R Clements, Peter C Humphreys, Benjamin J Metcalf, W Steven Kolthammer, and Ian A Walmsley. Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers. Optica, 3(12):1460–1465, 2016. Appendix A: Commutation relation between passive linear optics and global phase rotations ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.