Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Quantum Decision Theory for Displacement Detection with Finite-Energy GKP States

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite-energy, d-level GKP states used as displacement probes achieve lower Bayesian error and smaller first-crossing minimum detectable displacement than coherent, direction-matched squeezed-vacuum, and twin-beam probes at equal nominal…

desk verdict Solid analytical toolkit for GKP displacement detection, but the lossy-regime advantage claim is undermined by an asymmetric benchmark (true Helstrom bound for GKP vs. six practical Gaussian receivers). read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08051 v1 pith:7TRDHCZD submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Seid Koudia , Symeon Chatzinotas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P5081P45 PACS 03.67.-a42.50.-p
keywords quantumdecisiontheoryGKPstatesdisplacementdetectionBayesianerrorprobabilityNeyman-PearsonreceiverminimumdetectablethetaseriesGaussianrandom
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 develops a decision-theoretic treatment of detecting a small phase-space displacement using finite-energy, d-level GKP grid states. It derives exact Bayesian minimum-error probabilities and Neyman-Pearson receiver-operating characteristics for single-mode and entanglement-assisted GKP probes, treating finite squeezing exactly through theta-series kernels rather than approximating away the finite-energy structure. It reports numerical regimes, at equal nominal squeezing, where GKP probes beat coherent states, direction-matched squeezed vacuum, and twin-beam states both in Bayesian error and in the smallest displacement reliably detectable. The paper also clarifies the role of entanglement: it removes preparation-dependent blind directions and preserves both logical displacement labels, although in the noiseless pure-state problem a pointwise optimized single-mode probe reproduces the entangled probe's overlap.

What carries the argument

The central object is the compressed displacement operator $K_{\beta}^{(d)}(\xi) = V^\dagger D(\xi) V$, where $V = W G^{-1/2}$ is the canonical symmetric orthonormalization of the finite-energy GKP codewords and $D(\xi)$ is the phase-space displacement. Its matrix elements are exact shifted two-dimensional $\theta$ series, and it carries the overlaps that determine both the Bayesian error and the receiver-operating characteristic. Pure loss followed by gain $G=1/\eta$ amplification is mapped to an additive Gaussian random-displacement channel, so the ideal GKP receiver becomes a $\theta$-wrapped likelihood-ratio test on the continuous syndrome and the logical-Bell sectors.

What would settle it

Rerun the same Bayesian and Neyman-Pearson computations with signal photon number or total energy equalized across probes; if the GKP curves no longer lie below the best Gaussian receiver in the lossy finite-squeezing regimes, the central claim fails under that resource constraint. Equally decisive: measure the ROC of the modular-syndrome plus logical-Bell receiver at d=5, 6 dB, transmissivity 0.8, and t/ℓ5=1, where the paper predicts detection probability 0.63801 at false-alarm probability 0.05.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a finite-energy, d-level GKP state acts as a displacement probe with a modular response: a small displacement produces a characteristic overlap that can be computed exactly with theta-series kernels, and the resulting quantum decision problem is solved by that overlap alone in the pure-state case and by theta-wrapped likelihood ratios under loss followed by quantum-limited amplification. Benchmarking at equal nominal squeezing, the GKP probes achieve lower Bayesian error and smaller first-crossing minimum detectable displacement than the selected Gaussian probes in finite-squeezing and lossy regimes; the largest reported noisy Bayesian error reduction is 0.03809 at d=5 and transmissivity 0.95, and the first-crossing detectable displacement is reduced by 8.54 percent at d=5, 6 dB, and transmissivity 0.8. Entanglement does not surpass the best one-mode preparation for a fixed known displacement, but it removes dependence on the arbitrary logical input and preserves both noncommuting logical displacement labels.

Load-bearing premise

The reported GKP advantage is benchmarked at equal nominal squeezing, defined by $\tanh\beta = e^{-2r}$, which does not equalize photon number between the GKP probe and the Gaussian probes; if equal energy is the correct operational standard, the advantage could shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Finite-energy GKP probes can serve as practical displacement sensors in lossy regimes where approximate GKP states at 8 to 10 dB of squeezing outperform the selected coherent, squeezed, and twin-beam receivers.
  • The logical dimension d is a tunable sensing resource: the reported maximum Bayesian advantage grows with d over the investigated range, so choosing the code dimension matters for detector design.
  • GKP sensitivity is not local around the null hypothesis; the advantage appears near finite-displacement lattice features, meaning a GKP sensor should be designed for a target displacement window rather than for the infinitesimal limit.
  • Entanglement-assisted GKP detection is useful when the displacement direction is not known in advance, because the maximally entangled probe has no preparation-dependent blind directions.
  • The loss-amplification map turns loss compensation into an effective Gaussian-noise problem, yielding explicit theta-function receiver formulas that can be evaluated without a Fock-space cutoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: replacing the equal-squeezing benchmark with equal signal photon number or equal total energy could shrink or erase the reported advantage, a comparison the paper explicitly defers.
  • Beyond the paper: the same theta-kernel decision machinery could be extended to optimize lattice geometry, such as hexagonal or rotated GKP lattices, and to multi-parameter displacement estimation where the modular-syndrome and logical-label record may provide information beyond the binary case.
  • Beyond the paper: the explicit wrapped-likelihood receiver predicts a testable ROC; an experiment at the reported parameters should find detection probability 0.63801 at false-alarm probability 0.05, and a persistent shortfall would indicate unmodeled detector inefficiency or mode mismatch.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantum decision-theoretic framework for binary detection of phase-space displacements using finite-energy, d-level GKP probes. For single-mode and entanglement-assisted architectures, it derives Bayesian minimum-error probabilities, Neyman-Pearson receiver-operating characteristics, and first-crossing minimum detectable displacements. Finite-energy effects are handled through exact theta-series displacement kernels, and pure loss followed by quantum-limited amplification is mapped to a Gaussian random-displacement channel. The GKP protocols are benchmarked against coherent, direction-matched squeezed-vacuum, and twin-beam probes at equal nominal squeezing. Numerical results claim regimes where GKP probes achieve lower Bayesian error and smaller detectable perturbations than the selected Gaussian receivers. The paper also proves that in the noiseless pure-state setting, entanglement does not surpass a pointwise optimized single-mode strategy.

Significance. If the claims hold, the exact finite-energy treatment is a genuine technical contribution: the theta-series kernel in Eq. (16) avoids Fock truncation for square codes, the axial-equality result in Eq. (59) is a clean structural insight, and the analysis contains no fitted parameters. The noiseless comparisons in Eqs. (34)-(36) use exact Helstrom errors for the Gaussian probes, so the noiseless GKP advantage is a probe-level statement. The lossy comparisons, however, are receiver-restricted for the Gaussian benchmarks, and this materially weakens the headline claim that GKP probes have a lower Bayesian error in lossy regimes. The equal-squeezing convention is disclosed and energies are reported, but the absence of an equal-energy comparison limits the operational significance. Overall, the framework is valuable and mostly rigorous, but the central lossy-regime claim needs either a stronger benchmark or a substantially more cautious framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.D, Eq. (64), Fig. 3] The lossy-regime GKP error is the Helstrom bound over all POVMs, computed through the Gram-matrix spectrum in Eq. (61), while the Gaussian benchmark is only the pointwise minimum over three homodyne-style quadrature receivers and three inverse-preparation vacuum-or-not receivers. The reported reductions, such as 0.14802 versus 0.18611 at d=5, eta=0.95, therefore do not establish a probe-level advantage over the Gaussian probes; they establish an advantage over a restricted receiver set. The paper is careful to use the phrase "selected Gaussian receivers" in several places, but the abstract's comparison with "coherent-state, squeezed-vacuum, and twin-beam schemes" is naturally read as a comparison of the probes themselves. I request a concrete benchmark test: compute the Helstrom bound for the displaced Gaussian probes under the same loss-amplification channel, using standard Gaussian state discrimination methods, and report whether the GKP advantage survives. If it does not survive, the claims in the abstract and conclusion should be explicitly reframed as a practical-receiver comparison.
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (11), Figs. 2-5] The equal-squeezing convention tanh(beta)=v_s=e^{-2r} does not equalize photon number between the GKP and Gaussian probes, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this. Since the GKP advantage could in principle be an energy advantage rather than a structural advantage, the absence of any equal-energy or equal-total-energy comparison is load-bearing for the practical significance of the central claim. I request at least one comparison in which the Gaussian squeezing parameter is adjusted so that the Gaussian signal energy equals the code-averaged GKP signal energy, or the GKP energy is reduced to match the Gaussian energy, with all other settings held fixed. This is a concrete, implementable test that would separate the role of the grid structure from the role of photon number.
  3. [Section III.D, Eqs. (60)-(63), Figs. 3-5] The central numerical results are not independently verifiable from the manuscript. The text states that calculations were verified for convergence with respect to Fock-space truncation and Gaussian quadrature order, but no truncation parameters, quadrature node counts, or convergence data are provided, and no code is shipped. The data availability statement only offers data upon request. Because the lossy GKP results in Figs. 3-5 are the basis for the headline claim, I ask that the authors either provide the code and a reproducibility script or give a detailed numerical appendix with the exact truncation and quadrature settings, convergence tables, and error bars. This is not a presentation detail; it is required for the numerical claims to be assessable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should state at the first mention of the lossy comparison that the Gaussian benchmarks are restricted to the selected practical receivers, to avoid the natural reading that the comparison is against optimal Gaussian measurements.
  2. [Section II.G, Eq. (16)] The theta-series representation is described as convergent and exact, but a short convergence argument or a reference to the relevant lattice-theta-function theory would help the reader assess the numerical stability of the series, especially near large displacements.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption and Section III.C] The maximum advantage in panel (b) is taken over the finite interval 0 <= t/ell_d <= 1.25; the paper should state whether this interval was chosen before or after inspection of the curves, since the location of the maximum can depend on the cutoff.
  4. [Section III.D, Eq. (49)] The theta-function argument in Eq. (49) is written compactly; a short derivation showing the Poisson summation step and the definition of the nome would improve readability, even though Appendix E covers the general formula.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GKP error probabilities are model-derived, and Gaussian benchmark comparisons are explicitly receiver-restricted rather than fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The finite-energy GKP output overlaps are obtained from the theta-series kernel of Eq. (16), and substitution into the standard Helstrom formula of Eq. (4) yields the Bayesian errors of Eqs. (24), (30), and (37); no fitted constant or target quantity is inserted into these formulas. Loss is modeled from the characteristic-function transformation of Eqs. (8)-(10), and the noisy GKP error in Eq. (61) is computed from the Gram-matrix spectrum of the discretized mixture, with convergence checked numerically. The Gaussian benchmarks are explicitly defined: Eqs. (34)-(36) give exact Helstrom errors in the noiseless case, while Eqs. (39)-(42) and (66)-(67) define the six selected receivers used in the lossy comparison; the paper consistently says 'selected Gaussian receivers,' so the lossy comparison is a restricted-benchmark choice rather than a circular redefinition of the probe advantage. Self-citations (Refs. 1, 2, 10, 19, 26) are background references for process-discrimination formulations and GKP lattice structure; none of the load-bearing equations is imported from them by authority, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the framework. The equal-squeezing convention of Eq. (11) is an explicit benchmarking choice, with photon energies reported separately and equal-energy comparisons deferred, so it does not make the 'advantage' true by definition. Any concern about unequal energy or suboptimal Gaussian receivers is a benchmarking or correctness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to experimental data; the only hand-chosen quantity is the equal-squeezing convention. The derivations use standard mathematical facts and physical channel models. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; the compressed displacement operator and Bell basis are mathematical objects, not physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Equal-squeezing mapping v_s = 10^{-s_dB/10} = e^{-2r} = tanh beta
    Ad hoc matching of GKP envelope parameter beta to Gaussian squeezing parameter r; all GKP-versus-Gaussian comparisons and the reported advantage values depend on this convention.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Helstrom optimum decision rule: minimum error is obtained by projecting onto the positive spectral subspace of the characteristic operator (Eq. 1).
    Invoked in Section II.A; standard result in quantum detection theory.
  • domain assumption Pure loss and phase-insensitive amplification act as Gaussian additive-noise channels with characteristic functions (Eqs. 8-9).
    Used in Section II.C to map loss plus gain to a unit-gain Gaussian random-displacement channel; standard quantum-optical model.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-energy GKP codewords are defined by Fock envelope e^{-beta n} followed by canonical symmetric orthonormalization V = W G^{-1/2}.
    This state family is chosen for analytic tractability; the numerical performance claims are specific to this embedding.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal-squeezing convention tanh beta = v_s = e^{-2r} makes GKP and Gaussian probes comparable (Eq. 11).
    This convention determines the benchmark comparison and is not a resource-fair equal-energy condition.
  • domain assumption The loss-amplified ideal GKP receiver performs error-free syndrome extraction, giving the classical-quantum states in Eqs. 50-51.
    Assumed in the ideal-code likelihood-ratio and ROC analysis; finite-energy analysis instead uses the Gram-matrix construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Decision Theory for Displacement Detection with Finite-Energy GKP States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TRDHCZD

@misc{pith2026260808051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Decision Theory for Displacement Detection with Finite-Energy GKP States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TRDHCZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08051}
}
abstract

We develop a quantum-decision-theoretic framework for detecting phase-space displacements with finite-energy, $d$-level Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) probes. For single-mode and entanglement-assisted architectures, we derive the Bayesian minimum-error probability, the optimal Neyman-Pearson receiver-operating characteristic, and the corresponding minimum detectable displacement. Finite-energy effects are treated through exact theta-series displacement kernels, while pure loss followed by quantum-limited amplification is mapped to an effective Gaussian random-displacement channel. Entanglement removes preparation-dependent blind directions and preserves both logical displacement labels, although it does not surpass the pointwise optimized single-mode strategy in the noiseless pure-state setting. We benchmark the resulting protocols against coherent-state, direction-matched squeezed-vacuum, and twin-beam schemes at equal nominal squeezing. Numerical results identify finite-squeezing and lossy regimes in which GKP probes achieve both a lower Bayesian error and a smaller minimum detectable perturbation than the selected Gaussian receivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Binary displacement-discrimination schemes. (a) Single-mode protocol with a receiver acting only on the signal mode. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Exact noiseless equal-squeezing comparison. (a) Common Bayesian advantage ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Finite-energy Bayesian comparison after loss and post-amplification at 8 dB. The color represents ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Selected-receiver Bayesian and Neyman–Pearson comparison. (a) Maximum noisy Bayesian advantage at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Finite-energy Neyman–Pearson performance under post-amplified loss. (a) Receiver-operating characteristics for an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Direct Mehler-comb evaluation of the square-code kernel Equation (16) follows directly from the finite-energy wavefunction in Eq. (15). For a pair of comb points, set A=q jm, B=q kn. The required Gaussian integral is IAB(x, p) = Z R dq e−(q−cβ A)2/(2vβ )e−(q−x−cβ B)2/(2vβ )eip(q−x/2) = √πvβ e−[cβ (A−B)−x]2/(4vβ )e−vβ p2/4eicβ p(A+B)/2. 17 Multiplying by t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Coset theta-series representation To expose the lattice and phase-sector structure, intro- duce normalized phase-space coordinates x= ξ√ 2π ,D(x) =D( √ 2πx). The Weyl relation becomes D(x)D(y) =e −iπxT ΩyD(x+y).(A1) The ideal GKP projector is the distribution Π∞ Λ = X λ∈Λ eiϕM (λ)D(λ).(A2) Within the ideal logical space, a matrix unit can be ex- panded in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Letc α satisfy P0(S> cα) =α. The locally most-powerful detection probability is P Φ D (α;t) =α+tE 0 S1 {S>c α} +O(t 2), and therefore tLMP m (α, ζ) = ζ−α E0[S1 {S>c α}] +O[(ζ−α) 2].(72) For a computational GKP state, the arbitrary- d La- grange operator is diagonal: Γγ,Z (s;t) = d−1X a=0 h q(Z) 1,a (s;t)−γq (Z) 0,a (s) i |a⟩ ⟨a|. Its parametric ROC is pZ ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Maffeis, S

    I. Maffeis, S. Koudia, A. Gharbi, and M. G. A. Paris, Process estimation in qubit systems: a quantum decision theory approach, Quantum Inf. Process.18, 204 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Koudia and A

    S. Koudia and A. Gharbi, Superposition of causal orders for quantum discrimination of quantum processes, Int. J. Quantum Inf.17, 1950055 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation The- ory(Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Ac ´ ın, Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations, Phys

    A. Ac ´ ın, Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177901 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. G. A. Paris, Im- proved discrimination of unitary transformations by en- tangled probes, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.4, S273 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quan- tum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quan- tum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    S.-H. Tan, B. I. Erkmen, V. Giovannetti, S. Guha, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, S. Pirandola, and J. H. Shapiro, Quantum illumination with gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 253601 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Koudia and A

    S. Koudia and A. Gharbi, Quantum non-gaussianity from an indefinite causal order of gaussian operations, Int. J. Quantum Inf.19, 2150026 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Adesso, F

    G. Adesso, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, F. Illuminati, and L. A. M. Souza, Optimal estimation of losses at the ulti- mate quantum limit with non-gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A79, 040305(R) (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Motional fock states for quantum-enhanced amplitude and phase measurements with trapped ions, Nat. Commun. 10, 2929 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hanamura, W

    F. Hanamura, W. Asavanant, K. Fukui, S. Konno, and A. Furusawa, Estimation of gaussian random displacement using non-gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A104, 062601 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Samantaray, I

    N. Samantaray, I. Ruo-Berchera, and I. P. Degiovanni, Single-phase and correlated-phase estimation with multi- photon annihilated squeezed-vacuum states: An energy- balancing scenario, Phys. Rev. A101, 063810 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    M. T. DiMario and F. E. Becerra, Single-shot non- gaussian measurements for optical phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 120505 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Zhang, Y

    H. Zhang, Y. Xia, W. Ye, S. Chang, and Z. Liao, Quantum illumination using non-gaussian states with conditional measurements, Phys. Rev. A109, 062440 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Xu, Y.-R

    K. Xu, Y.-R. Zhang, Z.-H. Sun, H. Li, P. Song, Z. Xi- ang, K. Huang, H. Li, Y.-H. Shi, C.-T. Chen, X. Song, D. Zheng, F. Nori, H. Wang, and H. Fan, Metrological characterization of non-gaussian entangled states of super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150501 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Koudia and S

    S. Koudia and S. Chatzinotas, Crosstalk-resilient quan- tum MIMO for scalable quantum communications, npj Quantum Inf.11, 162 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Duivenvoorden, B

    K. Duivenvoorden, B. M. Terhal, and D. Weigand, Single- mode displacement sensor, Phys. Rev. A95, 012305 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Matsos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Quantum- enhanced multiparameter sensing in a single mode, Sci. Adv.11, eadw9757 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Labarca, S

    L. Labarca, S. Turcotte, A. Blais, and B. Royer, Quantum sensing of displacements with stabilized gottesman–kitaev– preskill states, PRX Quantum7, 020301 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Conrad, J

    J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and F. Arzani, Gottesman–Kitaev– Preskill codes: A lattice perspective, Quantum6, 648 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Conrad,The Fabulous World of GKP Codes, Ph.D

    J. Conrad,The Fabulous World of GKP Codes, Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universit¨ at Berlin (2024), arXiv:2412.02442 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. H. Shaw, A. C. Doherty, and A. L. Grimsmo, Sta- bilizer subsystem decompositions for single- and multi- mode Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill codes, PRX Quantum 5, 010331 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Koudia and S

    S. Koudia and S. Chatzinotas, Measurement-based loss tolerance in graph-gkp codes through syndrome-resolved pauli-frame decoding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.00830 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Glancy and E

    S. Glancy and E. Knill, Error analysis for encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A73, 012325 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Matsuura, H

    T. Matsuura, H. Yamasaki, and M. Koashi, Equivalence of approximate Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill codes, Phys. Rev. A102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tzitrin, J

    I. Tzitrin, J. E. Bourassa, N. C. Menicucci, and K. K. Sabapathy, Progress towards practical qubit computa- tion using approximate Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill codes, 20 Phys. Rev. A101, 032315 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Royer, S

    B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. M. Girvin, Stabilization of finite- energy Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260509 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Fukui, R

    K. Fukui, R. N. Alexander, and P. van Loock, All-optical long-distance quantum communication with Gottesman– Kitaev–Preskill qubits, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033118 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Hastrup and U

    J. Hastrup and U. L. Andersen, Analysis of loss correction with the Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill code, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052413 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    T. B. Harris, T. Matsuura, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Logical channel for heralded and pure loss with the Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill code, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042417 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Zheng, W

    G. Zheng, W. He, G. Lee, K. Noh, and L. Jiang, Per- formance and achievable rates of the Gottesman–Kitaev– Preskill code for pure-loss and amplification channels, PRX Quantum6, 030314 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.