Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Photonic realization of a subgraph extraction in a quantum random network

T0 review · 2 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 An integrated silicon photonic chip realizes a quantum subgraph in a quantum random network, verified through genuine high-dimensional entanglement.

desk verdict Solid four-photon state preparation with an honest caveat: the connection to quantum random network theory is asserted, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10663 v1 pith:SZ2G4JWR submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Lijun Xia , Xuemei Gu , Kai Wang , Leizhen Chen , Mario Krenn , Yan-Qing Lu , Shining Zhu , Xiao-Song Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumrandomnetworksintegratedsiliconphotonicsmultipartiteentanglementhigh-dimensionalgraphstatesphoton-pairsourcespostselectionwitness
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

The paper aims to show, in a concrete photonic system, the central prediction of quantum random network theory: that entanglement plus local operations can generate subgraph connectivity that classical random graphs reach only at different, generally higher connection thresholds. It builds an integrated silicon chip with probabilistic photon-pair sources that prepares a specific four-photon graph state, then applies local transformations and postselection to obtain a state locally equivalent to two maximal Bell pairs. The verification uses a dimension witness rather than full tomography and reports fidelity $0.7801(72)$ with the ideal state, above the $0.75$ threshold for genuine $(2,4,2)$ entanglement. The authors are explicit that this is a finite module and a local conversion step, not a measurement of the large-network threshold behavior.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair-creation graph representation of the Bell-state edges of the four-node quantum random network. Each probabilistic Bell link is decomposed into photon-pair creation edges, and conditioning on one photon per node projects the graph onto its perfect matchings, yielding the resource state $|G\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt6}|1111\rangle+\frac{1}{\sqrt6}|1122\rangle+\frac{1}{\sqrt3}|3333\rangle+\frac{1}{\sqrt3}|3444\rangle$. Local mode transformations $P_A,P_B,P_D$ followed by mode-selective postselection produce $|\Lambda\rangle$, and a purely local relabelling of node $C$'s four-dimensional mode space into two qubits makes the factorization into two Bell pairs explicit.

What would settle it

Perform a full state tomography of the three-node output on nodes B, C, D and compute the Schmidt rank vector; the central claim is refuted if the C-BD Schmidt rank is 3 or less, or if the reconstructed fidelity with $|\Lambda\rangle$ drops below 0.75 under the same Poissonian error model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims to have experimentally realized the finite local conversion step of quantum random network theory: a four-node module in which coherent photon-pair creation events, represented by a pair-creation graph, are converted by local mode transformations and mode-selective postselection into a state $|\Lambda\rangle$ locally equivalent to two Bell pairs, $|\lambda\rangle=|\Phi^+\rangle_{BC_1}\otimes|\Phi^+\rangle_{C_2D}$. The measured fidelity with the ideal $(2,4,2)$ state is $F_{\rm exp}=0.7801(72)$, exceeding the $0.75$ bound for genuine $(2,4,2)$ entanglement by about $4.2\sigma$. The paper explicitly states that it does not measure the large-$N$ threshold scaling; what it establishes is the finite network module and its entanglement structure.

Load-bearing premise

The experiment prepares the resource graph directly instead of sampling it from a probabilistic network, and assumes that this direct, postselected conversion is equivalent to the local-operations step in the quantum random network construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The demonstrated four-node module is the finite building block appearing in the theoretical construction, so it offers a concrete experimental route toward larger quantum random network modules.
  • Because the output state is locally equivalent to two Bell pairs, successful postselection yields a usable entanglement structure that can be distributed between node pairs.
  • The measured fidelity exceeding the $0.75$ bound shows that the state cannot be reproduced by lower-dimensional entangled states, confirming genuine high-dimensional entanglement.
  • The same reconfigurable chip can implement different local transformations and postselection masks, suggesting a scalable platform for other target graph states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the direct preparation is accepted as equivalent to sampling from the random network, the natural next step is to implement the full distillation-from-weak-links stage and test whether the $p\propto N^{-2}$ threshold actually appears at larger $N$; the present experiment leaves that open.
  • The mode-identification trick that removes which-link information at a node is the same mechanism behind path identity, so the approach may generalize to other subgraphs whose pair-creation graphs share mode labels.
  • The postselected state $|\lambda\rangle$, being two Bell pairs, could serve as a resource for entanglement-based quantum communication tasks, an application the paper does not explore.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an integrated silicon-photonic experiment that prepares a four-photon resource graph state |G>, applies local mode transformations and postselection to produce |Λ>, and verifies via a fidelity witness that the output on nodes B, C, D has a (2,4,2) Schmidt-rank structure, locally recodable as two Bell pairs |Φ+>_{BC1} ⊗ |Φ+>_{C2D}. The authors frame this as realizing a finite subgraph conversion step from quantum random network theory, while explicitly stating that the full probabilistic QRN conversion and the large-N threshold scaling are not implemented.

Significance. The experimental core is solid: the state transformation is well defined, the fidelity witness is correctly constructed (only the real parts of six off-diagonal coherences are needed), and the measured fidelity F_exp = 0.7801(72) exceeds the (2,3,2) bound of 0.75 by about 4.2σ. The device characterization is careful (RHOM contrast 0.947, calibrated HHOM visibility 0.8289), the data are openly available, and no free parameters are fitted. If the claims are restricted to the finite local conversion step, this is a valuable demonstration of a photonic graph-state transformation and a high-dimensional entanglement witness on a silicon chip.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction / Supplementary Section A] The central claim that the experiment "realize[s] a quantum subgraph predicted by quantum random network theory in a four-node quantum random network" overstates what is demonstrated. Supplementary Section A explicitly states: "In the experiment, we do not physically implement the full conversion from the random-network module in Fig. 1(a) to the pair-creation graph in Fig. 1(b). Instead, we directly prepare the graph in Fig. 1(b)." The experiment therefore does not sample from the probabilistic Bell-link network, does not implement the LOCC/distillation step of Ref. [18], and does not measure the p ∝ N^-2 threshold. The measured fidelity certifies the Schmidt-rank structure of the postselected state |Λ>, but it does not by itself test the QRN connectivity advantage. The Conclusions do acknowledge that the large-N threshold scaling is not measured, but the title and abstract should be revised to state that the work realizes the finite local conversion step (a building block), not a quantum subgraph in a quantum random network.
  2. [Abstract / Conclusions] The abstract's assertion that the result "provid[es] experimental evidence that quantum entanglement enables connectivity structures beyond classical accessibility" is not supported by the data. The experiment operates at a single network size (N = 4) with a fixed, directly prepared graph; it does not vary the connection probability p or compare with classical random graphs. What is demonstrated is that a postselected photonic state has a (2,4,2) entanglement structure; that is a necessary ingredient for the theoretical claim but is not evidence for the threshold or connectivity advantage, which remains untested. Please temper this claim to match the scoped statement already given in the Conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. (S.1)] The state ψ as written has norm squared 1/2, not 1; it should be a normalized state such as √(1−p)|00⟩ + √p|11⟩. This does not affect the main experimental results but should be corrected.
  2. [Table I caption] The sentence "Classical subgraphs (G_C) appear in random graphs of N nodes appear at pairwise connection probabilities scaling as p∼N^z" contains a duplicated verb; please revise to, for example, "Classical subgraphs (G_C) appear in random graphs of N nodes at pairwise connection probabilities scaling as p∼N^z."
  3. [Introduction] The sentence "the appearance threshold can be written, up to constants, as p_c(N,z)∼N^z" uses notation that might be confused with a function; suggest writing p_c = c N^z with c a constant independent of N.
  4. [Experimental Results / Supplementary E] The main text says that 16 computational-basis populations and the 6 unique off-diagonal real parts are extracted, but the details of how the 16 populations are measured simultaneously appear only in Supplementary Section E; a brief pointer in the main text would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the target state is fixed by explicit algebra and the experimental fidelity is an independent measurement; the unmeasured N-scaling is a scope caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The resource state |G⟩ in Eq. (1) is defined by explicit mode labels and weights (1/√2 on the CD edges) chosen from the theoretical construction; the local transformations P_A, P_B, P_D (Eqs. S.5–S.7) and the postselection are fixed operations, and the output |Λ⟩ in Eq. (2) follows by direct calculation. The recoding of node C into two qubits is explicitly a relabelling, not an additional physical operation, so the factorization |λ⟩ = |Φ^+⟩_{BC1} ⊗ |Φ^+⟩_{C2D} is a mathematical identity, not a fitted prediction. The experimental claim rests on the measured fidelity F_exp = 0.7801(72) against the fixed target |Λ⟩; no free parameter is adjusted to exceed the 0.75 bound, and the bound itself is taken from the independent dimension-witness results of Refs [39,40], not from the authors' own work. The self-citations to Refs [19–21] and [27] (co-authored by some of the present authors) supply the graph representation and the Melvin design algorithm, but these are not load-bearing for the correctness of the experimental verification, because the chip output is directly measured. The paper explicitly disclaims testing the large-N p ∝ N^{-2} threshold scaling (Conclusions and Supplementary Section A); that is a scope limitation of the claim 'quantum random network', not a circular reduction of the prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction uses no fitted numerical parameters; the relative weight 1/√2 on the CD edges is fixed by the Bell-state normalization. The central claim rests on the theoretical results of Ref [18] and the graph representation of Refs [19,21], which are prior literature, plus standard fidelity bounds. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Arbitrary finite subgraphs can be generated in a quantum random network at a common threshold p ∝ N^{-2} via local operations and classical communication.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Supplementary Section A as the theoretical context from Ref [18]; not proven or tested in this experiment.
  • standard math A multipartite state can be represented as a coherent superposition of perfect matchings of a graph, with local mode labels.
    Used to define |G⟩ and |Λ⟩; established in Refs [19,21].
  • standard math For a target state with Schmidt rank vector (2,4,2), the maximal fidelity of any (2,3,2) state is 3/4.
    Used in the entanglement witness in Supplementary Section E; from Ref [39].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photonic realization of a subgraph extraction in a quantum random network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZ2G4JWR

@misc{pith2026260810663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photonic realization of a subgraph extraction in a quantum random network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZ2G4JWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10663}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how complex connectivity emerges in networks is a fundamental challenge in classical and quantum science. In classical random networks, complex subgraphs typically require relatively high connection probabilities, whereas quantum random network theory predicts that such structures can arise at a single, lower threshold through entanglement and local operations. Here, using an integrated silicon photonic chip, we experimentally realize a quantum subgraph predicted by quantum random network theory in a four-node quantum random network. Our integrated platform exploits probabilistic photon-pair sources and coherent control of path modes to prepare a structured quantum subgraph through local transformations and postselection, operating in a threshold regime that differs from classical random networks. We verify that the subgraph state exhibits genuine high-dimensional multipartite entanglement across the nodes, providing experimental evidence that quantum entanglement enables connectivity structures beyond classical accessibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the protocol. (a) Four-node quantum random network module. Each dashed green edge denotes a probabilistic Bell-state link |Φ +⟩. (b) Experimental pair-creation graph for preparing the resource state |G⟩. Each edge denotes a probabilistic photon-pair creation process, and edge colors label the local photon modes. The two edges between nodes C and D have a relative weight 1/ √ 2, whereas all … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the experiment and the integrated photonic circuit. Two picosecond pump pulses at different wavelengths are coupled into the chip via a grating coupler and equally distributed to eight DMZI-Rs. Within the DMZI-Rs, the pump pulses (1544.78 nm and 1556.84 nm) generate photon pairs at 1550.81 nm through spontaneous four-wave mixing. The photons are then routed through delay lines that match their arrival ti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental edge probability and distribution of the resource state |G⟩. (a), Normalized two-fold coinci￾dence probabilities measured in the computational basis. The results (blue bars) are shown for all possible basis combinations between node pairs, where the horizontal-axis labels denote the basis states |ij⟩ with mode indices i, j taking values in {1, 3} for node A, {1, 3, 4} for node B, and {1, 2, 3, 4} for no… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Witnessing genuine (2, 4, 2) high-dimensional entanglement. (a), Measured expectation values for the Pauli￾operator combinations used in the entanglement witness. (b), Witness-relevant real density-matrix elements extracted from the measurement data, together with the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    X. Meng, J. Gao, and S. Havlin, Concurrence percola- tion in quantum networks, Physical Review Letters126, 170501 (2021), arXiv:2103.13985

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    L. A. Adamic and B. A. Huberman, Power-law distribu- tion of the World Wide Web, Science287, 2115 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [2]

    (S.5)–(S.7)

    The full definitions are given in Eqs. (S.5)–(S.7). We then keep only the events with modes ˜1 atA, modes 1 or ˜3 atB, all modes atC, and modes ˜1 or ˜2 atD. Conditioned on the prepared re- source state|G⟩, this mode-selective postselection gives the state|Λ⟩, whose graph representation is shown in Fig. 1(c), with success probability 1/6: |Λ⟩ABCD = 1 2 (|...

    work page

  4. [3]

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks, Nature393, 440 (1998)

    1998

  5. [4]

    D. J. W ATTS,Small Worlds: The dynamics of net- works between order and randomness(Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [5]

    Fortunato, C

    S. Fortunato, C. T. Bergstrom, K. B¨ orner, J. A. Evans, D. Helbing, S. Milojevi´ c, A. M. Petersen, F. Radic- chi, R. Sinatra, B. Uzzi, A. Vespignani, L. Waltman, D. Wang, and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Science of science, Science 359, eaao0185 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Erd¨ os and A

    P. Erd¨ os and A. R´ enyi, On random graphs I, Publica- tiones Mathematicae Debrecen6, 290 (1959)

    work page 1959

  8. [7]

    Erd˝ os and A

    P. Erd˝ os and A. R´ enyi, On the evolution of random graphs, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci.5, 17 (1960)

    work page 1960

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Bollob´ as, Random Graphs (Academic), London (1985)

    B. Bollob´ as, Random Graphs (Academic), London (1985)

    1985

  2. [9]

    Albert and A

    R. Albert and A. L. Barab´ asi, Statistical mechanics of complex networks, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 47 (2002), arXiv:0106096 [cond-mat]

    2002

  3. [10]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nature Photonics1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  4. [11]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008), arXiv:0806.4195

    2008 arXiv

  5. [12]

    S. Barz, E. Kashefi, A. Broadbent, J. F. Fitzsi- mons, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Demonstration of blind quantum computing, Science335, 303 (2012), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1214707

    2012 doi

  6. [13]

    Drmota, D

    P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, D. Main, B. C. Nichol, E. M. Ainley, D. Leichtle, A. Mantri, E. Kashefi, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Verifiable blind quantum computing with trapped ions and single photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150604 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Wei, P.-J

    Y.-C. Wei, P.-J. Stas, A. Suleymanzade, G. Baranes, F. Machado, Y. Q. Huan, C. M. Knaut, S. W. Ding, M. Merz, E. N. Knall, U. Yazlar, M. Sirotin, I. W. Wang, B. Machielse, S. F. Yelin, J. Borregaard, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Universal distributed blind quantum co...

    2025

  8. [15]

    K´ om´ ar, E

    P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Ac ´ ın, J

    A. Ac ´ ın, J. I. Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, Entanglement percolation in quantum networks, Nature Physics3, 256 (2007), arXiv:0612167 [quant-ph]

    2007

  10. [17]

    Perseguers, D

    S. Perseguers, D. Cavalcanti, G. J. Lapeyre, M. Lewen- stein, and A. Ac ´ ın, Multipartite entanglement percola- tion, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Opti- cal Physics81, 1 (2010), arXiv:0910.2438

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Perseguers, M

    S. Perseguers, M. Lewenstein, A. Ac ´ ın, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum random networks, Nature Physics6, 539 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Krenn, X

    M. Krenn, X. Gu, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum experi- ments and graphs: Multiparty states as coherent super- positions of perfect matchings, Physical Review Letters 119, 1 (2017), arXiv:arXiv:1705.06646v2

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    X. Gu, L. Chen, A. Zeilinger, and M. Krenn, Quantum experiments and graphs. III. High-dimensional and mul- tiparticle entanglement, Physical Review A99, 1 (2019), arXiv:1812.09558

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X. Gu, M. Erhard, A. Zeilinger, and M. Krenn, Quan- tum experiments and graphs II: Quantum interference, computation, and state generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116, 4147 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    S. Yu, J. Sun, Z. Li, E. Mer, Y. K. Alwehaibi, O. Scholin, G. J. Machado, K.-C. Chen, A. Zhang, R. B. Patel, Y. Dong, I. A. Walmsley, V. Vedral, and G. Bian- coni, Topological network analysis using a programmable 7 photonic quantum processor (2025), arXiv:2507.08157 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. Lu, L. Xia, Z. Chen, L. Chen, T. Yu, T. Tao, W. Ma, Y. Pan, X. Cai, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, and X. S. Ma, Three- dimensional entanglement on a silicon chip, npj Quantum Information6, 1 (2020), arXiv:1911.08807

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nature Pho- tonics14, 273 (2020), arXiv:2005.01948

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y. Chi, Y. Cao, C. Zhai, Y. Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen, X. Jia, L. Zhao, Y. Zheng, B. Tang, Z. Li, J. Luo, W. Wang, Y. Yang, Y. Peng, D. Liu, D. Dai, Q. He, A. L. Muthali, L. K. Oxenløwe, C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, H. Hou, R. Santagati, J. W. Silvers...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Krenn, A

    M. Krenn, A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement by path identity, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 080401 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Krenn, M

    M. Krenn, M. Malik, R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Automated search for new quantum exper- iments, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 090405 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    B. Fang, O. Cohen, J. B. Moreno, and V. O. Lorenz, State engineering of photon pairs produced through dual- pump spontaneous four-wave mixing, Opt. Express21, 2707 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. W. Silverstone, D. Bonneau, K. Ohira, N. Suzuki, H. Yoshida, N. Iizuka, M. Ezaki, C. M. Natarajan, M. G. Tanner, R. H. Hadfield, V. Zwiller, G. D. Marshall, J. G. Rarity, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, On- chip quantum interference between silicon photon-pair sources, N...

    2014

  23. [31]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Spiniolas, K. Shinbrough, B. Fang, O. Co- hen, and V. O. Lorenz, Dual-pump approach to photon- pair generation: demonstration of enhanced characteriza- tion and engineering capabilities, Opt. Express27, 19050 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    L.-T. Feng, M. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y. Chen, M. Li, D.- X. Dai, H.-L. Ren, G.-P. Guo, G.-C. Guo, M. Tame, and X.-F. Ren, Generation of a frequency-degenerate four-photon entangled state using a silicon nanowire, npj Quantum Information5, 90 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Paesani, Y

    S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, L. Chakhmakhchyan, C. Vigliar, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. Wang, M. G. Thompson, and A. Laing, Generation and sampling of quantum states of light in a silicon chip, Nature Physics 15, 925 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    L. Chen, L. Lu, L. Xia, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, and X. S. Ma, On-Chip Generation and Collectively Coherent Control of the Superposition of the Whole Family of Dicke States, Physical Review Letters130, 223601 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for uni- versal multiport interferometers, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Exper- imental Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement be- yond qubits, Nature Photonics12, 759 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Erhard, M. Huber, M. Krenn, R. Fick- ler, and A. Zeilinger, Multi-photon entanglement in high dimensions, Nature Photonics10, 248 (2016), arXiv:1509.02561

    2016 arXiv

  30. [39]

    X. M. Hu, W. B. Xing, C. Zhang, B. H. Liu, M. Pivo- luska, M. Huber, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Experimental creation of multi-photon high-dimensional layered quantum states, npj Quantum Information6, 1 (2020), arXiv:2001.06253

    2020 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Huber and J

    M. Huber and J. I. De Vicente, Structure of multidimen- sional entanglement in multipartite systems, Physical Re- view Letters110, 1 (2013), arXiv:1210.6876

    2013 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Fickler, R

    R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, M. Huber, M. P. Lavery, M. J. Padgett, and A. Zeilinger, Interface between path and orbital angular momentum entanglement for high-dimensional photonic quantum information, Nature Communications5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    Krenn, M

    M. Krenn, M. Huber, R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, S. Ramelow, and A. Zeilinger, Generation and confir- mation of a (100×100)-dimensional entangled quantum system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111, 6243 (2014)

    2014

  34. [43]

    Photonic realization of a subgraph extraction in a quantum random network

    C. Li, Y.-K. Wu, W. Chang, S. Zhang, Y.-F. Pu, N. Jiang, and L.-M. Duan, High-dimensional entangle- ment between a photon and a multiplexed atomic quan- tum memory, Phys. Rev. A101, 032312 (2020). 8 Supplementary Materials for “Photonic realization of a subgraph extraction in ...

    2020

Pith tools

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