Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions

Feng-xiao Sun; Qiongyi He; Yunquan Liu; Zihang Zou

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 This paper proposes a non-destructive projection measurement that reads out the phase of a free electron's comb state through a photon-induced near-field interaction followed by homodyne detection.

desk verdict A worthwhile theory paper supplying a new free-electron measurement primitive; the core scheme is sound under standard idealizations, but the nondestructive claim needs qualification and the SM has a sign error. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10831 v1 pith:4A7JYIXT submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Zihang Zou , Feng-Xiao Sun , Yunquan Liu , Qiongyi He This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords free-electroncombbasisPINEMhomodynedetectionnondestructivemeasurementEPRsteeringquantumerrormitigationbrightsqueezedvacuumqubits

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 proposes and analyzes a measurement scheme called free-electron comb-basis projection measurement (FECBPM), which projects a free electron onto a comb state $|\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle$ without destroying its coherence. The idea is to let the electron interact with two auxiliary squeezed optical modes through a PINEM coupling, then homodyne-detect the light; because an electron in comb state $\phi$ displaces the optical state by $g e^{i\phi}$, the measured quadrature pair reveals $\phi$ and leaves the electron in the corresponding comb state. The authors argue that with bright squeezed vacuum and strong coupling the projection can be made near-perfect, that FECBPM is maximally incompatible with standard energy-loss measurements, and that this nondestructive incompatible observable enables stabilizer-based quantum error mitigation and EPR steering detection for free-electron-photon systems. A sympathetic reader would care because conventional electron energy-loss spectroscopy destroys electron qubits, and this is a concrete route to nondestructive free-electron quantum information processing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electron energy ladder operator $\hat{b}_\Omega = \sum_E |E\rangle \langle E - \hbar\Omega|$, whose eigenstates are the comb states, with $\hat{b}_\Omega |\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle = e^{i\phi} |\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle$. The load-bearing identity is that the PINEM unitary $U(g) = \exp(g a^\dagger \hat{b}_\Omega - \mathrm{H.c.})$ turns a comb-state electron into a phase-dependent optical displacement $D(g e^{i\phi})$, so homodyne detection of the optical quadratures reads the comb phase without acting on the electron. Two auxiliary squeezed vacua with orthogonal squeezing angles provide a two-dimensional phase-space readout, and using an optical frequency $m\Omega$ multiplies the displacement phase by $m$, improving the minimum distinguishable $\delta\phi$ to roughly $1/(m|g|e^r)$. The same operator at frequency $2\Omega$, namely $\hat{b}_{2\Omega} = \hat{b}_\Omega^2$, serves as a stabilizer for the free-electron qubit code, and that stabilizer measurement is what powers the error-mitigation scheme.

What would settle it

Prepare a known superposition of electron comb states, run the two-PINEM FECBPM with measured couplings $g_1 = g_2 = g$ and squeezing $r$, and record the joint homodyne statistics: if the outcome distribution does not peak at $(g\cos\phi, g\sin\phi)$ with width set by $e^{-r}$, or if a subsequent energy spectrum of the postselected electron shows it has left the expected comb state, the central displacement-to-homodyne mapping is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a PINEM interaction, followed by homodyne detection on the optical mode, performs a projection of the free electron onto the comb basis $|\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle \propto \sum_k e^{-ik\phi} |E - k\hbar\Omega\rangle$. The key identity is $U(g)\,|\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle \otimes |\psi_{\mathrm{ph}}\rangle = |\mathrm{comb}(\phi)\rangle \otimes D(g e^{i\phi}) |\psi_{\mathrm{ph}}\rangle$, so the electron's comb phase is imprinted as a displacement on the light. With two PINEM interactions using squeezed states squeezed along orthogonal quadratures, homodyne outcomes $(x_1, p_2)$ locate the phase $\phi$ through $(g_1\cos\phi, g_2\sin\phi)$, projecting the electron onto the corresponding comb state. The paper claims this measurement is nondestructive to the electron, that its precision grows with coupling strength, squeezing, and optical frequency, and that these properties enable two applications: stabilizer-based mitigation of free-space propagation errors in free-electron qubits, and EPR steering detection by combining FECBPM with energy-loss measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the electron-light interaction acts as a clean displacement on the light while leaving the electron's comb state exactly unchanged, with no recoil, phase-matching error, or decoherence; if the real interaction disturbs the electron or smears the displacement, the claimed projective and non-destructive character weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

FECBPM gives a genuinely non-destructive readout of the electron's comb phase: the electron is only entangled with the auxiliary light, and the homodyne measurement acts on the light, so the electron's coherence and qubit encoding survive the measurement.
Because the comb basis is the Fourier transform of the energy basis, FECBPM and EELS are mutually unbiased, maximally incompatible measurements, so combining them provides the incompatibility needed for EPR-steering witnesses.
The stabilizer operator $\hat{b}_{2\Omega} = \hat{b}_\Omega^2$ defines a code space for a free-electron qubit, and FECBPM at frequency $2\Omega$ detects excursions out of that code space; correcting the coupling by $g \to g e^{-i\phi}$ then mitigates free-space propagation errors.
The minimum distinguishable comb-phase difference scales as $1/(m |g| e^{r})$ for an optical mode of frequency $m\Omega$, squeezing $r$, and PINEM coupling $g$, so precision can be pushed arbitrarily high by increasing coupling, squeezing, or optical frequency.
Bright squeezed vacuum states, which are experimentally available with large squeezing parameters, can approximate the ideal quadrature eigenstates needed for near-perfect FECBPM.

Reading between the lines

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

If the scheme works as written, the same entangled optical probe could be used for full nondestructive tomography of free-electron wavefunctions by scanning the homodyne angle, something energy-loss measurements cannot provide.
If the scheme works as written, the stabilizer idea generalizes naturally: using frequency $m\Omega$ modes, $\hat{b}_{m\Omega}$ could diagnose errors that shift the electron by $m$ energy quanta, and iterative FECBPM rounds might prepare approximate grid states of the electron.
If the scheme works as written, FECBPM could serve as a heralding measurement in free-electron-photon networks, conditionally preparing photonic or electronic states and acting as a building block for entanglement distribution between electrons and light.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zou et al. supply a genuinely missing primitive: a projection measurement of the free-electron comb basis that is complementary to EELS and, at least in the intended qubit subspace, nondestructive. The central displacement relation, Eq. (2), is exact under the standard constant-velocity PINEM Hamiltonian, and the two-mode squeezed-ancilla homodyne construction is sound. The specific FECBPM scheme is new; the fact that the relation itself is a two-line consequence of prior PINEM work does not make the proposal trivial, because the measurement design and the error-mitigation and steering applications are the actual contribution.

The paper does several things well. It clearly derives the displacement of the optical mode for comb states, including the high-frequency generalization. Using optical-state fidelity instead of comb-state fidelity is a sensible way to handle the continuous phase label. The error mitigation scheme is a legitimate stabilizer measurement for b_Omega^2, and the EPR steering examples are worked out analytically as well as numerically.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the 'nondestructive' claim is overbroad. FECBPM projects a general electron superposition onto a specific comb phase; it is QND only for the code space where the measured stabilizer is preserved. The paper should say this explicitly. Second, the SM has a sign error in Eq. (21): the average fidelity should be 1/2 erfc(-g e^{r/2}), not erfc(+g e^{r/2}). It does not affect the numerics presented, but it will confuse readers. Third, and most substantively, the whole construction rests on the ideal unitary exp(g a^dagger b - H.c.) with strictly constant electron velocity. The paper treats recoil and phase-matching corrections as negligible without an estimate. For a theory proposal this is an acceptable starting point, but it should be stated as a limitation and ideally bounded, since claims of 'arbitrary precision' depend on it. The stress-test note is right that this is the load-bearing idealization, but it is the same idealization used throughout the free-electron quantum optics literature, so I would not call it a fatal flaw.

This paper is for people working on free-electron quantum information and PINEM-based measurement. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to peer review with a request for those clarifications, not reject it.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes FECBPM, a scheme to perform projective measurement of free-electron comb states. The key idea is that the PINEM unitary (Eq. 1) leaves a comb state unchanged and displaces an auxiliary optical mode by D(g e^{iφ}) (Eq. 2). By using two squeezed optical modes and homodyne detection, the electron is postselected onto a comb state. The authors analyze finite-squeezing fidelity, propose a stabilizer-based error mitigation scheme using b^2_Ω, and demonstrate EPR steering between electrons and light using FECBPM combined with EELS. The Supplemental Material derives the interaction, the fidelity scaling, and the steering criteria.

Significance. The proposal is conceptually appealing and addresses a real gap: free-electron measurements are usually based on EELS and are destructive, while the comb basis is complementary to the energy basis. The central displacement relation is derived without free parameters under the stated assumptions, and the proposed experimental ingredients (PINEM, squeezed light, homodyne detection) are within reach of current technology. If the scheme works as claimed, it would enable nondestructive stabilizer measurements and steering detection for free-electron systems. However, several load-bearing points need correction or additional justification before the claims are fully supported.

major comments (4)

[SM Sec. I; main text Eq. (2)] The displacement relation Eq. (2) relies on treating b_Ω as an exact unitary shift operator, which follows from the constant-velocity assumption in SM Sec. I. Real PINEM interactions involve electron recoil and phase matching that depend on the electron energy, so b_Ω and the interaction unitary are only approximately of this form. The manuscript provides no estimate of the resulting deviation in the optical displacement or in the projected electron state for the quoted parameters (g≈√2, r=1.5, optical frequencies 290–580 THz). Without such a bound, the claims of 99.5% fidelity and arbitrary precision are not fully supported. Please add a quantitative error estimate or a discussion of the parameter regime where the idealization is justified.
[Main text after Eq. (4)] The formula for reconstructing the comb phase from the homodyne outcomes appears to be incorrect. With x1 = g1 cosφ and p2 = g2 sinφ, the ratio x1 g2/(g1 p2) equals cotφ, so the expression φ = arctan(x1 g2/(g1 p2)) gives π/2−φ, not φ. The correct relation should be φ = arctan(p2 g1/(x1 g2)) with the appropriate sign corrections. In addition, the quadrature definitions X1 = a†_1 + a_1 and P2 = i(a†_2 − a_2) acquire factors of 2 under displacement, which are not reflected in Eq. (4). Please correct the formula and state the quadrature normalization conventions explicitly.
[SM Sec. II; main text high-frequency part] The proposed high-frequency enhancement uses an optical mode at frequency mΩ, for which the interaction is governed by b^m and the displacement becomes D(g e^{imφ}). A homodyne measurement of this mode determines e^{imφ}, i.e., φ only modulo 2π/m. Thus a single high-frequency stage projects onto eigenspaces of b^m, not onto individual comb states, and it cannot by itself refine the phase measurement without resolving the m-fold ambiguity. The manuscript does not describe how the high-frequency stage is combined with the fundamental-frequency measurement to remove this ambiguity. This point should be clarified, since it directly affects the claim that arbitrary measurement precision can be achieved.
[SM Sec. V.A, Eq. (26)] The analytical expression for Δ²_inf P_A in Eq. (26) appears to have a sign error. With the printed denominator −e^{4g²}+cos²(4αg)+4g² sin²(4αg), the fraction is negative and Δ²_inf P_A is larger than 1/2, contradicting the claim that Δ²_inf X_A Δ²_inf P_A < 1/4 for all g and α. The text's inequality argument would work if the denominator were e^{4g²}−cos²(4αg)−4g² sin²(4αg). Please verify Eq. (26) and the corresponding curve in Fig. 4(a); as written, the EPR steering conclusion is not supported.

minor comments (3)

[Main text, definition of comb states] The comb states are labeled by a continuous phase φ, but the expansion uses a discrete sum and the text claims ⟨comb(φ')|comb(φ)⟩=δ_{φφ'}. For a continuous label this should be a delta function and the sum should be an integral (or the states should be defined on a discrete phase grid). Please clarify the normalization and the precise sense in which FECBPM is a projective measurement onto this basis.
[Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The fidelity being plotted is between optical states that are 'generated via the PINEM interaction between the vacuum state and the obtained/ideal electron state'. This two-step construction (FECBPM followed by a test interaction) is not immediately clear from the main text; please define the compared states explicitly in the main text or the figure caption.
[Main text, Eq. (5)] The expression for the free-space propagation operator F(φ) uses the phase exp(−ik²φ). The text says the Pauli-Z gate is achieved with F(φ=π/2); for odd k the phase is −i, so F(π/2) is Z up to a global phase. This is correct for the logical basis, but the statement could be spelled out for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FECBPM displacement relation follows algebraically from the PINEM unitary and the definition of comb eigenstates, and the cited self-references are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation, Eq. (2), is a direct algebraic consequence of the definitions it states: the comb states are defined as eigenstates of the electron ladder operator b_Ω, and the PINEM unitary U(g)=exp(g a† b_Ω - H.c.) is defined with that same operator. Acting on an eigenstate therefore produces the optical displacement D(g e^{iφ}) with the electron unchanged; this is the designed measurement mechanism rather than a fitted prediction. No parameter is fitted to data and no output quantity is reused as an input. The fidelity analysis, error-mitigation example, and EPR-steering inequalities are consistency checks or applications of the same model, not circular validations. The manuscript cites several works by the same authors (Refs. [13], [59], [62]), but these support state-preparation context, EPR-steering examples, and the experimental availability of bright squeezed vacuum, respectively; none of them supplies a load-bearing premise for the projection scheme itself. The scheme's main idealization—constant electron velocity in the PINEM Hamiltonian—is an assumption stated in SM Section I and is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. The paper is self-contained against its own equations and external benchmarks, so a score of 0 is appropriate.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; all numerical values in the figures are illustrative choices. The central claims rest on the standard PINEM interaction model, the idealization of an infinite-energy comb with a unitary ladder operator, ideal homodyne detection, and the specific error and steering models. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The PINEM electron-photon interaction is described by U(g)=exp(g a^dagger b_Omega - H.c.) with a constant coupling and no decoherence.
Taken from the standard PINEM Hamiltonian (SM Sec. I, Eqs. (1)-(3)); underlies all displacement and homodyne results.
ad hoc to paper The electron energy ladder operator b_Omega is unitary on the relevant Hilbert space (b_Omega b_Omega^dagger = b_Omega^dagger b_Omega = 1).
Used to make comb states orthonormal eigenstates with eigenvalue e^{i phi}; requires an infinite energy ladder, an idealization not valid for a physical electron with a lower energy bound.
domain assumption Homodyne detection with unit efficiency and two orthogonally squeezed ancilla modes realizes the ideal projection.
The finite-squeezing fidelity is computed, but ideal homodyne efficiency and no photon loss are assumed throughout.
domain assumption The free-space propagation error model F(phi) = sum exp(-i k^2 phi) |E - k hbar Omega><E - k hbar Omega| and the stabilizer b_Omega^2 describe the qubit error.
Assumed for the quantum error mitigation example; not independently derived or compared with other error models.
standard math The Reid steering criterion with Susskind-Glogower phase operators for number-phase uncertainty is a valid witness for EPR steering.
Used in the EPR steering detection; standard tools from Refs. [48,49,68].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4A7JYIXT

@misc{pith2026260810831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4A7JYIXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10831}
}

read the original abstract

Free electrons, driven by rapid advances in photon-induced near-field electron microscopy, have emerged as a promising platform for quantum information processing, including quantum computing and quantum sensing. However, conventional measurements that rely on the electron energy loss spectrum (EELS) are inherently destructive to electron qubits, thereby constraining their applicability. In this Letter, we propose a scheme that performs projection measurement on the electron comb basis, where high measurement precision can be achieved with bright squeezed vacuum states and strong PINEM couplings. Notably, this approach is not only nondestructive to electron qubits but also maximally incompatible with energy measurements, enabling alternative quantum information applications, such as quantum error mitigation and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering detection. Our findings open an avenue towards a systematic understanding of quantum free electrons and towards the development of nondestructive free electron quantum information tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10831 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The probability distribution on comb basis of (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. EPR steering detection for electron-photon states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

O. Kfir, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, G. Storeck, M. Sivis, T. R. Harvey, T. J. Kippenberg, A. Feist, and C. Ropers, Controlling free electrons with optical whispering-gallery modes, Nature582, 46 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

K. Wang, R. Dahan, M. Shentcis, Y. Kauffmann, A. Ben Hayun, O. Reinhardt, S. Tsesses, and I. Kaminer, Coherent interaction between free electrons and a pho- tonic cavity, Nature582, 50 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Optical excitations in electron microscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 209 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Baum and A

P. Baum and A. H. Zewail, Attosecond electron pulses for 4D diffraction and microscopy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 18409 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

Barwick, D

B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, Photon- induced near-field electron microscopy, Nature462, 902 (2009)

2009
[6]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and M. Kociak, Multiphoton absorption and emission by interaction of swift electrons with evanescent light fields, Nano Lett. 10, 1859 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

S. T. Park, M. Lin, and A. H. Zewail, Photon-induced near-field electron microscopy (PINEM): theoretical and experimental, New J. Phys.12, 123028 (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

Y. Pan, B. Zhang, and A. Gover, Anomalous photon- induced near-field electron microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 183204 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 70 references

[9]

F. J. G. De Abajo, A. Polman, C. I. Velasco, M. Kociak, L. H. Tizei, O. St´ ephan, S. Meuret, T. Sannomiya, K. Ak- iba, Y. Auad, et al., Roadmap for quantum nanophoton- ics with free electrons, ACS photonics12, 4760 (2025)

2025
[10]

Y. Fang, J. Kuttruff, D. Nabben, and P. Baum, Struc- tured electrons with chiral mass and charge, Science385, 183 (2024)

2024
[11]

Y. Fang, J. Kuttruff, and P. Baum, Electron matter waves with internal torque, Nat. Phys.22, 838 (2026)

2026
[13]

F.-X. Sun, Y. Fang, Q. He, and Y. Liu, Generating opti- cal cat states via quantum interference of multi-path free- electron–photons interactions, Sci. Bull.68, 1366 (2023)

2023
[14]

Huang, N

G. Huang, N. J. Engelsen, O. Kfir, C. Ropers, and T. J. Kippenberg, Electron-photon quantum state heralding using photonic integrated circuits, PRX Quantum4, 020351 (2023)

2023
[15]

V. D. Giulio and F. J. G. de Abajo, Optical-cavity mode squeezing by free electrons, Nanophotonics11, 4659 (2022)

2022
[16]

Dahan, G

R. Dahan, G. Baranes, A. Gorlach, R. Ruimy, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Creation of optical cat and GKP states using shaped free electrons, Phys. Rev. X13, 031001 (2023)

2023
[17]

Schattschneider and S

P. Schattschneider and S. L¨ offler, Entanglement and de- coherence in electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy190, 39 (2018)

2018
[18]

Kfir, Entanglements of electrons and cavity photons in the strong-coupling regime, Phys

O. Kfir, Entanglements of electrons and cavity photons in the strong-coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 103602 (2019)

2019
[19]

Mechel, Y

C. Mechel, Y. Kurman, A. Karnieli, N. Rivera, A. Arie, and I. Kaminer, Quantum correlations in electron mi- croscopy, Optica8, 70 (2021)

2021
[20]

Baranes, R

G. Baranes, R. Ruimy, A. Gorlach, and I. Kaminer, Free electrons can induce entanglement between photons, npj Quantum Inf.8, 32 (2022)

2022
[21]

Feist, G

A. Feist, G. Huang, G. Arend, Y. Yang, J.-W. Henke, A. S. Raja, F. J. Kappert, R. N. Wang, H. Louren¸ co- Martins, Z. Qiu, et al., Cavity-mediated electron-photon pairs, Science377, 777 (2022)

2022
[22]

Dahan, S

R. Dahan, S. Nehemia, M. Shentcis, O. Reinhardt, Y. Adiv, X. Shi, O. Be’er, M. H. Lynch, Y. Kurman, K. Wang, et al., Resonant phase-matching between a light wave and a free-electron wavefunction, Nat. Phys. 16, 1123 (2020). 6

2020
[23]

Roques-Carmes, S

C. Roques-Carmes, S. E. Kooi, Y. Yang, N. Rivera, P. D. Keathley, J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, I. Kaminer, K. K. Berggren, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Free-electron–light in- teractions in nanophotonics, Appl. Phys. Rev.10, 011303 (2023)

2023
[24]

Karnieli and S

A. Karnieli and S. Fan, Jaynes-cummings interaction be- tween low-energy free electrons and cavity photons, Sci. Adv.9, eadh2425 (2023)

2023
[25]

X. Shi, W. W. Lee, A. Karnieli, L. M. Lohse, A. Gorlach, L. W. W. Wong, T. Salditt, S. Fan, I. Kaminer, and L. J. Wong, Quantum nanophotonics with energetic particles: X-rays and free electrons, Prog. Quantum Electron.102, 100577 (2025)

2025
[26]

Ruimy, A

R. Ruimy, A. Karnieli, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron quantum optics, Nat. Phys.21, 193 (2025)

2025
[27]

Bucher, R

T. Bucher, R. Ruimy, S. Tsesses, R. Dahan, G. Bartal, G. M. Vanacore, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron Ramsey- type interferometry for enhanced amplitude and phase imaging of nearfields, Sci. Adv.9, eadi5729 (2023)

2023
[28]

J. H. Gaida, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, M. Sivis, T. Rittmann, A. Feist, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and C. Ropers, Attosecond electron microscopy by free- electron homodyne detection, Nat. Photon.18, 509 (2024)

2024
[29]

Dahan, A

R. Dahan, A. Gorlach, U. Haeusler, A. Karnieli, O. Eyal, P. Yousefi, M. Segev, A. Arie, G. Eisenstein, P. Hommel- hoff, et al., Imprinting the quantum statistics of photons on free electrons, Science373, eabj7128 (2021)

2021
[30]

A. E. Turner, C. W. Johnson, P. Kruit, and B. J. McMor- ran, Interaction-free measurement with electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110401 (2021)

2021
[31]

Z. Chen, B. Zhang, Y. Pan, and M. Kr¨ uger, Quantum wave function reconstruction by free-electron spectral shearing interferometry, Sci. Adv.9, eadg8516 (2023)

2023
[32]

Karnieli, S

A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, Z. Zhao, A. Arie, S. Fan, and I. Kaminer, Quantum sensing of strongly coupled light-matter systems using free elec- trons, Sci. Adv.9, eadd2349 (2023)

2023
[33]

Bucher, H

T. Bucher, H. Nahari, H. Herzig Sheinfux, R. Ruimy, A. Niedermayr, R. Dahan, Q. Yan, Y. Adiv, M. Yannai, J. Chen, et al., Coherently amplified ultrafast imaging using a free-electron interferometer, Nat. Photon.18, 809 (2024)

2024
[34]

X. Shi, L. W. W. Wong, S. Huang, L. J. Wong, and I. Kaminer, Transverse recoil imprinted on free-electron radiation, Nat. Commun.15, 7803 (2024)

2024
[35]

Gorlach, S

A. Gorlach, S. Malka, A. Karnieli, R. Dahan, E. Cohen, A. Pe’er, and I. Kaminer, Photonic quantum state tomog- raphy using free electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 250801 (2024)

2024
[36]

Reinhardt, C

O. Reinhardt, C. Mechel, M. Lynch, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron qubits, Ann. Phys.533, 2000254 (2021)

2021
[37]

Baranes, S

G. Baranes, S. Even-Haim, R. Ruimy, A. Gorlach, R. Da- han, A. A. Diringer, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron interactions with photonic GKP states: Universal control and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043271 (2023)

2023
[38]

Karnieli, S

A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, A. Arie, I. Kaminer, and S. Fan, Universal and ultrafast quantum computation based on free-electron-polariton blockade, PRX Quantum5, 010339 (2024)

2024
[39]

M. V. Tsarev, A. Ryabov, and P. Baum, Free-electron qubits and maximum-contrast attosecond pulses via tem- poral talbot revivals, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043033 (2021)

2021
[40]

R. F. Egerton, Electron energy-loss spectroscopy in the tem, Rep. Prog. Phys.72, 016502 (2009)

2009
[41]

Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023)

2023
[42]

S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications, Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018)

2018
[43]

Grangier, J

P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J.-P. Poizat, Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics, Nature396, 537 (1998)

1998
[44]

W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state- determination by mutually unbiased measurements, Ann. Phys.191, 363 (1989)

1989
[45]

Mauro D’Ariano, M

G. Mauro D’Ariano, M. G. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Quantum tomography (Elsevier, 2003) pp. 205–308

2003
[46]

Skrzypczyk, I

P. Skrzypczyk, I. ˇSupi´ c, and D. Cavalcanti, All sets of incompatible measurements give an advantage in quan- tum state discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130403 (2019)

2019
[47]

R. Uola, A. C. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

2020
[48]

M. D. Reid, Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric ampli- fication, Phys. Rev. A40, 913 (1989)

1989
[49]

E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, Experimental criteria for steering and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. A80, 032112 (2009)

2009
[50]

L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insep- arability criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2722 (2000)

2000
[51]

Designolle, P

S. Designolle, P. Skrzypczyk, F. Fr¨ owis, and N. Brun- ner, Quantifying measurement incompatibility of mutu- ally unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 050402 (2019)

2019
[52]

Buscemi, E

F. Buscemi, E. Chitambar, and W. Zhou, Complete re- source theory of quantum incompatibility as quantum programmability, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120401 (2020)

2020
[53]

Belliardo and V

F. Belliardo and V. Giovannetti, Incompatibility in quan- tum parameter estimation, New J. Phys.23, 063055 (2021)

2021
[54]

H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

2007
[55]

M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Colloquium: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: From concepts to applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009)

2009
[56]

Xiang, S

Y. Xiang, S. Cheng, Q. Gong, Z. Ficek, and Q. He, Quan- tum steering: Practical challenges and future directions, PRX Quantum3, 030102 (2022)

2022
[57]

Q. Y. He and M. D. Reid, Genuine multipartite Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen steering, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 250403 (2013)

2013
[58]

Xiang, F

Y. Xiang, F. Sun, Q. He, and Q. Gong, Advances in mul- tipartite and high-dimensional Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering, Fundam. Res.1, 99 (2021)

2021
[59]

M. Tian, Z. Zou, D. Zhang, D. Barral, K. Bencheikh, Q. He, F.-X. Sun, and Y. Xiang, Certification of non- Gaussian Einstein-Podolsky–Rosen steering, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 015021 (2024)

2024
[60]

Rasputnyi, Z

A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, High- 7 harmonic generation by a bright squeezed vacuum, Nat. Phys.20, 1960 (2024)

2024
[61]

Heimerl, A

J. Heimerl, A. Rasputnyi, J. P¨ olloth, S. Meier, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Quantum light drives electrons strongly at metal needle tips, Nat. Phys.21, 1899 (2025)

2025
[62]

Z. Lyu, S. Du, J. Li, H. Liu, F. Sun, Q. He, M. Ciappina, and Y. Liu, Generation of single-mode and multimode bright squeezed vacuum above 10 14 photons, Ultrafast Sci.6, 0175 (2026)

2026
[63]

See Supplemental Material for further information on the theoretical treatment on the interaction between electron comb states and optical states, the effects of the optical homodyne detections, the error mitigation scheme, and the EPR steering detection based on FECBPM, which...
[64]

H. Liu, J. S. Baskin, and A. H. Zewail, Infrared PINEM developed by diffraction in 4D UEM, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 2041 (2016)

2016
[65]

E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature549, 172 (2017)

2017
[66]

P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9605011

1997 arXiv
[67]

Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp

J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp. Phys.60, 226–245 (2019)

2019
[68]

Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions

L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Phys. Phys. Fiz.1, 49 (1964). Supplemental Material for “Projection measurement of the comb basis through free-electron-photon interactions” Zihang Zou, 1 Feng-Xiao Sun, 2, 1,∗ Yunquan Liu, 1, 3, 4 and Qi...

1964
[69]

A. B. Hayun, O. Reinhardt, J. Nemirovsky, A. Karnieli, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Shaping quantum photonic states using free electrons, Sci. Adv.7, eabe4270 (2021)

2021
[70]

M. D. Reid, Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A40, 913 (1989)

1989
[71]

Susskind and J

L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Phys. Phys. Fiz.1, 49 (1964)

1964

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

O. Kfir, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, G. Storeck, M. Sivis, T. R. Harvey, T. J. Kippenberg, A. Feist, and C. Ropers, Controlling free electrons with optical whispering-gallery modes, Nature582, 46 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

K. Wang, R. Dahan, M. Shentcis, Y. Kauffmann, A. Ben Hayun, O. Reinhardt, S. Tsesses, and I. Kaminer, Coherent interaction between free electrons and a pho- tonic cavity, Nature582, 50 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Optical excitations in electron microscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 209 (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Baum and A

P. Baum and A. H. Zewail, Attosecond electron pulses for 4D diffraction and microscopy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 18409 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Barwick, D

B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, Photon- induced near-field electron microscopy, Nature462, 902 (2009)

2009

[6] [6]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and M. Kociak, Multiphoton absorption and emission by interaction of swift electrons with evanescent light fields, Nano Lett. 10, 1859 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

S. T. Park, M. Lin, and A. H. Zewail, Photon-induced near-field electron microscopy (PINEM): theoretical and experimental, New J. Phys.12, 123028 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Y. Pan, B. Zhang, and A. Gover, Anomalous photon- induced near-field electron microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 183204 (2019)

work page 2019