Robust CHSH Self-Testing with Finite-Energy GKP States

Farzin Salek; Masahito Hayashi

Robust CHSH Self-Testing with Finite-Energy GKP States

T0 review · 0 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 CHSH score from a GKP state certifies Bell pairs above 4.56 dB

desk verdict A clean and honest full-oscillator calculation of a finite-energy GKP CHSH test, with well-separated model predictions and device-independent claims; the soft spots are declared scoping boundaries rather than hidden flaws. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11122 v1 pith:NFLN5RNB submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Farzin Salek , Masahito Hayashi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords GKPcodeCHSHself-testingcontinuous-variableBelltestphoton-number-mod-fourmeasurementfinite-energystatesKaniewskiextractabilityboundBell-pairextractiondevice-independentcertification

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 asks whether a finite-energy Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill (GKP) oscillator state can power a practical Bell-pair self-test, and answers yes with explicit full-oscillator measurements. The authors construct four binary measurements — periodic binnings of position and momentum, plus a fixed binary coarse-graining of photon number modulo four and its displaced conjugate — and evaluate their correlations on a number-filtered GKP Bell state without postselection or logical post-correction. For the canonical displacement $d=\sqrt{\pi}$, the model predicts CHSH violation above 4.56 dB of per-peak squeezing and a nontrivial Bell-pair extractability bound above 5.02 dB. Calibrating only the displacement amplitude lowers these thresholds to 4.21 dB and 4.58 dB, and at 12 dB raises the score from 2.69486 to 2.78858 and the target-state overlap bound from 0.90758 to 0.97243. These are honest-model predictions: any valid confidence lower bound on an observed score plugs into the self-testing theorem to give a device-independent, dimension-independent extractability guarantee.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the number-filtered GKP columns $W_\beta = e^{-\beta \hat n} W_{\rm ideal}$ and the modular-four phase-bit reflection $M_4 = \Pi_0+\Pi_1-\Pi_2-\Pi_3$, together with its displaced conjugate $D(d)^\dagger M_4 D(d)$. The load-bearing identity is the phase-fixed quarter-rotation covariance $F W_\beta = W_\beta H$ with $F=e^{i\pi \hat n/2}$, which makes $M_4$ an exact finite-energy Hadamard on the filtered code; the displaced setting has no such simplification because the displacement fails to preserve parity and the code manifold. Physical correlations are computed by the Gram-matrix formula $\langle M\otimes N\rangle_\beta = \langle\psi_B|\Gamma_\beta(M)\otimes \Gamma_\beta(N)|\psi_B\rangle / \langle\psi_B|S_\beta\otimes S_\beta|\psi_B\rangle$ with $\Gamma_\beta(M)=W_\beta^\dagger M W_\beta$, retaining the finite codeword overlap and the filter-induced logical distortion rather than compressing measurements to their logical action. The Kaniewski affine bound $f_K(S)=\max(1/2, (4+5\sqrt{2})S/16 - (1+2\sqrt{2})/4)$ converts the resulting CHSH value into a Bell-pair extractability guarantee.

What would settle it

Within the honest model, recompute the CHSH score for $|\Psi_\beta\rangle$ at 5 dB with $M_4$ and $D(\sqrt{\pi})$: the paper predicts $S_{\rm fix}=2.10052$ and, after calibrating the displacement, $S_{\rm cal}=2.21292$; a materially different result in an independent exact calculation would falsify the numerical claim. A physical implementation whose odd-sector probability departs from the predicted $p_{\rm odd}$ values of 0.3285 (canonical) and 0.3633 (calibrated) at 5 dB would indicate that the realized source differs from the assumed filter model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the two-mode number-filtered GKP Bell state $|\Psi_\beta\rangle = (W_\beta\otimes W_\beta)|\psi_B\rangle/\sqrt{N_\beta}$ can produce a CHSH score in the self-testing regime using only homodyne binning and photon-number-modulo-four readouts. The first tilted setting is the phase-bit measurement $M_4 = \Pi_0+\Pi_1-\Pi_2-\Pi_3$, an exact logical Hadamard on the filtered code, and the second is its displaced conjugate $D(d)^\dagger M_4 D(d)$, evaluated directly in the full oscillator Hilbert space without postselection. Because the displacement does not preserve the centered code manifold, it activates the odd photon-number sectors, whose fixed binary assignments materially affect the score. With $d=\sqrt{\pi}$, the predicted CHSH value exceeds the local bound above 4.56 dB per-peak squeezing and the Kaniewski extractability bound $f_K(S)$ becomes nontrivial above 5.02 dB; calibrating only $d$ in a fixed interval lowers these crossings to 4.21 dB and 4.58 dB. The same score-to-extractability relation, applied to a confidence lower bound on an observed black-box score, yields a dimension-independent guarantee of Bell-pair extraction via Corollary 2.2.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical source and measurements are exactly the idealized number-filtered GKP Bell state and the lossless projective modular-four readout with the fixed coarse-graining; if real loss or detector inefficiency enters, the predicted thresholds no longer apply to the experiment, although the score-to-extractability bound would still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With these scores, a GKP-based bipartite Bell test can reach the self-testing regime at moderate squeezing without a logical T gate, because modular photon-number readout supplies the tilted bases that the homodyne-only Pauli palette cannot provide.
Any valid confidence lower bound $S_L$ on an observed CHSH score yields the device-independent guarantee $\Xi(\rho\to\psi_B)\ge f_K(S_L)$, independent of the oscillator dimension and without assuming the GKP source model.
The calibrated prescription fixes the displacement before Bell-test data are collected; if the finite-energy parameter is misestimated, only the observed score changes, and the same bound still applies to it.
The deterministic phase-bit coarse-graining is essential to the large calibrated gain: independently calibrating the one-bit POVM with randomized odd-sector outcomes gives only a small improvement, so the gain is not an artifact of optimizing residue-class labels.
The additional X/Z checks approach their ideal values faster than the displaced tilted setting and connect the construction to the six-setting verification protocols used for graph states.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that including photon loss would shift the thresholds upward, because a single annihilation event moves an even residue sector into an odd sector with the opposite binary assignment, but the score-to-extractability statement would survive for whichever score is observed.
Beyond the paper, the predicted role of the odd sectors could be tested directly by measuring the odd-sector probability $p_{\rm odd}$ as a function of squeezing and checking that the deterministic phase-bit assignment, not merely the displacement, drives the score gain.
A natural extension would be to carry the same modular-four construction into finite-sample statistical analysis, treating calibration and Bell-test data as independent; the authors explicitly leave that construction outside this paper's scope.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a careful, honest model calculation, not an experimental claim. The new content is the full-oscillator finite-energy evaluation of a CHSH self-test with GKP states where the tilted settings come from photon-number-mod-four and its displaced conjugate. The individual ingredients are known (quarter-rotation identity, modular-number readout, diagonal homodyne as Y), but the combination, including explicit squeezing thresholds and a one-parameter calibration, is genuinely new. If the numerics are right, it gives a continuous-variable path around the homodyne-only no-go theorem.

Strengths: The math is clean. The Gram-matrix formula is exact, Proposition 3.2 is correct, and Corollary 2.2 extending Kaniewski's bound to separable Hilbert spaces is proved by a valid finite-rank approximation. The numerical convergence tests are extensive, including coupled cutoffs. The paper goes out of its way to separate model predictions from device-independent guarantees: the self-testing statement depends only on the observed CHSH score, not on GKP assumptions, and the authors say so. The calibration is disclosed as an optimization over d, with a fixed interval and no hidden fine-tuning of the odd-sector rule. The comparison with the one-bit POVM is informative.

Soft spots: The reported thresholds are numerical roots, not certified interval enclosures; the authors acknowledge this. The source state is the number-filtered Bell state, and no loss, inefficiency, or finite-sample confidence bounds are provided; those are explicitly scoped out. The calibrated improvement is partly by construction, since it optimizes d over an interval, but that is disclosed and the canonical fixed-d results are also reported. In an actual experiment, the predicted thresholds are model predictions, not experimental loss budgets. The paper would be stronger if it included a simple finite-sample confidence analysis, but the logical separation makes that a missing piece rather than a flaw.

Who it's for: researchers working on CV device-independent protocols, GKP error correction, and modular-variable measurement. It's a solid construction that should receive serious peer review. My own verdict is positive; I would cite it as a reference for finite-energy CHSH self-testing.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a CHSH test on a two-mode finite-energy GKP state, with Alice's tilted measurements realized by a fixed binary coarse-graining of photon number modulo four and its displaced conjugate, and Bob's measurements by periodic position and momentum binning. The physical correlations are evaluated exactly within the number-filtered family using a Gram-matrix formula, and the resulting CHSH score is fed into Kaniewski's analytic extraction bound, which the authors extend to separable Hilbert spaces by finite-rank approximation. For the canonical displacement d=sqrt(pi), the model predicts Bell violation above 4.56 dB and nontrivial extractability above 5.02 dB; calibrating only the displacement over a fixed interval lowers these thresholds to 4.21 dB and 4.58 dB. The authors carefully distinguish honest-model predictions from loss, detection-efficiency, and finite-sample thresholds, and they explain that a device-independent guarantee follows from any valid confidence lower bound on the observed CHSH score.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, this is a valuable step for continuous-variable device-independent protocols: it provides a concrete, full-Hilbert-space realization of the tilted settings that bypasses the known homodyne-only obstruction, with quantitative squeezing thresholds and an explicit extractability statement. The analytical core is clean and mostly self-contained: Eq. (56) is an exact evaluation of physical correlations, Proposition 3.2 is proved directly, and Corollary 2.2 extends Kaniewski's bound to separable spaces by a valid finite-rank argument. The numerical work is unusually careful, with one-parameter and coupled-cutoff convergence tests in Tables 3 and 4 and an ancillary reproducibility package; the paper also explicitly flags that the reported roots are convergence estimates rather than certified interval enclosures. The idealized lossless source and measurement model is declared as a scope boundary in Sec. 7.2, and the device-independent conclusion is correctly stated to depend only on the observed score, not on the GKP interpretation. These strengths make the paper a solid contribution to the literature on bosonic nonlocality and self-testing.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Sec. 6.3/Table 4] The abstract and conclusion state the thresholds as "above 4.56 dB" and "above 5.02 dB" without qualification, but Table 4 explicitly says the six-digit roots are not certified interval enclosures. Please add a short qualifier such as "model estimate" in the abstract and conclusion so the numerical nature of these thresholds is not misread as a rigorous bound.
[Sec. 4.5, Eq. (53)] The calibrated score is defined as the maximum of S(beta,d) over the a priori interval I, so the reported improvement over the fixed prescription is partly by construction; although this is disclosed in the text, a one-sentence reminder in the abstract or conclusion would help prevent readers from interpreting the calibrated gain as a parameter-free prediction.
[Sec. 6.4, Table 5] Because the large calibrated gain is attributed specifically to the deterministic phase-bit rule, the comparison with the one-bit POVM would be easier to evaluate if the independently calibrated one-bit curve were shown in Figure 1 or if Table 5 included one-bit calibrated values at additional representative squeezing levels beyond the 5-dB entry.
[Sec. 7.2] The statement that a deviation of at most eta in each of the four product correlators gives an observed-score lower bound of S(beta,d) - 4 eta would benefit from an explicit definition of eta as the absolute deviation of each correlator; as written, the bound is clear but the type of deviation could be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the single self-citation is contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The source state (Eq. 22), the four binary full-oscillator reflections (Eqs. 28, 34, 37, 49), and the exact correlation formula (Eq. 56) are explicitly defined, and the finite-energy correlations are computed directly from those definitions without postselection or code-space replacement. The CHSH-to-extractability map used for self-testing is the external analytic bound of Kaniewski (Theorem 2.1), and the separable-Hilbert-space extension (Corollary 2.2) is proved in Appendix B by a finite-rank approximation, not imported as an unverified premise. The displacement calibration in Eq. (53) maximizes the model score over a fixed interval I; the fact that Scal is at least Sfix is definitional, but the quantitative thresholds and the size of the gain are nontrivial model outputs, and the paper explicitly states that the calibration is fixed before Bell-test data are collected and that the device-independent guarantee depends only on a confidence lower bound on the observed score, not on the GKP model. The sole self-citation, Ref. [13] to Hayashi and Hajdušek, appears as context for six-setting verification protocols and is not load-bearing for the CHSH self-testing result. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction step, uniqueness import, ansatz smuggling via citation, or renaming of a known result was found. The convergence tests in Tables 3 and 4 further support the honesty of the reported model predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model is a parameterized family e^{-beta n}|j_GKP> and one optimized measurement amplitude d; no new physical entities such as particles or forces are introduced. The main free choices are the calibrated displacement, the fixed odd-sector assignment, and the calibration interval. The source-state family itself is a domain assumption rather than a derived result.

free parameters (3)

d_opt(beta): calibrated displacement amplitude in the second tilted setting = d_opt/sqrt(pi) = 1.10815 (5 dB), 1.10160 (6 dB), 1.08373 (8 dB), 1.06426 (10 dB), 1.04670 (12 dB), 1.03255 (14 dB)
Defined as the argmax of S(beta,d) over the interval I in Eq (53). The calibrated score improvements and threshold lowerings are consequences of this maximization.
Odd-sector assignment (s1,s3) = (+1,-1)
Chosen by hand as the phase-bit rule in Eq (34) and fixed for all beta. It is not optimized, but the CHSH score depends on it, as shown in Table 5.
Calibration interval I = [sqrt(pi)/2, 3*sqrt(pi)/2]
Chosen local window around the ideal displacement; d_opt is constrained to this interval by Eq (52). Different windows could give different optimized scores.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The physical source is exactly the normalized filtered Bell state |Psi_beta> = (W_beta ⊗ W_beta)|psi_B>/sqrt(N_beta), Eq (22), with the number filter e^{-beta n} acting on ideal GKP combs.
Used throughout Section 6; thresholds are model predictions for this assumed state, not for generic approximate GKP states. The authors state no noisy preparation circuit produces this state exactly (Sec 3.3).
standard math The ideal square-GKP codewords are formal distributional combs with a common scale and zero relative phase, Eq (11).
Used to derive F|j> = (|0> + (-1)^j |1>)/sqrt(2) and the exact finite-energy identities.
standard math The phase-fixed quarter rotation F = e^{i pi n/2} implements the logical Hadamard on the ideal code, Eq (15).
Known from Ref [7]; derived in Appendix A using Poisson summation.
domain assumption The modular-four projective measurement Pi_r can be physically implemented as a lossless two-bit phase-estimation circuit, and all measurements are ideal reflections on the full Hilbert space.
The predicted scores and thresholds assume no loss, no detector inefficiency, and no ancilla faults during controlled rotations; the authors explicitly scope this out in Sec 7.2.
standard math Kaniewski's finite-dimensional CHSH extractability bound (Theorem 2.1) extends to separable Hilbert spaces via finite-rank approximation, Corollary 2.2.
Proof in Appendix B uses gentle-measurement bounds and finite-rank projections; the paper supplies the argument.
standard math Centered ideal codewords have even photon-number parity.
Used in Proposition 4.1 to equate M4 and F on the filtered code, and in the parity analysis of Eq (43).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust CHSH Self-Testing with Finite-Energy GKP States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFLN5RNB

@misc{pith2026260811122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust CHSH Self-Testing with Finite-Energy GKP States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFLN5RNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11122}
}

abstract

We present a full-oscillator analysis of a finite-energy GKP CHSH test whose observed score yields robust Bell-pair self-testing. Periodically binned position and momentum give the Pauli settings, while a fixed binary coarse-graining of photon number modulo four and its displaced conjugate realize the tilted settings. For a number-filtered GKP source, we retain the finite codeword overlap, define the measurements on all photon-number sectors, and compute the physical correlations without logical post-corrections. With the canonical ideal-logical displacement $d=\sqrt{\pi}$, the CHSH value exceeds the local bound above $4.56$ dB of per-peak squeezing, and Kaniewski's extractability bound becomes nontrivial above $5.02$ dB. Calibrating only $d$ using an independently characterized finite-energy parameter lowers these model thresholds to $4.21$ dB and $4.58$ dB, respectively; at $12$ dB, it raises the score from $2.69486$ to $2.78858$ and the corresponding target-state overlap bound from $0.90758$ to $0.97243$. This calibration is fixed before Bell-test data are collected. The displacement activates the odd modulo-four sectors, so their fixed a priori assignments are a genuine finite-energy component. The large gain is specific to the deterministic phase-bit coarse-graining; independently calibrating the one-bit POVM with randomized odd-sector outcomes gives only a much smaller improvement. These are honest-model predictions, not loss, detection-efficiency, or finite-sample thresholds. In an experiment, a device-independent guarantee for an extracted Bell pair follows by inserting a confidence lower bound on the observed CHSH score into the self-testing theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11122 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Mayers and A

D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput.4, 273–286 (2004), doi:10.26421/QIC4.4-3. 23

doi:10.26421/qic4.4-3 2004
[2]

McKague, T

M. McKague, T. H. Yang, and V. Scarani, Robust self-testing of the singlet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.45, 455304 (2012), doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304

doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304 2012
[3]

Kaniewski, Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt and Mermin inequalities, Phys

J. Kaniewski, Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt and Mermin inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 070402 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.070402

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.070402 2016
[4]

ˇSupi´ c and J

I. ˇSupi´ c and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: a review, Quantum4, 337 (2020), doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-337

doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-337 2020
[5]

B. M. Terhal, J. Conrad, and C. Vuillot, Towards scalable bosonic quantum error correction, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 043001 (2020), doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab98a5

doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab98a5 2020
[6]

Enrico Fermi

V. V. Albert, Bosonic coding: introduction and use cases, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. “Enrico Fermi”209, 79–107 (2025), doi:10.3254/ENFI250007

work page doi:10.3254/enfi250007 2025
[7]

Gottesman, A

D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012310

doi:10.1103/physreva.64.012310 2001
[8]

Marshall and C

K. Marshall and C. Weedbrook, Device-independent quantum cryptography for continuous variables, Phys. Rev. A90, 042311 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.042311

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.90.042311 2014

Show all 17 references

[9]

X. Yang, S. Zamora, R. Chaves, U. L. Andersen, J. B. Brask, and A. de Oliveira Junior, Robust Bell nonlocality from Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill states, arXiv:2601.16189 (2026)

2026
[10]

C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, G. Mass´ e, E. Oudot, U. I. Meyer, F. Centrone, F. Grosshans, P.-E. Emeriau, U. Chabaud, and M. Walschaers, A unified framework for Bell inequalities from continuous-variable contextuality, arXiv:2601.07686 (2026)

2026
[11]

B. M. Terhal and D. Weigand, Encoding a qubit into a cavity mode in circuit QED using phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A93, 012315 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012315

2016 doi
[12]

Matsuura, H

T. Matsuura, H. Yamasaki, and M. Koashi, Equivalence of approximate Gottesman–Kitaev –Preskill codes, Phys. Rev. A102, 032408 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032408

2020 doi
[13]

Hayashi and M

M. Hayashi and M. Hajduˇ sek, Self-guaranteed measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A97, 052308 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052308

2018 doi
[14]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experi- ment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880–884 (1969), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

1969 doi
[15]

Boudreault, R

J. Boudreault, R. Shillito, J.-B. Bertrand, and B. Royer, Using a self-Kerr nonlinear- ity for magic state preparation in grid codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 120601 (2026), doi:10.1103/m7zy-16fl

2026 doi
[16]

Ketterer, A

A. Ketterer, A. Keller, S. P. Walborn, T. Coudreau, and P. Milman, Quantum information processing in phase space: A modular variables approach, Phys. Rev. A94, 022325 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022325

2016 doi
[17]

Conrad, J

J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and F. Arzani, Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill codes: A lattice perspec- tive, Quantum6, 648 (2022), doi:10.22331/q-2022-02-10-648. 24

2022 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Mayers and A

D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput.4, 273–286 (2004), doi:10.26421/QIC4.4-3. 23

doi:10.26421/qic4.4-3 2004

[2] [2]

McKague, T

M. McKague, T. H. Yang, and V. Scarani, Robust self-testing of the singlet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.45, 455304 (2012), doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304

doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304 2012

[3] [3]

Kaniewski, Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt and Mermin inequalities, Phys

J. Kaniewski, Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt and Mermin inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 070402 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.070402

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.070402 2016

[4] [4]

ˇSupi´ c and J

I. ˇSupi´ c and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: a review, Quantum4, 337 (2020), doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-337

doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-337 2020

[5] [5]

B. M. Terhal, J. Conrad, and C. Vuillot, Towards scalable bosonic quantum error correction, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 043001 (2020), doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab98a5

doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab98a5 2020

[6] [6]

Enrico Fermi

V. V. Albert, Bosonic coding: introduction and use cases, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. “Enrico Fermi”209, 79–107 (2025), doi:10.3254/ENFI250007

work page doi:10.3254/enfi250007 2025

[7] [7]

Gottesman, A

D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012310

doi:10.1103/physreva.64.012310 2001

[8] [8]

Marshall and C

K. Marshall and C. Weedbrook, Device-independent quantum cryptography for continuous variables, Phys. Rev. A90, 042311 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.042311

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.90.042311 2014