Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 52 references

Coherent temporal filtering of multimode parametric down-conversion using a quantum pulse gate

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coherent temporal filtering of multimode down-conversion yields photons with purity above 0.90; intensity filtering does not.

desk verdict Solid experimental benchmark showing QPG coherent filtering beats intensity filtering for temporal-mode purity; main claim is credible, but the abstract overreaches on structured modes and the MLE details live in the supplement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12544 v1 pith:4U2KEM5P submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Abhinandan Bhattacharjee , Patrick Folge , Laura Serino , Sebastian Lengeling , Benjamin Brecht , Christine Silberhorn This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumpulsegatetemporalmodesspectralpurityparametricdown-conversioncoherentfilteringchronocyclicQ-functionheraldedsinglephotonstime-frequencyentanglement
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 experimentally demonstrates that a quantum pulse gate (QPG) — a dispersion-engineered sum-frequency conversion device — can act as a coherent temporal filter on a spectrally multimode parametric down-conversion source, remotely preparing the heralded signal photon in a single, programmable temporal mode. Across filter bandwidths from 0.11 to 0.42 THz, the reconstructed spectral purity of QPG-filtered photons remains above 0.90, while conventional spectral intensity filtering yields mixed multimode states whose purity decreases as bandwidth grows. The authors also show that the QPG can extract structured temporal modes, including Hermite-Gaussian modes and picosecond time-bin superpositions, with measured Q-functions matching theory with similarity ≥0.95. The result matters because spectrally pure, indistinguishable photons are the resource behind high-visibility interference in quantum networks, and intensity filtering alone cannot select a well-defined temporal mode.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the quantum pulse gate (QPG), a dispersion-engineered sum-frequency conversion process that projects a single-photon pulse onto a programmable temporal mode with high fidelity. Acting on the idler photon of the pair, the QPG performs a coherent filter: it transmits one complex spectral amplitude A(ω_i) and rejects others, so that detecting the idler remotely prepares the partner signal photon in the factorized spectral density matrix Γ(ω_s, ω'_s) = f(ω_s) f*(ω'_s). The purity of the heralded state is inferred from chronocyclic Q-function measurements — projections of the signal onto Fourier-limited Gaussian coherent states in time-frequency phase space — followed by maximum-likelihood reconstruction of the spectral density matrix. The QPG thus carries the argument by turning a multimode entangled state into a single-mode state through coherent mode selection, rather than through amplitude-only intensity filtering.

What would settle it

Measure the spectral density matrix of the QPG-filtered heralded photon by an independent method that does not share the QPG channel — for example, stimulated emission tomography or frequency-resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interference with a known single-mode reference. If the directly observed purity falls below 0.90 at the bandwidths where the Q-function reconstruction reports above 0.90, or if two independently QPG-filtered photons show HOM visibility significantly below the reconstructed purity, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that coherent filtering and incoherent intensity filtering of the same multimode PDC source produce fundamentally different heralded states. Mathematically, coherent filtering projects the joint spectral amplitude onto a complex filter mode, factorizing the signal's spectral density matrix into a product of complex spectral amplitudes — a single temporal mode. Incoherent filtering averages over transmitted frequencies, leaving a spectral density matrix that cannot be factorized, i.e., a statistical mixture. Experimentally, the QPG-filtered heralded photons show symmetric Fourier-limited Gaussian Q-functions with bandwidth product ΔΩΔτ = 1 and reconstructed purity above 0.9 over the full investigated range, whereas intensity-filtered photons show asymmetric, broadened Q-functions with purity falling as filter bandwidth rises. The paper concludes that the QPG works as a practical coherent temporal filter that can remotely shape single photons, something intensity filtering cannot do.

Load-bearing premise

The purity values come from maximum-likelihood reconstruction of chronocyclic Q-function data, so the central claim rests on the assumption that this reconstruction is an unbiased estimator of spectral purity — in particular, that the QPG measurement channel behaves like a Fourier-limited Gaussian probe with near-unit projection fidelity and that the reconstruction does not impose model constraints that would inflate purity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, QPG filtering provides a route to high-purity heralded photons from strongly correlated PDC sources without sacrificing bandwidth, since purity stays above 0.9 even at the largest tested filter bandwidth.
  • The programmability of the QPG means the temporal mode of the heralded photon can be chosen remotely, including structured modes like Hermite-Gaussian profiles and time-bin superpositions, enabling TM-encoded quantum information.
  • QPG filtering should enable high-visibility Hong-Ou-Mandel interference between photons from independent multimode sources, a key building block for quantum networks.
  • The distinction between coherent and incoherent filtering is quantitative: intensity filtering's purity degrades with bandwidth, while coherent filtering's purity is essentially flat, so QPG can serve as a noise-rejecting filter without the usual purity trade-off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the purity claims hold, the QPG could also be used as a heralded source of arbitrary temporal-mode qubits, not just Gaussian modes, by programming superpositions; this extends the demonstrated HG and time-bin modes to a full TM basis.
  • The same coherent-filtering principle should apply to other multimode sources, such as spontaneous four-wave mixing in silicon waveguides, suggesting a general tool for mode-selective photon preparation.
  • A direct test would be to send two QPG-filtered photons from independent sources into a Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer: visibility near the purity value would confirm the quantum-state purity without relying on tomographic reconstruction.
  • Because the paper attributes residual impurity to the QPG's finite phase-matching bandwidth, adding narrowband spectral filtering at the QPG output (as referenced) should push purity closer to unity; this is an immediate, testable improvement.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental comparison of coherent temporal filtering using a quantum pulse gate (QPG) with conventional spectral intensity filtering, applied to the idler photon of a multimode type-0 parametric down-conversion (PDC) source. The authors derive the conditional spectral density matrix of the heralded signal photon for coherent and incoherent filtering (Eqs. (3) and (4)), measure chronocyclic Q-functions for Gaussian filters with bandwidths from 0.11 to 0.42 THz and for structured modes (first-order Hermite-Gaussian and a cosine-kernel time-bin superposition), and reconstruct spectral density matrices via maximum-likelihood estimation. They report that QPG-filtered photons maintain spectral purity above 0.9 across the investigated bandwidth range, while intensity-filtered photons show decreasing purity. The structured modes are evaluated through Q-function similarity scores rather than reconstructed purity.

Significance. If the reconstruction is unbiased, this is a significant experimental demonstration: it benchmarks a clear operational distinction between coherent and incoherent temporal filtering of a multimode PDC source and shows programmable remote preparation of structured temporal modes. The theoretical core is sound: Eq. (3) gives a parameter-free factorization of the spectral density matrix for an ideal coherent projection, and the intensity-filter arm provides a meaningful internal control because the same measurement chain and reconstruction pipeline return low purity (0.55-0.91) and low similarity scores there. The Monte Carlo uncertainty estimation and the explicit data-availability statement are also strengths. However, the headline quantitative claim (purity > 0.9) depends on a maximum-likelihood inversion whose model constraints, priors, and sensitivity to non-ideal probe modes are not described in the main text, and the abstract's 'regardless of the filter shape' overstates the evidence presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (5)] The central quantitative claim that QPG filtering yields spectral purity above 0.9 is obtained by maximum-likelihood inversion of the measured 19×19 chronocyclic Q-function data, but the main text does not specify the model family over which the MLE is performed (e.g., whether Γ is restricted to a single temporal mode, to Gaussian forms, or only by positivity), nor does it quantify how faithfully the mQPG characterization channel realizes the ideal Fourier-limited Gaussian probe E_p in Eq. (5). The intensity-filter control arm shows that the estimator is not forced to return high purity globally, but it does not exclude a bias that is concentrated in the narrow, near-Gaussian regime occupied by the QPG arm. Since the paper's headline threshold is purity > 0.9, please either state the MLE parameterization and priors in the main text, validate the pipeline on simulated mixed states, and quantify the effect of the finite QPG phase-matching bandwidth (acknowledged in Sec. 4 as a limit on fidelity) on the reconstructed purity. The supplement cannot carry this load alone if the main text's quantitative claim is to be assessable.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract's claim that QPG filtering 'consistently generates heralded photons with purities above 0.90 regardless of the filter shape' is broader than the evidence presented. Purity values are reported only for the five Gaussian filter bandwidths in Fig. 3(d); the structured-mode measurements in Fig. 4 report Q-function similarity S ≥ 0.95, not reconstructed spectral purity. The paper should either provide reconstructed purities for the Hermite-Gaussian and cosine-kernel modes or should restrict the claim to Gaussian filters with varying bandwidth.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence 'Each frequency component ω_i is transmitted a with probability determined by |A(ω_i)|²' contains a typo ('is transmitted a with probability') and should read 'is transmitted with probability'.
  2. [Sec. 4] The statement that broadening without tilt 'can, in general, arise either from a quadratic spectral phase or from a multimode mixture' is incomplete, because a pure non-Gaussian temporal mode can also produce a non-Gaussian Q-function with a marginal bandwidth product above unity. The inference to a multimode mixture relies on the supplementary relation in Sec. 4; a one-sentence summary of that relation in the main text would make the reasoning self-contained.
  3. [Fig. 3(d)] Please state explicitly whether the plotted purity points include the Monte Carlo uncertainties and, if so, display them as error bars; the current figure is difficult to evaluate without them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QPG purity result is an experimentally reconstructed quantity with an incoherent-filtering control, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim—QPG filtering yields heralded photons with purity above 0.90—is supported by measured chronocyclic Q-functions and a maximum-likelihood reconstruction from those data (Sec. 4, Fig. 3), not by Eq. (3) alone. Equation (3) is a theoretical identity showing that an ideal coherent projection factorizes the spectral density matrix into a pure single-temporal-mode form; the experimental task is to verify that the QPG approximates that projection. The paper includes an internal control: the same measurement and reconstruction chain reports low purities (0.55–0.91) and low similarity for incoherently filtered photons, demonstrating that the estimator is not forced to produce high purity in all cases. The self-citations (Refs. 33, 42, 45) transfer methodology and hardware characterization, but the core coherent-versus-incoherent comparison is measured in this paper with the QPG and intensity filter arms sharing the same characterization channel. Concerns about the MLE's unbiasedness and the finite phase-matching fidelity of the QPG are legitimate correctness risks, but they are not circularity: no fitted constant or self-citation is shown to determine the reported purity values by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the central claim.

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

The central claim (QPG filtering yields purity above 0.9) rests on the QPG's mode-selective operation and on the tomography chain; the intensity-filter theory curves rest on the simulated JSA. None of these are fitted to the purity data in the main text, which keeps the circularity burden low. The main unresolved items: the JSA simulation parameters and the MLE model constraints live in the supplement, which was not available for this review.

free parameters (1)
  • JSA simulation parameters for the theory curves = not stated in main text (simulation in Supplement Fig. S1)
    The dashed theory curves in Fig. 3(d) for intensity filtering and the Q-function shapes in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b) are computed from a simulated JSA. The main text lists setup parameters (pump bandwidth 0.1 nm, waveguide 1 cm, 433 K) but does not state whether simulation parameters were adjusted to match measured data; this is the paper's only latent fitted-number risk.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The simulated joint spectral amplitude f(omega_s, omega_i) (pump envelope times phase-matching, Supplement Fig. S1) accurately represents the source; the theory curves in Figs. 3 and 4 are computed from it.
    Load-bearing for the intensity-filter purity predictions and for the coherent-filter Q-function shapes. The main text gives setup inputs (0.1 nm pump, 1 cm waveguide, 433 K) but not the simulation details or any adjustment to match data.
  • domain assumption The mQPG realizes the coherent mode projection of Eq. (3) with fidelity high enough that residual deviation leaves purity above 0.9.
    Sec. 4 states that finite QPG phase-matching bandwidth limits operational fidelity and suggests output spectral filtering as mitigation; the realized projection fidelity is not quantified in the main text.
  • domain assumption The chronocyclic Q-function measurement and the MLE reconstruction (Supplement Sec. 6) give an unbiased spectral density matrix and purity.
    Methodology is the authors' own (Ref. 33); the main text states the 19 by 19 scan and Monte Carlo uncertainties, but the reconstruction's model constraints are only in the supplement.
  • domain assumption The broadening of the intensity-filtered Q-functions is a multimode mixture, not spectral phase: no tilt rules out quadratic phase.
    Sec. 4. Higher-order spectral phase is not explicitly excluded, but reconstructed purity below 1 independently supports the mixture reading, since purity is invariant under unitary spectral-phase transformations.
  • standard math The temporal-mode (Schmidt-mode) framework for describing photon-pair states and purity.
    Underpins the definitions of temporal mode, purity, and the factoring of the spectral density matrix; standard, peer-reviewed formalism (Ref. 11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent temporal filtering of multimode parametric down-conversion using a quantum pulse gate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4U2KEM5P

@misc{pith2026260812544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent temporal filtering of multimode parametric down-conversion using a quantum pulse gate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4U2KEM5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12544}
}
read the original abstract

Spectrally pure and indistinguishable single photons are essential for quantum network platforms, where high-visibility interference underpins many quantum information protocols. However, most practical single-photon sources emit spectrally multimode states with reduced purity. Conventional spectral intensity filtering can partially improve purity but cannot select a well-defined temporal mode (TM). Here, we demonstrate coherent temporal filtering of a multimode parametric down-conversion (PDC) source using a quantum pulse gate (QPG) and benchmark its performance against conventional intensity filtering. The generated PDC photons exhibit strong spectral correlations, rendering extraction of pure heralded photons from the pair a challenge. We demonstrate that QPG filtering consistently generates heralded photons with purities above 0.90 regardless of the filter shape. Contrariwise, using spectral intensity filters yields mixed photons. Photon purities are probed with chronocyclic Q-function tomography. Furthermore, we demonstrate the versatility of QPG filtering by extracting structured TMs, including superposition of picosecond time bins. These results establish the QPG as a practical coherent filtering tool for quantum network applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Conceptual distinction between coherent filteri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the experimental setup. mQPG: multi-ou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Filter shapes with different spectral bandwidths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Illustrates different filter shapes. (b) Theoreti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (c) shows the experimentally measured -functions for both QPG filtering and inco￾herent filtering. For QPG filtering, the measured chronocyclic-functions are in good agreement with theoretical predictions across the entire bandwidth range and retain the symmetric Gaus￾…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    “e vent-ready detectors

    M. Żukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, ““e vent-ready detectors” bell experiment via entanglement swapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287–4290 (1993)

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted,

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinge r, “Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted,” Phys. review letters 80, 3891 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping,

    X.-s. Ma, S. Zotter, J. Kofler, et al., “Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping,” Nat. Phys. 8, 479–484 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Experimental boson sampling,

    M. Tillmann, B. Dakić, R. Heilmann, et al., “Experimental boson sampling,” Nat. photonics 7, 540–544 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Boson sampling on a photonic chip,

    J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P . C. Humphreys, et al., “Boson sampling on a photonic chip,” Science 339, 798–801 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    T wo-particle bosonic-fermionic quantum walk via integrated photonics,

    L. Sansoni, F. Sciarrino, G. Vallone, et al., “T wo-particle bosonic-fermionic quantum walk via integrated photonics,” Phys. review letters 108, 010502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Quantum walks of correlated photons,

    A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. Matthews, et al., “Quantum walks of correlated photons,” Science 329, 1500–1503 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Single-mode parametric-down-conversion states with 50 photons as a source for mesoscopic quantum optics,

    G. Harder, T. J. Bartley, A. E. Lita, et al., “Single-mode parametric-down-conversion states with 50 photons as a source for mesoscopic quantum optics,” Phys. review letters 116, 143601 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Chip-based array of near-identical, pure, heralded sing le-photon sources,

    J. B. Spring, P . L. Mennea, B. J. Metcalf, et al., “Chip-based array of near-identical, pure, heralded sing le-photon sources,” Optica 4, 90–96 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Spatially single mode photon pair source at 800 nm in perio dically poled rubidium exchanged ktp waveguides,

    C. Eigner, L. Padberg, M. Santandrea, et al., “Spatially single mode photon pair source at 800 nm in perio dically poled rubidium exchanged ktp waveguides,” Opt. Express 28, 32925–32935 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    P hoton temporal modes: A complete framework for quantum information science,

    B. Brecht, D. V . Reddy, C. Silberhorn, and M. G. Raymer, “P hoton temporal modes: A complete framework for quantum information science,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 041017 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Quantum interference with photon pairs created in spatia lly separated sources,

    H. de Riedmatten, I. Marcikic, W. Tittel, et al. , “Quantum interference with photon pairs created in spatia lly separated sources,” Phys. Rev. A 67, 022301 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Experimental interference of independent photons,

    R. Kaltenbaek, B. Blauensteiner, M. Żukowski, et al., “Experimental interference of independent photons,” Phy s. review letters 96, 240502 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    High-visibility two-photon interference at a telecom wavelength using picosecond-regime separated sources,

    P . Aboussouan, O. Alibart, D. B. Ostrowsky,et al., “High-visibility two-photon interference at a telecom wavelength using picosecond-regime separated sources,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 021801 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    On-chip generation of heralded photon-number states,

    P . Vergyris, T. Meany, T. Lunghi, et al. , “On-chip generation of heralded photon-number states,” S ci. reports 6, 35975 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Indistinguishable photon pair generation using two independent silicon wire waveguides,

    K.-i. Harada, H. Takesue, H. Fukuda, et al., “Indistinguishable photon pair generation using two independent silicon wire waveguides,” New J. Phys. 13, 065005 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Effect s of noninstantaneous nonlinear processes on photon-pair generation by spontaneous four-wave mixing,

    J. G. Koefoed, J. B. Christensen, and K. Rottwitt, “Effect s of noninstantaneous nonlinear processes on photon-pair generation by spontaneous four-wave mixing,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 043842 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Solid-state si ngle-photon emitters,

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, “Solid-state si ngle-photon emitters,” Nat. photonics 10, 631–641 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    High-performan ce semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources,

    P . Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, “High-performan ce semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources,” Nat. nanotechnology 12, 1026–1039 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    On-chip quantum interference between silicon photon-pair sources,

    J. W. Silverstone, D. Bonneau, K. Ohira, et al., “On-chip quantum interference between silicon photon-pair sources,” Nat. Photonics 8, 104–108 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Optimal filtering and generation of entangled photons for quantum applications in the presence of noise,

    J. M. Thomas, A. R. Cameron, A. Pathiranage, et al., “Optimal filtering and generation of entangled photons for quantum applications in the presence of noise,” Phys. Rev. A ppl. 25, 064064 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Characterization of spectrally filtered heralded single photons,

    J. Suárez-Pérez, A. Valencia, and M. Nuñez-Portela, “Characterization of spectrally filtered heralded single photons,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 37, 1190–1195 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    The ory of quantum frequency conversion and type-ii parametric down-conversion in the high-gain regime,

    A. Christ, B. Brecht, W. Mauerer, and C. Silberhorn, “The ory of quantum frequency conversion and type-ii parametric down-conversion in the high-gain regime,” New J . Phys. 15, 053038 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Theory of filtered type-ii parametric down-conversion in the continuous- variable domain: Quantifying the impacts of filtering,

    A. Christ, C. Lupo, M. Reichelt, et al., “Theory of filtered type-ii parametric down-conversion in the continuous- variable domain: Quantifying the impacts of filtering,” Phy s. Rev. A 90, 023823 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Limits on the heralding efficiencies and spectral purities of spectrally filtered single photons from photon-pair sources,

    E. Meyer-Scott, N. Montaut, J. Tiedau, et al., “Limits on the heralding efficiencies and spectral purities of spectrally filtered single photons from photon-pair sources,” Phys. Re v. A 95, 061803 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Time-frequency optical fil tering: efficiency vs. temporal-mode discrimination in incoherent and coherent implementations,

    M. G. Raymer and K. Banaszek, “Time-frequency optical fil tering: efficiency vs. temporal-mode discrimination in incoherent and coherent implementations,” Opt. Express 28, 32819–32836 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Time-frequency projection filters and time-frequency signal expansions,

    F. Hlawatsch and W. Kozek, “Time-frequency projection filters and time-frequency signal expansions,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process. 42, 3321–3334 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Linear time–frequency filters : On-line algorithms and applications,

    G. Matz and F. Hlawatsch, “Linear time–frequency filters : On-line algorithms and applications,” in Applications in Time-Frequency Signal Processing, (CRC Press, 2018), pp. 205–272

    2018

  21. [29]

    Demonstration of coherent time-frequency schmidt mode s election using dispersion-engineered frequency conversion,

    B. Brecht, A. Eckstein, R. Ricken, et al., “Demonstration of coherent time-frequency schmidt mode s election using dispersion-engineered frequency conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 030302 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Tomography and purification of the temporal-mode structu re of quantum light,

    V . Ansari, J. M. Donohue, M. Allgaier, et al. , “Tomography and purification of the temporal-mode structu re of quantum light,” Phys. review letters 120, 213601 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Universal compressive tomography in the time-frequency domain,

    J. Gil-Lopez, Y . S. Teo, S. De, et al., “Universal compressive tomography in the time-frequency domain,” Optica 8, 1296–1305 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Self-guided tomography of time-frequency qudits,

    L. Serino, M. Rambach, B. Brecht, et al., “Self-guided tomography of time-frequency qudits,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 025024 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Pulse characterization at the single-photon level throu gh chronocyclic q-function measurements,

    A. Bhattacharjee, P . Folge, L. Serino, et al., “Pulse characterization at the single-photon level throu gh chronocyclic q-function measurements,” Opt. Express 33, 5551–5561 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Frequency-bin interferometry for reconstructing electric fields with low intensity,

    A. Bhattacharjee, L. Serino, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhor n, “Frequency-bin interferometry for reconstructing electric fields with low intensity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08607 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Quantum optical tomography based on time-resolved and mo de- selective single-photon detection by femtosecond up-conversion,

    N. Namekata, N. Kobayashi, K. Nomura, et al., “Quantum optical tomography based on time-resolved and mo de- selective single-photon detection by femtosecond up-conversion,” Sci. reports 13, 21080 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Quantum-limited time-frequency estimation through mod e-selective photon measurement,

    J. M. Donohue, V . Ansari, J. Řeháček, et al., “Quantum-limited time-frequency estimation through mod e-selective photon measurement,” Phys. review letters 121, 090501 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution,

    V . Ansari, B. Brecht, J. Gil-Lopez, et al. , “ Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution,” PRX Q uantum 2, 010301 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Quantum pulse g ate attack on im/dd optical key distribution exploiting symbol shape distortion,

    M. Jarzyna, M. Jachura, and K. Banaszek, “Quantum pulse g ate attack on im/dd optical key distribution exploiting symbol shape distortion,” IEEE Commun. Lett. 27, 1699–1703 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Optimal coherent filtering for single noisy photons,

    S. Gao, O. Lazo-Arjona, B. Brecht, et al., “Optimal coherent filtering for single noisy photons,” Phy s. review letters 123, 213604 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Deterministic storage and retrieval of telecom light fro m a quantum dot single-photon source interfaced with an atomic quantum mem ory,

    S. E. Thomas, L. Wagner, R. Joos, et al., “Deterministic storage and retrieval of telecom light fro m a quantum dot single-photon source interfaced with an atomic quantum mem ory,” Sci. Adv. 10, eadi7346 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Super-resolving frequency measurement with mode-selec tive quantum memory,

    S. Zhang, A. Zhang, I. M. d. B. Wenniger, et al. , “Super-resolving frequency measurement with mode-selec tive quantum memory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20514 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R emotely projecting states of photonic temporal modes,

    V . Ansari, J. M. Donohue, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, “R emotely projecting states of photonic temporal modes,” Opt. Express 28, 28295–28305 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Spectral information and distinguishability in type-ii down-conversion with a broadband pump,

    W. P . Grice and I. A. Walmsley, “Spectral information and distinguishability in type-ii down-conversion with a broadband pump,” Phys. Rev. A 56, 1627 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Generation of fourier-transform-limited heralded single photons,

    A. B. U’Ren, Y . Jeronimo-Moreno, and H. Garcia-Gracia, “Generation of fourier-transform-limited heralded single photons,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 023810 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Realization of a multi-output quantum pulse gate for deco ding high-dimensional temporal modes of single-photon states,

    L. Serino, J. Gil-Lopez, M. Stefszky, et al. , “Realization of a multi-output quantum pulse gate for deco ding high-dimensional temporal modes of single-photon states, ” PRX quantum 4, 020306 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Detection of the density matrix through optical homodyne tomography without filtered back projection,

    G. d Ariano, C. Macchiavello, and M. Paris, “Detection of the density matrix through optical homodyne tomography without filtered back projection,” Phys. Rev. A 50, 4298 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    Quanti tative tomography for continuous variable quantum systems,

    O. Landon-Cardinal, L. C. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, “Quanti tative tomography for continuous variable quantum systems,” Phys. review letters 120, 090501 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Fabrication limits of waveguides in nonlinear crystals and their impact on quantum optics applications,

    M. Santandrea, M. Stefszky, V . Ansari, and C. Silberhorn , “Fabrication limits of waveguides in nonlinear crystals and their impact on quantum optics applications,” New J. Phy s. 21, 033038 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure q uantum states,

    P . J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, et al., “Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure q uantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 133601 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    An optimized photon pair source for quantum circuits,

    G. Harder, V . Ansari, B. Brecht, et al., “ An optimized photon pair source for quantum circuits,” Op t. express 21, 13975–13985 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Frequency-bin entanglement from domain-engineered dow n- conversion,

    C. L. Morrison, F. Graffitti, P . Barrow, et al. , “Frequency-bin entanglement from domain-engineered dow n- conversion,” APL Photonics 7 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Optimised spectral purity of unfiltered photons via pump a nd nonlinearity shaping,

    T. Faleo, C. L. Morrison, R. Beignon, et al. , “Optimised spectral purity of unfiltered photons via pump a nd nonlinearity shaping,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06196 ( 2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.