Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Efficient Measurement of Bosonic Non-Gaussianity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pure bosonic state is Gaussian exactly when mixing it with itself at a 50:50 beam splitter keeps the entropy subadditivity intact; the paper turns this into a four-copy parity test and a non-Gaussian entropy measure.

desk verdict A clean constant-copy protocol for witnessing bosonic non-Gaussianity, with a theorem that needs one explicit regularity hypothesis before it is fully correct. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10272 v1 pith:6KMCCFXZ submitted 2025-07-14 quant-ph

Kaifeng Bu , Bikun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P4081V80
keywords non-GaussianitybosonicstatesquantumconvolutionbeamsplitterparitymeasurementswaptestcontinuousvariablesRényientropy
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 aims to make the question "is a bosonic state non-Gaussian?" answerable by a measurement that uses only a constant number of copies. Its central claim is that for any pure bosonic state $\psi$, the subadditivity inequality $S(\psi \boxplus \psi) \le 2S(\psi)$ holds if and only if $\psi$ is Gaussian, where $\boxplus$ is the quantum convolution produced by sending two copies through a 50:50 beam splitter. Because $\psi \boxplus \psi$ is pure exactly when $\psi$ is Gaussian, detecting non-Gaussianity reduces to estimating the purity of the beam-splitter output, and a parity measurement on that output provides the estimate directly. The paper introduces the non-Gaussian entropy $NGE_{\alpha,k}(\psi) = S_\alpha(\boxplus^k \psi)$ as a resource measure and gives a four-copy, three-beam-splitter protocol to measure it, with a three-copy simplification for zero-mean states. If correct, this gives an experimentally accessible, tomography-free way to quantify non-Gaussianity in continuous-variable systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is quantum convolution, $\rho \boxplus \sigma := \mathrm{Tr}_B[U_{\pi/4}(\rho \otimes \sigma)U_{\pi/4}^\dagger]$, the reduced state of one output port of a 50:50 beam splitter. Two identities carry the argument. First, the beam splitter maps the symmetric and antisymmetric components of two identical inputs to even- and odd-parity subspaces, giving $\mathrm{Tr}[\rho\sigma] = \mathrm{Tr}[(\rho \boxminus \sigma)P]$, so the purity of $\psi \boxplus \psi$ is read off from a parity expectation. Second, iterated convolution factorizes the characteristic function as $\Xi_{\boxplus^k \psi}(\xi) = \Xi_\psi(\xi/\sqrt{m_k})^{a_k} \Xi_\psi(-\xi/\sqrt{m_k})^{b_k}$ with $m_k = 4^k$, and a quantum central-limit argument shows the iterates converge to a Gaussian; this is what forces the entropy inequality to be tight only for Gaussian states.

What would settle it

Search for a pure non-Gaussian state whose characteristic function has a heavy tail or unbounded second moment and compute whether $\mathrm{Tr}[(\psi \boxplus \psi)^2] < 1$; numerically, minimize the purity of the beam-splitter output over a family of such states to see whether any candidate drives the purity to 1. Finding a single pure non-Gaussian $\psi$ with $\mathrm{Tr}[(\psi \boxplus \psi)^2] = 1$ would refute Theorem 1; finding none would confirm it, and the search would also reveal whether the finite-second-moment assumption is the true boundary of the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is an equivalence between Gaussianity and the saturation of a classical-looking entropy inequality under quantum convolution. For a pure state $\psi$, the paper proves $S(\psi \boxplus \psi) \le 2S(\psi)$ is tight if and only if $\psi$ is Gaussian; every non-Gaussian pure state violates it. Equivalently, the output of a 50:50 beam splitter fed with two copies of $\psi$ is a pure state if and only if $\psi$ is Gaussian. This converts Gaussianity testing into a purity test: the average parity $\langle P \rangle = \mathrm{Tr}[(\psi \boxplus \psi)^2]$ equals 1 iff $\psi$ is Gaussian, and if the maximal fidelity to a Gaussian state is $1-\epsilon$, then $\langle P \rangle \ge (1-\epsilon)^2$. The same idea extends to mixed states: $\rho$ is Gaussian iff $U_{\pi/4}(\rho \otimes \rho)U_{\pi/4}^\dagger$ is a product state, which motivates the measurable Frobenius measure $d_F(\rho) = \lVert \rho_{AB} - \rho_A \otimes \rho_B \rVert_F$ and the mutual-information-based non-Gaussianity measure.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the inequality is tight exactly for Gaussian states assumes the state's characteristic function is that of a classical probability law with finite second moment, so the Taylor expansion used in the limiting argument is valid, and it assumes the quantum central-limit convergence step applies to the state under test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An unknown pure bosonic state can be certified and quantified as non-Gaussian with four copies (three for zero-mean states) using only beam splitters and parity measurements, sidestepping full state tomography.
  • Estimating the parity to additive error $\varepsilon$ requires $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ copies and, for $N$-mode inputs, $O(N)$ beam-splitter gates at constant circuit depth, so the test remains practical for many-body systems.
  • The Rényi non-Gaussian entropies satisfy faithfulness, Gaussian invariance, and additivity under tensor products, making them legitimate measures of non-Gaussianity for pure states.
  • For mixed states, the Frobenius measure $d_F$ is faithful and measurable by swap-test circuits, though the paper explicitly notes it is not a monotone under Gaussian operations.
  • Numerical simulations with cat states and Fock states under loss, dephasing, random displacement, and noisy beam splitters show the parity signal persists at weak noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A promising extension is to use the same parity primitive as a certification tool in boson-sampling and bosonic error-correction experiments, where tomography is infeasible but a constant-copy purity check is realistic.
  • The proof's finite-second-moment assumption suggests the sharp Gaussian threshold may fail for states with heavy-tailed characteristic functions; a targeted search over such states would map the exact domain of the theorem.
  • If the non-Gaussian entropy behaves like other resource measures, it could provide the missing link between environmental non-Gaussianity and the quantum capacity of beam-splitter channels, a question the paper leaves open.
  • Because $d_F$ is not contractive under Gaussian operations, applying it as a resource quantifier requires care; a natural follow-up is to pair the efficient parity estimator with a contractive relative-entropy measure estimated on the relevant state family.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a family of measures called non-Gaussian entropy, NGE_{α,k}(ψ) = S_α(⊞^k ψ), for pure bosonic states, and proposes a tomography-free protocol that uses four copies of an unknown state, three beam splitters, and parity measurements to estimate NGE_{2,1}(ψ). The central theoretical claim (Theorem 1) is that for a pure state ψ, the subadditive inequality S(ψ ⊞ ψ) ≤ 2S(ψ) holds if and only if ψ is Gaussian; equivalently, ψ ⊞ ψ is pure if and only if ψ is Gaussian. This reduces Gaussianity testing to estimating the purity of a beam-splitter output. The paper also extends the framework to mixed states via a Frobenius-norm measure d_F(ρ) and an α-mutual information MING_α(ρ), proves structural properties such as faithfulness and Gaussian invariance, and supplies analytical and numerical examples for Fock states and two-component cat states under loss, dephasing, displacement, and beam-splitter-angle noise.

Significance. If the central theorem is correct, the proposed protocol is a practically valuable, constant-copy method for detecting and quantifying non-Gaussianity without full state tomography, with constant circuit depth and O(1/ε^2) sample complexity. The explicit noise model and the exact analytical formulas for Fock and cat states are useful contributions that go beyond a purely abstract resource-theoretic statement. However, the main theorem currently lacks a stated regularity hypothesis, and the faithfulness of the higher-order measures NGE_{α,k} for k>1 is asserted rather than proved. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims, although they appear fixable for the physically relevant finite-energy setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 7, Eqs. (A11)-(A12)] The proof assumes that g(x) = Ξ_ρ(xξ) is a classical characteristic function with finite second moment so that it admits the expansion g(x) = 1 − (ξ^T Γ ξ / 4) x^2 + o(x^2), but Theorem 7 is stated for arbitrary bosonic states and no finite-second-moment or finite-energy hypothesis is included. For a legitimate pure state with infinite second moments, g need not be differentiable at 0 and the limiting argument in Eq. (A12) is not justified. Since Theorem 1, Theorem 2, Theorem 5, Proposition 6, and Proposition 12 all rely on this proof, the manuscript must either add an explicit finite-second-moment (or finite-energy) assumption to the theorem statements or supply a proof that covers infinite-moment states; the precise regularity conditions needed for the central-limit reasoning borrowed from Refs. [39,73] should also be stated.
  2. [Definition 3, Proposition 4(1), Appendix A, Proposition 11(1)] Faithfulness of NGE_{α,k} for general k is justified only by the sentence that '⊞^k ψ is a pure state iff ψ is a Gaussian state,' but no proof of this statement is given. Theorem 1 establishes only the k=1 case, i.e., ψ ⊞ ψ is pure iff ψ is Gaussian. For k>1, the state ⊞^{k-1}ψ is in general mixed when ψ is non-Gaussian, so the claimed equivalence is not a direct corollary of Theorem 1 and requires either an induction argument or a separate proof. This is necessary because these measures are presented as valid non-Gaussianity measures for all k.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 7] In the paragraph defining g(x), the text says g(0) = 0; it should read g(0) = 1.
  2. [Eq. (D1)] The noisy beam-splitter channel integral is written with measure dϕ but the integrand uses the variable φ; the notation should be unified.
  3. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E9)-(E10)] The superscripts containing the Wigner D-matrix arguments have unbalanced parentheses and braces, making these formulas difficult to parse; please rewrite them cleanly.
  4. [Section II.C and Appendix E] The figure references are inconsistent: the text refers to 'Fig. C(a)' and 'Fig. C(c)' where the displayed figure appears to be Fig. 2 with panels (a)-(d); please renumber the cross-references.
  5. [Section II.C] The symbol ε is used both for the target estimation precision in the sample-complexity discussion and for the noise strength via ε_p = e^ε; please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
  6. [Theorem 2] The phrase 'the maximal overlap with the Gaussian state' should be 'the maximal overlap with a Gaussian state,' since the maximizing Gaussian state is not unique in general.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Gaussian-iff-purity result is proved from an external characteristic-function central-limit argument, not from the definition of the measure.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 1, restated as Theorem 8) is reduced to Theorem 7, whose proof derives the functional equation for the characteristic function and then invokes the classical central-limit argument of Refs. [39, 73], which are external to the authors. The measure NGE_{α,k} is defined as S_α(⊞^k ψ), and faithfulness (equality iff Gaussian) is a proven consequence of Theorem 8, not part of the definition of Gaussianity. The experimental protocol estimates the parity Tr[(ψ⊞ψ)^2] directly; no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. The proof does rely on a finite-second-moment expansion (Eq. A11) without stating that hypothesis in the theorem, and it contains the typo g(0)=0 instead of g(0)=1; these are rigor or presentation issues, not circularity. The self-citations (Refs. [42]–[47], [72]) are contextual and are not load-bearing for the main proof, which explicitly follows Refs. [39, 73]. Therefore no circular step is exhibited and the derivation is self-contained modulo the stated external CLT result.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. The main assumptions are standard CV definitions and the regularity condition on the characteristic function, which is not fully stated but is likely standard for finite-energy states.

free parameters (1)
  • noise parameters (σ_D, σ_P, γ_L, σ_B, ε_p) = set to e^ε for weak noise in simulations
    These are simulation parameters, not fitted to data. They are chosen to demonstrate robustness under weak noise, but they are not derived from a physical model.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The characteristic function of the state is a classical characteristic function with finite second moment, allowing the expansion in Eq. (A11).
    This is used in the proof of Theorem 7 to justify the limiting argument that shows the iterated characteristic function converges to a Gaussian. It is not stated as a theorem assumption.
  • standard math The beam splitter implements the quantum convolution defined in Eq. (2), and the output states are well-defined bosonic states.
    This is the standard definition of quantum convolution in CV systems, following Refs. [39-41].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Measurement of Bosonic Non-Gaussianity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KMCCFXZ

@misc{pith2026250710272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Measurement of Bosonic Non-Gaussianity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KMCCFXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10272}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Gaussian states are essential resources in quantum information processing. In this work, we investigate methods for quantifying bosonic non-Gaussianity in many-body systems. Building on recent theoretical insights into the self-convolution properties of bosonic pure states, we introduce non-Gaussian entropy as a new measure to characterize non-Gaussianity in bosonic pure states. We further propose a practical protocol for measuring non-Gaussian entropy using three beam splitters and four copies of the input state. In addition, we extend this framework to mixed states, providing a general approach to quantifying non-Gaussianity. Our results offer a convenient and efficient method for characterizing bosonic non-Gaussianity, paving the way for its implementation on near-term experimental platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10272 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. In this figure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Panels (a) and (b) show simulations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The protocol to test Gaussianity for pure input states with zero mean. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. This figure demonstrates the values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Computational Resources and Conformal Field Theory: Unifying Spins, Bosons, and Fermions

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A unified Magic Rényi Entropy measure for spins, bosons, and fermions is shown to have a universal critical contribution determined by the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy.

  2. Measuring non-Gaussianity with Correlation

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Non-Gaussianity of a quantum state equals the correlation its two copies generate at a 50:50 beam splitter, enabling a state-agnostic, sample-efficient measurement via SWAP tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Weedbrook, S

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

    2012

  2. [2]

    Under this transformation, the symmetric subspace of the two modes ˆai,A and ˆai,B is mapped to the subspace of states with an even number of particles in modeˆai,B, while the antisymmetric subspace is mapped to states with an odd number of particles in the same mode. Thus, measuring the parity in modeˆai,B effectively distinguishes between the symmetric ...

  3. [3]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Squeezed states in phase-sensing interferometers, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2548 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. San- pera, Individual quantum probes for optimal thermome- try, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 220405 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Opti- mum mixed-state discrimination for noisy entanglement- enhanced sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 040801 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, and S.-Y. Lee, Optimal gaussian measurements for phase estimation in single-mode gaussian metrology, npj Quan- tum Information 5, 10 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    S. D. Bartlett and B. C. Sanders, Universal continuous- variable quantum computation: Requirement of opti- cal nonlinearity for photon counting, Phys. Rev. A65, 042304 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive wigner functions ren- derclassicalsimulationofquantumcomputationefficient, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Veitch, N

    V. Veitch, N. Wiebe, C. Ferrie, and J. Emerson, Efficient simulation scheme for a class of quantum optics experi- ments with non-negative wigner representation, New J. Phys. 15, 013037 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    A. P. Lund, A. Laing, S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. Rudolph, J. L. O’Brien, and T. C. Ralph, Boson sampling from a Gaussian state, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 100502 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Douce, D

    T. Douce, D. Markham, E. Kashefi, E. Diamanti, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, P. van Loock, and G. Ferrini, Continuous-variable instantaneous quantum computing is hard to sample, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 070503 (2017). 6

    2017

  8. [16]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Gaussian boson sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 170501 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    L.ChakhmakhchyanandN.J.Cerf,Bosonsamplingwith Gaussianmeasurements,Phys.Rev.A 96,032326(2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, in STOC ’11 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2011) p. 333–342

    2011

  11. [19]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photon...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Zhong, Y.-H

    H.-S. Zhong, Y.-H. Deng, J. Qin, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H. Su, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.- L. Liu, J. J. Renema, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phase- programmable...

    2021

  13. [21]

    L. S. Marsden, F. Laudendbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Ror- tais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Ger- rits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Quantum compu- tational...

    2022

  14. [22]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. De- voret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even, Nature 616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z.- B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, S.- B. Zheng, Y. Xu, and D. Yu, Beating the break-even point with a discrete-variable-encoded logical qubit, Na- ture 616, 56 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Rojkov, P

    I. Rojkov, P. M. Röggla, M. Wagener, M. Fontboté- Schmidt, S. Welte, J. Home, and F. Reiter, Two-qubit operations for finite-energy gottesman-kitaev-preskill en- codings, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 100601 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L.Frunzio, S.M.Girvin,andM.H.Devoret,Quan- tum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641, 612 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Measure of the non-gaussian character of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042327 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Quan- tifying the non-gaussian character of a quantum state by quantum relative entropy, Phys. Rev. A78, 060303 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Quantifying non- gaussianity for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Fer- raro, Resource theory of quantum non-Gaussianity and wigner negativity, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Convex resource theory of non- Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Zhuang, P

    Q. Zhuang, P. W. Shor, and J. H. Shapiro, Resource the- ory of non-gaussian operations, Phys. Rev. A97, 052317 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Conversion of gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon- number-resolving detectors, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052301 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Stellar rep- resentation of non-Gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063605 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. König, Classical simulation of non- gaussian bosonic circuits, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042402 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Calcluth, N

    C. Calcluth, N. Reichel, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, Suffi- cient condition for universal quantum computation using bosonic circuits, PRX Quantum5, 020337 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    O. Hahn, R. Takagi, G. Ferrini, and H. Yamasaki, Clas- sical simulation and quantum resource theory of non- gaussian optics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07115 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hudson, When is the wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?, Rep

    R. Hudson, When is the wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?, Rep. Math. Phys.6, 249 (1974)

    1974

  31. [39]

    Soto and P

    F. Soto and P. Claverie, When is the wigner function of multidimensional systems nonnegative?, J. Math. Phys. 24, 97 (1983)

    1983

  32. [40]

    Cushen and R

    C. Cushen and R. Hudson, A quantum-mechanical cen- tral limit theorem, J. Appl. Probab.8, 454 (1971)

    1971

  33. [41]

    Becker, N

    S. Becker, N. Datta, L. Lami, and C. Rouzé, Convergence rates for the quantum central limit theorem, Commun. Math. Phys. 383, 223 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Beigi and H

    S. Beigi and H. Mehrabi, Towards optimal conver- gence rates for the quantum central limit theorem, arXiv:2310.09812 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Quantum entropy and cen- tral limit theorem, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2304589120 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    K.Bu, W.Gu,andA.Jaffe,Quantumruzsadivergenceto quantify magic, IEEE Transactions on Information The- ory 71, 2726 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Discrete quantum Gaussians and central limit theorem, arXiv:2302.08423 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Stabilizer testing and magic entropy, arXiv:2306.09292 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lyu and K

    N. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic gaussian testing and non-gaussian measures via convolution, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08180 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lyu and K

    N. Lyu and K. Bu, Displaced fermionic gaussian states and their classical simulation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18517 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, Measuring entanglement growth in quench dynamics of bosons in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 020505 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Moura Alves and D

    C. Moura Alves and D. Jaksch, Multipartite entangle- ment detection in bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 110501 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    A. K. Ekert, C. M. Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct estimations of lin- ear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    F. A. Bovino, G. Castagnoli, A. Ekert, P. Horodecki, C. M. Alves, and A. V. Sergienko, Direct measurement of nonlinear properties of bipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 240407 (2005). 7

    2005

  45. [53]

    Islam, R

    R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement en- tropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature528, 77 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Barenco, A

    A. Barenco, A. Berthiaume, D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, and C. Macchiavello, Stabilization of quan- tum computations by symmetrization, SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1541 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    De Wolf, Quantum computing: Lecture notes, arXiv:1907.09415 (2019)

    R. De Wolf, Quantum computing: Lecture notes, arXiv:1907.09415 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pérez-García, M

    D. Pérez-García, M. M. Wolf, D. Petz, and M. B. Ruskai, Contractivity of positive and trace-preserving maps un- derlpnorms,JournalofMathematicalPhysics 47(2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Due to the additivity of the parity, more than one ancil- liary qubit can be used for multi-mode bosonic states

  51. [59]

    L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirch- mair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J.Blumoff, L.Frunzio, M.Mirrahimi, M.H.Devoret,and R. J. Schoelkopf, Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements, Nature 511, 444 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, Evaluating capacities of bosonic gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A63, 032312 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    Caruso, V

    F. Caruso, V. Giovannetti, and A. S. Holevo, One-mode bosonic gaussian channels: a full weak-degradability clas- sification, New Journal of Physics8, 310 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    M. M. Wolf, D. Pérez-García, and G. Giedke, Quan- tum capacities of bosonic channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 130501 (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    M. M. Wilde, P. Hayden, and S. Guha, Quantum trade- off coding for bosonic communication, Phys. Rev. A86, 062306 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nature communications8, 15043 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    K. K. Sabapathy and A. Winter, Non-gaussian opera- tions on bosonic modes of light: Photon-added gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A95, 062309 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    M. M. Wilde and H. Qi, Energy-constrained private and quantum capacities of quantum channels, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory64, 7802 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Rosati, A

    M. Rosati, A. Mari, and V. Giovannetti, Narrow bounds for the quantum capacity of thermal attenuators, Nature communications 9, 4339 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    K. Noh, V. V. Albert, and L. Jiang, Quantum capacity bounds of gaussian thermal loss channels and achievable rates with gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes, IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory65, 2563 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    K. Noh, S. Pirandola, and L. Jiang, Enhanced energy- constrained quantum communication over bosonic gaus- sian channels, Nature communications11, 457 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. Jiang, Passive environment-assisted quantum communication with gkp states, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021003 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    L. Lami, M. B. Plenio, V. Giovannetti, and A. S. Holevo, Bosonic quantum communication across arbitrarily high loss channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 110504 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    S. K. Oskouei, S. Mancini, and A. Winter, Capacities of gaussian quantum channels with passive environment as- sistance, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68, 339 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    K.BuandA.Jaffe,Magicresourcecanenhancethequan- tum capacity of channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 050202 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    T ( ¯xA+¯xB√ 2 ) + d1 T ( ¯xB −¯xA√ 2 ) + d2 # =

    M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Extremality of Gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 080502 (2006). 8 Appendix A: Proof of the main results for pure states Consider a system of N bosonic modes with Hilbert space H = NN i=1 Hi, and define the vector of quadrature...

    2006

  67. [75]

    It is known that, except for the vacuum state|0⟩, all other states are non-Gaussian

    Example: F ock state We denote |n⟩ (n ∈ N) as the Fock state of a single bosonic mode, which satisfiesˆn |n⟩ = n |n⟩. It is known that, except for the vacuum state|0⟩, all other states are non-Gaussian. This section calculates the non-Gaussianity measures NGEα,1(|n⟩ ⟨n|), dF (...

  68. [76]

    To start with, we define the un-normalized two-component cat state as: ϕ±(z) := 1 2 (|z⟩ ± |−z⟩)(⟨z| ± ⟨−z|)

    Example: two-component cat state We demonstrate the derivation for the non-Gaussianity measure for the noisy two-component cat state:NL[γL](ψ), where |ψ⟩ ∝ |z⟩ + |−z⟩ (z ∈ C), where |z⟩ := ezˆa†−z∗ˆa |0⟩ is the coherent state. To start with, we define the un-normalized two-com...

  69. [77]

    In this extreme case, we also findTr [ρ ⊞ ρ] → 1 2 and Tr h Uπ/4(ρ ⊗ ρ)U † π/4(ρ ⊞ ρ) ⊗ (ρ ⊟ ρ) i → 1 4, so the Frobenius measure approaches dF → q 1 + 1 22 − 2 × 1 4 = q 3 4

    This yields MING1(ρ) = 2(S(ρ ⊞ ρ) − S(ρ)) = 2. In this extreme case, we also findTr [ρ ⊞ ρ] → 1 2 and Tr h Uπ/4(ρ ⊗ ρ)U † π/4(ρ ⊞ ρ) ⊗ (ρ ⊟ ρ) i → 1 4, so the Frobenius measure approaches dF → q 1 + 1 22 − 2 × 1 4 = q 3 4. When |z| → ∞and 0 < γL < 1, the state ρ asymptotically...

  70. [78]

    Meanwhile, ρ ⊞ ρ asymptotically has three nonzero eigenvalues:1 2, 1 4, and 1 4, leading to Tr (ρ ⊞ ρ)2 → 1 2 2 + 2 × 1 4 2 = 3

  71. [79]

    Additionally, Tr h Uπ/4(ρ ⊗ ρ)U † π/4(ρ ⊞ ρ) ⊗ (ρ ⊟ ρ) i → 1

  72. [80]

    As a result, the Frobenius measure approachesdF → q 1 2 2 + 3 8 2 − 2 × 1 8 = 3

  73. [81]

    2(c) and Fig

    These asymptotic behaviors are illustrated in Fig. 2(c) and Fig. C(a)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.