Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Experimental investigation of single qubit quantum classifier with small number of samples

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single-qubit photonic classifier can be trained with about two photons per input, reaching 86.1% test accuracy.

desk verdict A real photon-starved training run on a silicon chip, but the single-photon claim needs source characterization and error bars before it can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04764 v1 pith:BIUFC6FD submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph

Shunsuke Abe , Shota Tateishi , Roga Wojciech , Masahiro Takeoka , Takafumi Ono This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumclassifierdatareuploadingsingle-qubitphoton-limitedsiliconphotonicsheraldedsinglephotonssequentialminimaloptimizationmachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports an experimental test of a single-qubit quantum classifier built on a silicon photonic integrated circuit, using the Data Reuploading method. Its central claim is that photon shot noise during training can be overcome by adding classical training data, so that even with an average of about two photons per input the classifier reaches nearly 90% accuracy when the training set is large. The authors back this with a measured test accuracy of 86.1% at an average of 1.6 photons per input with 200 training points, and with simulations showing the same trend. If correct, this makes resource-efficient quantum machine learning on photonic hardware more practical, since the expensive resource—single photons—can be traded for abundant classical data.

What carries the argument

The key object is the Data Reuploading circuit, where a two-mode single photon passes through alternating beam splitters and phase shifters, with the input vector re-encoded as phase shifts in each of three layers. The argument is carried by two identities: Eq. (3), which reconstructs the output probability from three phase settings $\phi=0,\pm 2\pi/3$ using a trigonometric expansion, and Eq. (5), which gives the cost-function variance as $(\Delta \bar C^{(i)})^2/(NM)$. Together they allow layer-wise training via Sequential Minimal Optimization even when the measured probabilities are noisy, and they predict that adding training points reduces that noise's effect.

What would settle it

Measure the second-order autocorrelation $g^{(2)}(0)$ of the heralded idler photon under the same pump conditions. If it comes out well above zero (for instance, not compatible with a single-photon Fock state), then the 86.1% accuracy at $M=1.6$ could be explained by multi-photon contamination rather than single-photon quantum processing, and the agreement with the single-photon model would need re-evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the variance of the estimated training cost function scales as $1/(NM)$, where $N$ is the number of training points and $M$ the number of photon samples per point, so increasing the training dataset size compensates for a scarcity of photons. The authors experimentally demonstrate this by training a three-layer Data Reuploading classifier with heralded single photons, obtaining 86.1% test accuracy with an average of $M=1.6$ detected photons per training input, and their numerical simulations reproduce the trend, indicating that larger training sets improve low-sample performance.

Load-bearing premise

The photon-starved result assumes the heralded source delivers genuine single photons, but the paper reports no measurement of the second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$, so if the source emits multi-photon events the interpretation of the $M=1.6$ result as single-photon classification would be undermined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The demonstrated trade-off implies that a photonic quantum classifier can be trained with an average of a few photons per input, as long as enough classical training examples are available.
  • Because the variance formula depends only on the product $NM$, halving the photon sample size can be compensated by doubling the training set, which is a concrete resource-allocation rule for experiments.
  • The three-phase reconstruction means the classifier's cost function can be estimated with only three fixed phase settings per layer, avoiding full state tomography and simplifying control hardware.
  • The paper's simulations indicate that accuracy degrades noticeably below about $M=10$ photon samples, and whether larger training sets can fully recover this loss is left as an open question.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the $1/(NM)$ scaling would be to measure classification accuracy across a grid of $(N,M)$ pairs on the same decision boundary; the product-law predicts that accuracy contours follow constant $NM$ curves.
  • The absence of a reported $g^{(2)}(0)$ measurement leaves open the possibility that multi-photon events contribute to the photon-starved result; verifying single-photon purity is a straightforward experimental check.
  • The same cost-function variance argument should apply to multi-qubit circuits, but shot noise in estimating multiple parameters may interact with barren-plateau effects, so the scalability of this trade-off is not established by the single-qubit demonstration.
  • A practical design rule suggested by the paper is that photon generation rate, not accuracy, becomes the bottleneck in the low-photon regime; engineering efforts could focus on increasing training data volume rather than improving source brightness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and numerical study of a single-qubit, single-photon quantum classifier based on Data Reuploading with layer-wise Sequential Minimal Optimization on a silicon photonic integrated circuit. The theoretical section derives a cost-function variance scaling of Delta C^2 = (Delta bar C)^2/(N M), predicting that increasing the number of training points N compensates for a small number M of photon samples per input. Numerical simulations with 1000 independent training trials per (N, M) condition show high accuracy at M about 2 when N is sufficiently large. The experiment uses heralded single photons from spontaneous four-wave mixing, trains with M = 1.6 and N = 200, reports a test accuracy of 86.1%, and presents an M-dependence curve that combines heralded single-photon data (M <= 20) with attenuated-laser 'pseudo-single-photon' data (M > 20). The abstract and conclusions claim that roughly 90% accuracy is achievable at about two photon samples per input when the training set is sufficiently large; in the body, the experimental support is the single 86.1% point, while the large-N route is supported by simulation only.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper would provide valuable experimental evidence that a photonic single-qubit classifier can be trained in a strongly photon-starved regime, and the 1/(N M) variance scaling in Eq. (5) is a clean, falsifiable prediction that is well tested by the extensive simulations. The numerical study is a strength: 1000 independent training trials per (N, M) condition give a solid benchmark and quantify the spread expected from shot noise. The experimental work, however, currently rests on a single un-repeated training run and on a heralded source whose single-photon character is not characterized, and the abstract overstates what was actually measured. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the experimental result can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 4(a) and accompanying text] The headline result of 86.1% accuracy at M = 1.6 with 200 training points appears to be a single training run: no standard deviation, confidence interval, or number of repeated trials is reported. Because the training procedure at M ~ 1.6 is dominated by statistical fluctuations, a single realization cannot establish the typical or expected accuracy. The authors should repeat the experiment multiple times or provide a statistical resampling analysis, and they should report error bars for the experimental points in Fig. 4(b). If the 86.1% point is a single realization, the abstract and conclusions must be toned down accordingly.
  2. [Section IV, heralded single-photon source description] The heralded SFWM source is not characterized at the single-photon level. The paper reports no g^(2)(0), no Hanbury Brown-Twiss measurement, no accidental-coincidence subtraction, and no dark-count rate for the detectors. Since Eq. (3) interprets the measured counts as single-photon probabilities and the M = 1.6 result is presented as a genuine single-photon demonstration, multi-photon events or dark counts at the 30 counts/s generation rate would bias the reconstructed coefficients A_i_j and the inferred classification accuracy. Please add a photon-number characterization of the heralded idler (e.g., g^(2)(0) of the heralded state or a coincidence-to-accidental ratio) and state explicitly how dark counts were subtracted or bounded.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions versus Sections III-IV] The statement that "even when the average number of photon samples per input was reduced to approximately two, the classifier achieved nearly 90% accuracy, provided that the training dataset was sufficiently large" conflates experiment and simulation. The experimental result is 86.1% at N = 200 and M = 1.6, and the claim that a sufficiently large training set yields roughly 90% at M about 2 is supported only by the simulations in Fig. 2(c). The abstract and conclusion should separately attribute the large-N behavior to numerical simulation and should quote the experimental number as a single experimental demonstration.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 4(b), hybrid source strategy] The data points for M > 20 are obtained with an attenuated laser source, which is a coherent state with multi-photon components rather than a single-photon Fock state. Calling this 'pseudo-single-photon' is misleading because the photon statistics differ from those of the heralded single-photon source and from the Poisson model used in the simulations. The saturation above 90% at large M is therefore not a single-photon result. This part of the comparison should be labeled as a classical-light control or removed from the single-photon experimental curve.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The derivation of the 1/(N M) variance scaling is not shown in the manuscript; please add a short derivation or an explicit pointer to the corresponding equation in Ref. [54] so that the step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) can be checked without consulting the earlier paper.
  2. [Sections III and IV, definition of M] The symbol M is used both as the mean of the Poisson distribution in the simulation (with detection probability p entering as p M) and as the 'average sample number' in the experiment. Please define whether M is per training point per phase setting or total per input across the three phase settings used in Eq. (3), and state how this quantity was estimated experimentally.
  3. [Fig. 4(a), caption] The caption states that approximately 1000 photon samples per test input were used, but it does not state how many test points were used to compute the 86.1% accuracy; please include the test-set size and, if available, the number of repetitions.
  4. [References] Reference [53] is malformed: the author list appears garbled as 'J. M. M. S. P. K. F. B. M.-P. R. Sweke, F. Wilde and J. Eisert' and should be corrected to the actual author list of the cited Quantum paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the experimental accuracy and the variance scaling law stand independently; the paper's self-citations to earlier methods are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central experimental result, 86.1% test accuracy at M=1.6 with 200 training points, is a direct measurement reported in Fig. 4(a); it is not reconstructed from a fitted model or from the paper's own equations. The theoretical variance relation, Eq. (5), is derived from the assumed Poisson sampling statistics rather than tuned to match the data, and the three-phase reconstruction in Eq. (3) is written out explicitly with its coefficient matrix, so the citation to the authors' prior work [54] is not load-bearing—the formula is self-contained in the paper. The decision-boundary parameters R=0.33 and (X1,X2)=(0.2,0.6) were chosen once in simulation and then fixed for experiment; this is a chosen experimental condition, not a fitted prediction. The agreement with numerical simulations is an empirical comparison built from the same circuit model, but the measured accuracy is not derived from that model by construction. The paper does cite the authors' earlier methodology ([48], [54]) for the Data Reuploading/SMO pipeline, but accepting those citations is not required for the derivation to stand because the protocol is specified in Sections II and IV. The absence of g^(2)(0) or photon-number statistics for the heralded source is a validation gap for the single-photon interpretation, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity, since the headline accuracy is an independent measurement. No equation in the paper reduces by definition to the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on a small number of hand-chosen task parameters (radius and center of the decision boundary, three-layer circuit) and on the assumption that both light sources behave as ideal single-photon sources. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Decision boundary radius R = 0.33
    Chosen by hand for the circular classification task; accuracy depends on this choice (Fig. 2b).
  • Decision boundary center (X1,X2) = (0.2, 0.6)
    Fixed after observing position-dependent accuracy in Fig. 2(b); the star marks the selected point, so the chosen task is favorable to the method.
  • Number of circuit layers = 3
    Fixed architecture; the paper notes three layers limit universality and introduce boundary-position dependence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Heralded SFWM source emits true single photons
    No g^(2) measurement is reported; the single-photon nature of the input is assumed for the M≤20 regime.
  • domain assumption Attenuated coherent states are equivalent to single photons for training
    Pseudo-single-photon source used for M>20 in Fig. 4(b); equivalence is asserted, not verified.
  • domain assumption Detected photon number follows Poisson statistics with mean pM
    Used in simulations (Section III) to generate measurement noise.
  • domain assumption The three-phase reconstruction formula (Eq. 3) is valid for the circuit
    Borrowed from prior work [54]; the experimental circuit must match the assumed unitary structure.
  • domain assumption Data Reuploading with three layers is expressive enough for the task
    The model is theoretically universal, but the finite-layer implementation gives accuracy that depends on boundary location (Section III).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental investigation of single qubit quantum classifier with small number of samples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIUFC6FD

@misc{pith2026250704764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental investigation of single qubit quantum classifier with small number of samples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIUFC6FD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04764}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally investigated a single-qubit quantum classifier implemented on a silicon photonic integrated circuit, focusing on its performance under photon-limited conditions. Using the Data Reuploading method with layer-wise optimization via Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), input data were encoded into the photonic circuit, and classification was performed based on output detection probabilities. Heralded single photons, generated via spontaneous four-wave mixing in a silicon waveguide, served as the input states. Even when the average number of photon samples per input was reduced to approximately two, the classifier achieved nearly 90\% accuracy, provided that the training dataset was sufficiently large. The experimental results were consistent with numerical simulations, which also indicated that performance at low sample sizes can be improved by increasing the size of the training dataset. These findings demonstrate that photonic quantum classifiers can operate effectively with very few photons, supporting their practical feasibility for resource-efficient quantum machine learning on integrated photonic platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The implementation model of a quantum classifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulation results for the quantum classifier. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental setup of the single-photon quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Classification results obtained using heralded sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allan, Language 53, 285 (1977)

    K. Allan, Language 53, 285 (1977)

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    X. Lin, Y. Rivenson, N. T. Yardimci, M. Veli, Y. Luo, M. Jarrahi, and A. Ozcan, Science 361, 1004 (2018), 1804.08711

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    S. Li, B. Ni, X. Feng, K. Cui, F. Liu, W. Zhang, and Y. Huang, Optics Express 29, 26474 (2021), 2104.02474

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G. Cong, N. Yamamoto, T. Inoue, Y. Maegami, M. Ohno, S. Kita, S. Namiki, and K. Yamada, Nature Communi- cations 13, 10.1038/s41467-022-30906-3 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30906-3 2022

  5. [5]

    Mourgias-Alexandris, M

    G. Mourgias-Alexandris, M. Moralis-Pegios, A. Tsakyridis, S. Simos, G. Dabos, A. Totovic, N. Passalis, M. Kirtas, T. Rutirawut, F. Y. Gardes, A. Tefas, and N. Pleros, Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    M. M. Ahsan, S. A. Luna, and Z. Siddique, Healthcare 10, 541 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Alizadehsani, M

    R. Alizadehsani, M. Abdar, M. Roshanzamir, A. Khos- ravi, P. M. Kebria, F. Khozeimeh, S. Nahavandi, N. Sar- rafzadegan, and U. R. Acharya, Computers in Biology and Medicine 111, 103346 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Afandizadeh, S

    S. Afandizadeh, S. Abdolahi, and H. Mirzahos- sein, Journal of Advanced Transportation 2024, 10.1155/2024/9981657 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1155/2024/9981657 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    X. Yin, G. Wu, J. Wei, Y. Shen, H. Qi, and B. Yin, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 4927 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gasparetto, M

    A. Gasparetto, M. Marcuzzo, A. Zangari, and A. Al- barelli, Information 13, 83 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Q. Li, H. Peng, J. Li, C. Xia, R. Yang, L. Sun, P. S. Yu, and L. He, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 13, 1–41 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Rebentrost, M

    P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. 6 Lett. 113, 130503 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Stokes, J

    J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum 4, 269 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Blank, D

    C. Blank, D. K. Park, J.-K. K. Rhee, and F. Petruccione, npj Quantum Information 6, 10.1038/s41534-020-0272-6 (2020)

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Schuld, A

    M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032308 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    LaRose and B

    R. LaRose and B. Coyle, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032420 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    X. Xu, J. Sun, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Science Bulletin 66, 2181–2188 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    D. Dong, C. Chen, H. Li, and T. J. Tarn, IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cy- bernetics 38, 1207 (2008), 0810.3828

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X.-D. Cai, D. Wu, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, X.-L. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110504 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, Commu- nications of the ACM 60, 84 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    F¨ osel, P

    T. F¨ osel, P. Tighineanu, T. Weiss, and F. Marquardt, Physical Review X 8, 10.1103/physrevx.8.031084 (2018)

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Killoran, T

    N. Killoran, T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, M. Schuld, N. Quesada, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033063 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Benedetti, E

    M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fioren- tini, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 10.1088/2058- 9565/ab4eb5 (2019), 1906.07682

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Y.-c. Chen, (2020), arXiv:2011.14651v1

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mangini, F

    S. Mangini, F. Tacchino, D. Gerace, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bajoni, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 1, 045008 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Y. Liu, S. Arunachalam, and K. Temme, Nature Physics 17, 1013–1017 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Luo, Z. Wen, Q. Feng, S. Pang, W. Luo, and X. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130503 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and A. Sohbi, Quantum 5, 496 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Bartkiewicz, P

    K. Bartkiewicz, P. Tulewicz, J. Roik, and K. Lemr, Sci- entific Reports 13, 10.1038/s41598-023-40137-1 (2023)

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Nakaji, S

    K. Nakaji, S. Uno, Y. Suzuki, R. Raymond, T. Onodera, T. Tanaka, H. Tezuka, N. Mitsuda, and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023136 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    P. Sen, A. S. Bhatia, K. S. Bhangu, and A. Elbeltagi, PLOS ONE 17, e0262346 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cimini, M

    V. Cimini, M. Valeri, E. Polino, S. Piacentini, F. Cecca- relli, G. Corrielli, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Scia- rrino, Advanced Photonics 5, 10.1117/1.ap.5.1.016005 (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Bowie, S

    C. Bowie, S. Shrapnel, and M. J. Kewming, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015001 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    M. Shin, J. Lee, and K. Jeong, Quantum Information Processing 23, 10.1007/s11128-023-04253-1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Mandilara, B

    A. Mandilara, B. Dellen, U. Jaekel, T. Valtinos, and D. Syvridis, Quantum Machine Intelligence 6, 10.1007/s42484-024-00146-3 (2024)

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Roncallo, A

    S. Roncallo, A. R. Morgillo, C. Macchiavello, L. Mac- cone, and S. Lloyd, Communications Physics 8, 10.1038/s42005-025-02020-5 (2025)

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Johri, S

    S. Johri, S. Debnath, A. Mocherla, A. SINGK, A. Prakash, J. Kim, and I. Kerenidis, npj Quantum In- formation 7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00456-5 (2021)

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    I. V. Zalivako, A. I. Gircha, E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Niko- laeva, D. A. Drozhzhin, A. S. Borisenko, A. E. Korolkov, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, P. A. Kamenskikh, V. N. Smirnov, M. A. Aksenov, P. L. Sidorov, K. Y. Khabarova, A. K. Fedorov, N. N. Kolachevsky, and I. A. Semerik...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Bartkiewicz, C

    K. Bartkiewicz, C. Gneiting, A. ˇCernoch, K. Jir´ akov´ a, K. Lemr, and F. Nori, Scientific Reports 10, 10.1038/s41598-020-68911-5 (2020)

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    K. Wang, L. Xiao, W. Yi, S.-J. Ran, and P. Xue, Photon. Res. 9, 2332 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 567, 209–212 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Pechal, F

    M. Pechal, F. Roy, S. A. Wilkinson, G. Salis, M. Wern- inghaus, M. J. Hartmann, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033190 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    P´ erez-Salinas, A

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum 4, 226 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Dutta, A

    T. Dutta, A. P´ erez-Salinas, J. P. S. Cheng, J. I. Latorre, and M. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012411 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    T. Ono, W. Roga, K. Wakui, M. Fujiwara, S. Miki, H. Terai, and M. Takeoka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 013601 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y. Zuo, B. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Jiang, Y.-C. Chen, P. Chen, G.-B. Jo, J. Liu, and S. Du, Optica 6, 1132 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics 15, 1273–1278 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    X. Sui, Q. Wu, J. I. A. Liu, Q. Chen, and G. Gu, IEEE Access 8, 70773 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Jerbi, C

    S. Jerbi, C. Gyurik, S. C. Marshall, H. J. Briegel, and V. Dunjko, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 28362 (2021), 2103.05577

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. M. M. S. P. K. F. B. M.-P. R. Sweke, F. Wilde and J. Eisert, Quantum 4, 314

  46. [54]

    W. Roga, T. Ono, and M. Takeoka, A VS Quantum Sci- ence 5, 10.1116/5.0148369 (2023)

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    K. M. Nakanishi, K. Fujii, and S. Todo, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043158 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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