Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 77 references

Engineering Schr\"odinger cat states with a photonic even-parity detector

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A photon-pair coincidence on a balanced beam splitter projects light onto even-photon-number states, and with a coherent control state this heralds Schrödinger cat states whose fidelity approaches unity as the cat grows.

desk verdict A clean, honest method paper: the even-parity detector based on time-reversed Holland-Burnett interference is genuinely new, the two-component cat scheme is insensitive to finite squeezing, and the main caveats are stated in the paper itself. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10314 v3 pith:BPOZG4QN submitted 2019-08-27 quant-ph

G. S. Thekkadath , B. A. Bell , I. A. Walmsley , A. I. Lvovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Dv42.50.Ar03.65.Ta
keywords Schrödingercatstateseven-paritydetectionHolland-Burnettstatephoton-number-resolvingtwo-modesqueezedvacuumheraldedengineeringbeamsplitterinterferencefour-component
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 proposes a measurement device, the 'even-parity detector,' built from one balanced beam splitter and two photon-number-resolving detectors. When the detectors record the same photon number $n$ in both output ports, the input mode is projected onto a state $|\chi\rangle$ that contains only even photon-number components, with the amplitudes of those components set by an ancillary control state. Sending one mode of a two-mode squeezed vacuum through the device remotely prepares the other mode in an even-parity state; with a coherent control state this is approximately the Schrödinger cat $(|\beta\rangle + |-\beta\rangle)$, and the fidelity with the ideal cat tends to unity as the cat grows. The same detector can be concatenated to make four-component cats and, in principle, other parity-symmetric states. The scheme matters because it generates non-classical optical states with linear optics and photon counting, without the strong nonlinearities usually needed for such states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Holland-Burnett interference effect: when $|n,n\rangle$ enters a balanced beam splitter, the output state $\hat{U}|n,n\rangle$ contains only even photon numbers in both modes. The matrix elements $A_{j,n}$ of this state (Eq. 4) govern how the control state is reshaped by the detection, and Stirling's approximation shows they are nearly constant over a window of width $\sim\sqrt{n}$ around $j=n$. That flatness, together with the approximate symmetry of a coherent state's photon-number distribution about $n$, is what turns 'delete the odd terms' into 'symmetrize the control state into a cat.' The same effect, iterated with a displacement between stages, produces four-component cats.

What would settle it

Measure the heralded state by quantum state tomography after the $(n,n)$ outcome for a range of cat sizes $|\beta|^2\approx n$ with the control amplitude $\alpha=\beta/\lambda$, using detectors whose efficiency is independently characterized, and compare the reconstructed fidelity with Eq. (9) and Fig. 4(a). If the fidelity does not approach unity as $n$ grows after correcting for the known detection-efficiency model of Eq. (14), the central claim fails; in particular, the predicted dip for small $n$ should be visible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the core of the paper is the projection rule $|\chi\rangle = \langle \varphi|\hat{U}^\dagger|n,n\rangle$: conditioning on the outcome $(n,n)$ at the output of a balanced beam splitter realizes the projector $|\chi\rangle\langle\chi|$ on the second input, where $|\chi\rangle$ has only even photon numbers. The coefficients in $|\chi\rangle$ are the product of the control-state amplitudes $c_{2n-j}$ and the Holland-Burnett matrix elements $A_{j,n}=\langle j,2n-j|\hat{U}|n,n\rangle$, which are almost flat in $j$ near $j=n$. Consequently, when the control is a coherent state $|\beta\rangle$, the projected state is the coherent state with all odd photon-number terms removed, which is approximately $(|\beta\rangle+|-\beta\rangle)$. Using a two-mode squeezed vacuum as the entangled resource, the paper shows the heralded state $|\psi_{\rm cat}\rangle$ has fidelity with the ideal cat that asymptotically reaches unity as the cat size $|\beta|^2$ grows, and the same reasoning extends by concatenation to four-component cats.

Load-bearing premise

The preparation works as an ideal cat only because the Holland-Burnett coefficients are treated as constant over the photon-number window where the control state has weight, and the control distribution is treated as symmetric about the detected number $n$; both conditions are only asymptotically exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As the cat size $|\beta|^2$ grows, the heralded two-component cat approaches the ideal state $|{\rm cat}_\beta\rangle$ with fidelity tending to 1 (Eq. 9 and Fig. 4a).
  • The success probability of the heralding event scales roughly as $|\beta|^{-5/2}$, so larger cats come at a higher post-selection cost.
  • Four-component cat states, the logical states of the 'cat code,' can be produced by concatenating two even-parity detectors with a displacement, with fidelity again tending to 1 as the cat grows under ideal detection.
  • With realistic photon-number-resolving detectors (about 20 detected photons at greater than 95% efficiency), cats large enough to show Wigner-function negativity are within experimental reach at projected heralding rates around 100 Hz for $|\beta|^2=20$ with 13 dB of squeezing.
  • Using squeezed coherent control states extends the same method to squeezed cats and, in principle, to Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same projection rule can be read as a generalized non-Gaussian 'parity filter' that does not require an initial non-Gaussian resource; any entanglement structure with photon-number correlations could feed it, not only two-mode squeezing.
  • Beyond the paper: because the control state's amplitudes are programmable, the detector is effectively a recipe for a broad class of even-parity states; one testable extension is to use squeezed or Fock-state superpositions as controls to target states other than cats, such as approximate GKP grid states.
  • Beyond the paper: the scheme's sensitivity to detection inefficiency, which scales as $(1-\eta)n\gtrsim1$, suggests that the practical bottleneck is the dynamic range of the detectors rather than the squeezing; increasing that range at fixed efficiency would directly extend the accessible cat size.
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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an even-parity detector based on post-selecting the (n,n) detection outcome at the output of a balanced beam splitter, which realizes a projection onto an even-parity state |χ⟩ determined by an ancillary control state. By applying this detector to one mode of a two-mode squeezed vacuum, the other mode is heralded in an even-parity state |ψ⟩ (Eq. 7). With a coherent control state of appropriately chosen amplitude, this state approximates the two-component Schrödinger cat state with fidelity approaching unity as the cat size grows (Eq. 9, Fig. 4). The authors also analyze the effects of detector inefficiency via a derived POVM, extend the scheme to four-component cat states by concatenating two detectors, and discuss experimental feasibility.

Significance. The scheme is interesting because it uses Gaussian resources (two-mode squeezing and a coherent state) together with a non-Gaussian measurement (photon-number-resolving detection) to produce non-Gaussian states, complementing earlier schemes that require non-Gaussian input states and Gaussian measurements. The central projection formula and the loss POVM are derived carefully, the fidelity calculations are explicit, and the paper provides concrete numbers for experimental parameters (squeezing levels, detector efficiencies, rates). The proposed extension to four-component cat states, which are relevant for quantum error correction, is a valuable addition. The paper is transparent about the asymptotic nature of the fidelity and the finite-squeezing limitation for four-component cats.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The statement that the success probability scales as pr(n,n) ~ |β|^{-5/2} is made without derivation; please either provide an analytic argument or state explicitly that this is a numerical observation, since the scaling is used to claim a fundamental limit on the success rate.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The text says "there is no preparation scheme in the optical domain" but immediately cites Ref. [69] as a deterministic scheme; please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction, e.g., "apart from a recently proposed deterministic scheme [69]".
  3. [Fig. 4(a)] The red dashed line showing pr(n,n) appears to be plotted on a different scale from the fidelity; the caption should state the scale or indicate that two vertical axes are used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against external ideal cat states.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is internally consistent and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The even-parity detector is defined by the Born-rule projector |chi> = <phi|U^dag|n,n> (Eq. 3), with the Holland-Burnett matrix elements A_{j,n} taken from the independently established beam-splitter literature (Ref. [61] and the Campos-Saleh-Teich paper, Ref. [63]). The heralded state |psi> = <chi|Psi> (Eq. 7) follows from direct overlap of that projector with the two-mode squeezed vacuum, and the choice alpha = beta*lambda is explicitly constructed so that the lambda^j factor cancels exactly, leaving the beta-dependent superposition (Eq. 8). The central claim is then evaluated by fidelity against the ideal external target |cat_beta> = N(|beta> + |-beta>), not against any quantity fitted from the scheme itself; the closed-form fidelity in Eq. (9) is a genuine overlap of the heralded state with that independent benchmark. The numerical optimization of alpha and n for small cats is a finite-size improvement over the analytic choice, not a fit of the claimed prediction. The finite-squeezing limitation for four-component cats (12-13 dB) is explicitly stated and acknowledged, and the success-probability scaling pr ~ |beta|^{-5/2} is presented as a numerical finding that affects rate, not the state-fidelity claim. Self-citations that appear (e.g., Refs. [26] and [74]) are contextual comparisons or practical feasibility remarks and are not load-bearing for the derivation. No ansatz is smuggled in through self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The conclusion that the scheme prepares states approaching the ideal even cat with high fidelity is therefore an independent, externally benchmarked result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All ingredients are standard quantum optics resources: balanced beam splitters, Fock states, coherent states, two-mode squeezed vacuum, and photon-number-resolving detection. No new physical entities are posited. The listed parameters are control and resource choices that set the target cat size and success probability, not hidden fits to external data.

free parameters (3)
  • Control coherent amplitude α = chosen based on target β and squeezing λ; numerically optimized for small cat sizes
    The output fidelity depends on matching the control state to the target cat; this is a user-chosen experimental setting, not a fit to external data.
  • Post-selected photon number n = closest integer to |β|²
    The detection outcome n centers the Holland-Burnett coefficients on the control photon-number distribution; fidelity is maximized at n ≈ |β|².
  • Squeezing parameter λ = optimized to maximize heralding probability (up to about 15 dB for |β|² = 50)
    λ controls the success probability and the ability to compensate finite squeezing; the paper reports an optimal λ for each cat size.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The balanced beam splitter is a unitary transformation Û, and the Fock-state matrix element A_{j,n} is given by Eq. (4).
    Standard quantum optics of beam splitters; Ref. [61] is cited for the beam splitter operator.
  • domain assumption Photon-number-resolving detectors project onto Fock states |n,n⟩ in the ideal case; loss is modeled with a Bernoulli transformation (Eqs. 13-14).
    Assumed detector model; state-of-the-art TES detectors are cited for efficiency and dynamic range.
  • domain assumption The entangled resource is a two-mode squeezed vacuum of the form Eq. (6) with real positive λ.
    Standard output of spontaneous parametric down-conversion; the paper notes modal purity and thermal noise as practical imperfections.
  • domain assumption The control state is a pure coherent state, whose photon-number distribution is centered and localized on the flat portion of A_{j,n}.
    The cat-state result depends on the Poisson statistics of a coherent state and its approximate symmetry about the mean.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering Schr\"odinger cat states with a photonic even-parity detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPOZG4QN

@misc{pith2026190810314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering Schr\"odinger cat states with a photonic even-parity detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPOZG4QN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10314}
}
read the original abstract

When two equal photon-number states are combined on a balanced beam splitter, both output ports of the beam splitter contain only even numbers of photons. Consider the time-reversal of this interference phenomenon: the probability that a pair of photon-number-resolving detectors at the output ports of a beam splitter both detect the same number of photons depends on the overlap between the input state of the beam splitter and a state containing only even photon numbers. Here, we propose using this even-parity detection to engineer quantum states containing only even photon-number terms. As an example, we demonstrate the ability to prepare superpositions of two coherent states with opposite amplitudes, i.e. two-component Schr\"odinger cat states. Our scheme can prepare cat states of arbitrary size with nearly perfect fidelity. Moreover, we investigate engineering more complex even-parity states such as four-component cat states by iteratively applying our even-parity detector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10314 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The even-parity detector. (a) Conditioned on ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Even-parity state engineering. The even-parity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Two-component cat states. (a) The fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four-component cat states. (a) We concatenate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Photonics: Scientific Foundations, Technology and Applications 1, 121 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Schr¨ odinger, Naturwissenschaften 23, 823 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Naturwissenschaften 23, 823 (1935)

    work page 1935

  6. [6]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993)

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986)

    1986

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    C. K. Law and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1055 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    C. C. Gerry, A. Benmoussa, and R. A. Campos, Phys. Rev. A 72, 053818 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, S. Daiss, A. Shaukat, S. Rit- ter, L. Li, and G. Rempe, Nat. Photonics 13, 110 (2019). Accepted in Quantum 2020-02-24, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 6

    2019

  4. [12]

    A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 250401 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Zavatta, S

    A. Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, Science 306, 660 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, R

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A 72, 033822 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Bimbard, N

    E. Bimbard, N. Jain, A. MacRae, and A. Lvovsky, Nat. Photonics 4, 243 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Sperling, W

    J. Sperling, W. Vogel, and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 89, 043829 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Glancy and H

    S. Glancy and H. M. de Vasconcelos, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 712 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Dakna, T

    M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrn´ y, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3184 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Het- tich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 083604 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Science 312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    Ourjoumtsev, H

    A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Nature 448, 784 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Wakui, H

    K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Opt. Express 15, 3568 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Marek, H

    P. Marek, H. Jeong, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 78, 063811 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Takahashi, K

    H. Takahashi, K. Wakui, S. Suzuki, M. Takeoka, K. Hayasaka, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 233605 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Le Jeannic, J. Ruaudel, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, Y.-C. Jeong, R. Filip, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 023602 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    D. V. Sychev, A. E. Ulanov, A. A. Pushkina, M. W. Richards, I. A. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Nat. Photonics 11, 379 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Etesse, M

    J. Etesse, M. Bouillard, B. Kanseri, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 193602 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Opt. Express 16, 3032 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Karimi, Int

    A. Karimi, Int. J. Quantum Inf 16, 1850003 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Quesada, L

    N. Quesada, L. G. Helt, J. Izaac, J. M. Arra- zola, R. Shahrokhshahi, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022341 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, arXiv:1902.02331

    1902 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052301 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Gerrits, S

    T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T. S. Clement, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, A. L. Migdall, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. A 82, 031802 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    K. T. McCusker and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 163602 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    T. J. Bartley, G. Donati, J. B. Spring, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043820 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    R. J. Birrittella, M. El Baz, and C. C. Gerry, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 35, 1514 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Eaton, R

    M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, New J. Phys. 21, 113034 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Schleich, M

    W. Schleich, M. Pernigo, and F. L. Kien, Phys. Rev. A 44, 2172 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6811 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Wenger, M

    J. Wenger, M. Hafezi, F. Grosshans, R. Tualle- Brouri, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012105 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Jeong, W

    H. Jeong, W. Son, M. S. Kim, D. Ahn, and C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012106 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Stobi´ nska, H

    M. Stobi´ nska, H. Jeong, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 75, 052105 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Haroche, Rev

    S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1083 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    D. J. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1103 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Vlastakis, A

    B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, N. Ofek, L. Sun, Z. Leghtas, K. Sliwa, Y. Liu, M. Hatridge, J. Blu- moff, L. Frunzio, et al. , Nat. Commun. 6, 8970 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, P. Reinhold, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Chou, C. Axline, M. Reagor, J. Blu- moff, K. Sliwa, et al. , Science 352, 1087 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    S. J. van Enk and O. Hirota, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022313 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Jeong, M

    H. Jeong, M. S. Kim, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052308 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042319 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Gilchrist, K

    A. Gilchrist, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, T. C. Ralph, S. Glancy, S. L. Braunstein, and G. J. Milburn, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 6, S828 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    A. P. Lund, T. C. Ralph, and H. L. Haselgrove, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030503 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science 342, 607 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. Girvin, L. Jiang, et al. , Nature 536, 441 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Leghtas, G

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New J. Phys. 16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, R. T. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, S. M. Girvin, B. M. Terhal, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032346 (2018). Accepted in Quantum 2020-02-24, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 7

    2018

  49. [57]

    W. H. Zurek, Nature 412, 712 (2001)

    2001

  50. [58]

    G. S. Agarwal and P. K. Pathak, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053813 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    D. A. Dalvit, R. de Matos Filho, and F. Toscano, New J. Phys. 8, 276 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    U. Roy, S. Ghosh, P. K. Panigrahi, and D. Vitali, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052115 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  54. [62]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  55. [63]

    R. A. Campos, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1371 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Com- put. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, T. Gerrits, T. Hiemstra, A. E. Lita, J. Nunn, S. W. Nam, A. Datta, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walm- sley, New J. Phys. 17, 103044 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, J. Opt. B: Quan- tum Semiclass. Opt. 6, 396 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    L. A. Howard, T. J. Weinhold, F. Shahandeh, J. Combes, M. R. Vanner, A. G. White, and M. Ringbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 020402 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Ringbauer, T

    M. Ringbauer, T. J. Weinhold, L. Howard, A. White, and M. Vanner, New J. Phys. 20, 053042 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Hastrup, J

    J. Hastrup, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Opt. Lett. 45, 640 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Y. Eto, A. Koshio, A. Ohshiro, J. Sakurai, K. Horie, T. Hirano, and M. Sasaki, Opt. Lett. 36, 4653 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Harder, T

    G. Harder, T. J. Bartley, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 143601 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Eberle, V

    T. Eberle, V. H¨ andchen, and R. Schnabel, Opt. Express 21, 11546 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110801 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    G. S. Thekkadath, D. S. Phillips, J. F. F. Bul- mer, W. R. Clements, A. Eckstein, B. A. Bell, J. Lugani, T. A. W. Wolterink, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, C. G. Wade, and I. A. Walm- sley, arXiv:1908.04765

    1908 arXiv

  67. [75]

    H. M. Vasconcelos, L. Sanz, and S. Glancy, Opt. Lett. 35, 3261 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, arXiv:1901.08071

    1901 arXiv

  69. [77]

    T. Kiss, U. Herzog, and U. Leonhardt, Phys. Rev. A 52, 2433 (1995). Accepted in Quantum 2020-02-24, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 8

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.