Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 87 references

Finite-dimensional boson sampling needs only near-optimal modes once leakage norms concentrate at √n.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Bunching leakage for finite-d Lie-algebraic boson sampling concentrates at Õ(√n), tightening modes from Ω(n⁴) to Õ(n^{1+2/(d-1)}), with d=3 matching the collision-free threshold.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-14 challenge →

load-bearing objection Unconditional Gaussian Õ(√n) leakage bound and d-dependent mode law that nearly settles the Peropadre conjecture; Haar transfer still rests on an open genus-ordering conjecture checked only at leading order. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11708 v1 pith:JSFTO7GG submitted 2026-07-13 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Near-Optimal Mode Scaling for Finite-Dimensional Boson Sampling via Lie-Algebraic Leakage Bounds

Chon-Fai Kam , En-Jui Kuo This is my paper
classification quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords boson samplingfinite-dimensional modesleakage boundsmatrix concentrationimmanantsLie-algebraic samplingmode scalingHaar ensemble
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Boson sampling is hard because output probabilities are matrix permanents, but building it with cold atoms, ions, or superconducting cavities forces each mode into a finite local dimension d. That truncation opens a leakage channel: too many particles can bunch on one site and leave the physical subspace. This paper unifies boson, fermion, and spin samplers as non-interacting evolution on Lie-group representations, where amplitudes become immanants (permanents in the bosonic case). It then shows that the operator driving the leakage, previously bounded by a worst-case O(n), concentrates at Õ(√n) for random couplings. The resulting mode count drops from m=Ω(n^4) to m=Õ(n^{1+2/(d-1)}). At d=3 the requirement meets the collision-free floor m~Õ(n^{2}), so no extra spatial overhead is needed beyond ordinary dilution. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a concrete resource law telling experimentalists how many modes they must buy to keep a matter-based sampler inside the hard permanent regime.

Core claim

In a Gaussian model of the single-particle couplings, the spectral norm of the bunching-leakage operator concentrates at Õ(√n) rather than the prior worst-case O(n). Combined with the birthday-paradox collision amplitude, this yields the mode-scaling law m=Õ(n^{1+2/(d-1)}) that keeps total-variation distance to ideal boson sampling below any fixed δ. The same law holds for physical Haar generators once a single Haar-to-Gaussian comparison (Conjecture 1) is granted; numerics match the sharp form √[d(n-d+1)] to sub-percent accuracy.

What carries the argument

Dyson-series leakage bound via operator decomposition: the correlated many-body map QH_Lie P is written as a sum of deterministic combinatorial matrices weighted by independent Gaussians, so non-commutative matrix concentration applies and the variance statistic is O(m) rather than O(n^{2}).

Load-bearing premise

The transfer from the proved Gaussian model to the physical Haar unitary rests on an unproved comparison that the projectors and local operators do not spoil the topological power counting of the Weingarten remainder for all distances.

What would settle it

Exact construction of the leakage operator for larger n (say n=12–20) under Haar unitaries: if the measured median norm systematically exceeds √[d(n-d+1)] by more than a few percent, or fails to track √n, the claimed concentration and the resulting mode law are false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper places finite-dimensional boson, fermion, and spin sampling in a unified Lie-algebraic framework where transition amplitudes are immanants of single-particle submatrices (permanents in the bosonic case). It analyzes bunching leakage out of the local truncation of dimension d via a Dyson expansion of the state deviation, decomposes the correlated leakage operator QH_Lie P into deterministic combinatorial matrices weighted by independent Gaussians, and applies non-commutative matrix concentration (after Paulsen dilation) to prove that, in the Gaussian model A_vu = Z_vu/√m, ∥QH_Lie P∥ concentrates at Õ(√n) rather than the O(n) worst-case bound of prior spin-based work. Combined with a birthday-paradox collision amplitude this yields the mode-scaling law m = Õ(n^{1+2/(d−1)}) for total-variation error ≤ δ (Theorem 1/2). Transfer to the physical Haar ensemble is reduced to a single structural input (Conjecture 1 on decorated Weingarten genus ordering), verified only at leading order. Exact numerics for d=2–5 show the Haar norm matching √[d(n−d+1)] to sub-percent accuracy. Platform implications under the τ=O(1) non-local-connectivity premise are discussed.

Significance. If the Gaussian concentration and the resulting mode law hold as stated, the work substantially improves the resource estimate for deterministic matter-based emulations of boson sampling, resolving (in the Gaussian model, and conditionally for Haar) the long-standing Peropadre et al. conjecture and identifying d=3 as the point where the truncation floor meets the collision-free threshold m∼n². Strengths that should be credited: (i) a clean operator decomposition that restores applicability of matrix concentration despite strong entry correlations; (ii) a fully proved Hermitian reduction (Lemma 3); (iii) explicit isolation of the single analytical gap (Conjecture 1) rather than burying it; (iv) reproducible, seed-deterministic numerics with sparse-vs-brute-force validation (Table II) and a sharp-constant conjecture √[d(n−d+1)] that is falsifiable; (v) honest scope limits (unitary family only; hardness inherited, not re-proved). The result is of clear interest for analog quantum simulation and quantum-advantage hardware design.

major comments (3)
  1. Theorem 1 and Lemma 4 make the physical (Haar) mode law conditional on Conjecture 1 (App. B): that projectors P,Q and the local M_vu preserve the uniform Weingarten power counting L_Γ(σ,π) ≤ L_0 − |π| + 2g for all distances ℓ, so the off-diagonal remainder is O(k⁴/m²) at the operating order k∼n log m. Only |π|≤2 is verified; the same n/m loop heterogeneity already visible in the variance asymmetry of Lemmas 1–2 (∥V_row∥=O(n²) vs ∥V_col∥=O(m)) is left open for higher ℓ. This is load-bearing for the claim that recovers the physical conjecture of Ref. [14]. Either a fuller proof (or a controlled counterexample) of Conjecture 1, or a restructuring that makes the unconditional Gaussian theorem the primary result and the Haar statement clearly secondary, is needed before the physical mode law can be stated at the strength of the abstract and title.
  2. Section III F and Eq. (31): the sub-percent match of the Haar-ensemble norm to √[d(n−d+1)] is strong evidence that ∥QH_Lie P∥_Haar = Θ(√n), but it does not constitute numerical support for Conjecture 1. Conjecture 1 concerns high-moment Weingarten remainders at order k∼n log m, not the spectral norm itself. The manuscript should state explicitly that the numerics corroborate the concentration scale for Haar while leaving the moment-comparison input untested, and ideally add a small-k numerical check of the Haar-vs-Gaussian moment ratio (or of R/E_Gauss) at accessible (n,m) to give direct evidence on the remainder.
  3. Section III A–D, Eqs. (11)–(12) and (26): the total-variation bound multiplies the operator-norm concentration by a birthday-paradox collision amplitude that is itself only high-probability over the coupling ensemble. The text notes a union bound and that the failure probability remains e^{−Ω(n)}, but the composition of constants, the precise event on which both hold simultaneously, and the dependence of c_{d,δ} on that union are not written out. A short lemma stating the joint high-probability event and the resulting explicit (or asymptotic) form of c_{d,δ} would make Theorem 1 fully self-contained.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table I: the prior spin-S row cites m=Ω(n^{1+3/(2S)}); the Lie-algebraic row improves the exponent via concentration. A one-line note that the improvement is n^{1/2} in the operator norm (worst-case O(n) → Õ(√n)) would help readers map the table to Theorem 2.
  2. Figure 2 caption and panel (b): open markers for sub-dilute points are explained, but the fitted slopes [0.55]–[0.68] in the legend would be clearer if the fitting window (e.g. 3≤n≤8) were stated in the caption rather than only in the main text.
  3. Eq. (5) and the paragraph on W(k,Λ): the structure constant c is introduced without a uniform convention across su(2) and higher-rank cases; a short table of (c,Λ,d) for the representations used later would reduce ambiguity.
  4. Appendix B, Eq. (B17): the cosh series bound is standard, but the absolute constant C absorbing Möbius and operator factors is never estimated. Even a crude C=O(1) or C=poly(d) statement would clarify the regime m≫k².
  5. Data availability: the Zenodo DOI is still a placeholder (“to be inserted”). Please supply the actual DOI or repository link before acceptance.
  6. Typographical: “ann-photon” / “ann-fold” spacing glitches appear in the Introduction and Sec. III (likely from line breaks around n); also “dimen-sion” hyphenation in III C. Minor copy-edit pass recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Gaussian concentration is an independent matrix-concentration argument; hardness is inherited from AA; Haar transfer is openly conditional on Conjecture 1; numerics do not feed the main theorem.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) decompose the correlated leakage operator as X=∑ Z_vu M_vu with independent Gaussians (Eq. 13); (ii) bound the matrix variance by combinatorial counting, σ²_X=O(m) (Lemmas 1–2); (iii) apply an external non-commutative Gaussian tail bound to get ∥X∥=O(√(m n log m)), hence ∥QH_Lie P∥=Õ(√n) after rescaling (Theorem 2); (iv) multiply by the independent birthday-paradox collision amplitude and constant τ to obtain the mode law (Theorem 1). None of these steps is defined in terms of its conclusion. Hardness is explicitly inherited from Aaronson–Arkhipov permanents, not re-derived. Self-citations to the authors’ prior generalized-boson/spin-S papers supply the framework and a standard combinatorial birthday amplitude; that amplitude is also stated independently in the text and does not include the √n concentration target, so it is ordinary prior-work input rather than a circular load-bearing premise. The sharp form √[d(n−d+1)] is a numerical observation recorded as a conjecture and is not used to prove Theorem 1 or 2. Conjecture 1 (Haar-to-Gaussian genus ordering) is flagged as an open gap verified only at leading order; that is incompleteness, not circularity. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external matrix-concentration and Weingarten machinery, with no prediction forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard matrix concentration and representation theory plus one paper-specific structural conjecture for Haar transfer; free constants are only the usual δ-dependent prefactors and the O(1) evolution-time premise. No new physical particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • c_d, c_{d,δ}
    Unspecified absolute constants in Theorem 1 that absorb representation weights γ_g and the δ^{-2/(d-1)} factor; not fitted to data but left existential.
  • τ = O(1) evolution time
    Assumed constant algorithmic time independent of system size; becomes a free geometric parameter once local connectivity forces τ_phys ~ diameter.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Non-commutative matrix Gaussian concentration (Tropp) applies to the dilated independent-sum form of the leakage operator.
    Used in §III C to convert σ_X² = O(m) and log D = O(n log m) into the Õ(√n) threshold.
  • standard math Weingarten expansion and genus power counting for unitary moments.
    Appendix B; standard for Haar integrals of degree 2k.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture 1: decorated genus ordering L_Γ(σ,π) ≤ L_0 − |π| + 2g for projector-constrained M_vu.
    Sole unproved structural input for Haar transfer; only |π|≤2 checked.
  • domain assumption #P-hardness of the permanent and AA average-case / PH-collapse conjectures.
    Inherited hardness; paper does not re-prove complexity.
  • domain assumption Generalized birthday-paradox bound on single-bunch amplitude ∥P|ϵ⟩∥ = O(n^{d/2}/m^{(d-1)/2}).
    Taken from prior spin-S work; high-probability over the ensemble.
  • domain assumption Single-particle matrix can be scrambled in time independent of m (non-local connectivity).
    §IV; required for τ=O(1) in the error product.

reviewed 2026-07-14 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-Optimal Mode Scaling for Finite-Dimensional Boson Sampling via Lie-Algebraic Leakage Bounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSFTO7GG

@misc{pith2026260711708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-Optimal Mode Scaling for Finite-Dimensional Boson Sampling via Lie-Algebraic Leakage Bounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSFTO7GG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11708}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Boson sampling demonstrates quantum advantage through the interference of indistinguishable particles, with output probabilities governed by matrix permanents. Realizing it on deterministic, matter-based platforms requires encoding the bosonic modes in finite-dimensional local Hilbert spaces, which introduces a leakage channel absent in linear optics: multi-particle bunching beyond the local truncation $d$. We develop a unified framework for non-interacting sampling on the irreducible representations of compact Lie groups, in which the transition amplitude is the immanant of a submatrix of the single-particle transition matrix, recovering the permanent in the bosonic case. Within this framework we bound the bunching leakage through a Dyson-series analysis: decomposing the correlated many-body leakage operator into independent random matrices and applying non-commutative concentration inequalities, we prove, in a Gaussian model of the transition matrix, that its spectral norm concentrates at $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ rather than the $O(n)$ worst-case of prior spin-based emulations; the passage to the physical Haar ensemble is reduced to a single submatrix-comparison input, verified at leading order. Exact numerics across local dimensions $d=2$--$5$ indicate that the bound is tight, the Haar-ensemble norm matching the closed form $\sqrt{d(n-d+1)}$ to sub-percent accuracy. This tightens the required mode number from $m=\Omega(n^4)$ to the near-optimal $m=\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1+2/(d-1)})$; for a spin-1 representation ($d=3$) the overhead falls to $m=\tilde{\Omega}(n^2)$, matching the collision-free threshold. The result is independent of particle statistics and applies across finite-dimensional Lie-symmetric architectures, quantifying the spatial resources needed to preserve sampling hardness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11708 by Chon-Fai Kam, En-Jui Kuo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sketch of the proof of Theorem 2: the bunching-leakage mechanism and the variance asymmetry behind it. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical verification of the leakage bound. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The unsymmetrized N-particle space isV ⊗N

    Tensor action of the algebra Letgbe a compact Lie algebra andV C M its defining module, on whichH∈gacts asπ def(H). The unsymmetrized N-particle space isV ⊗N. On a tensor product the algebra acts through the primitive coproduct, i.e. as a derivation distribut- ing over the factors, π⊗N(H)= NX k=1 H(k),H (k) =I⊗· · ·⊗π def(H)| {z } k-th slot ⊗ · · ·⊗I.(A1)...

  2. [2]

    Exponentiation to a tensor power Because the summands in Eq. (A1) commute, the exponen- tial factorizes, ˆUfull(t)=exp −iπ ⊗N(H)t = NY k=1 exp −i H (k)t .(A2) Each factor is the identity on every slot but thek-th, where it equals the single-particle propagatorU=exp[−iπ def(H)t], anM×Mmatrix. The product is therefore the tensor power ˆUfull(t)=U⊗U⊗ · · · ⊗...

  3. [3]

    Schur–Weyl projection and the amplitude (unitary family) Physical states occupy a symmetry subspace fixed by the exchange statistics. For the unitary familyG=U(M), the commutant ofU ⊗N onV ⊗N is the group algebraC[S N] acting by slot permutations ˆPσ, and [U⊗N , ˆPσ]=0,∀σ∈S N,(A4) soV ⊗N = L λ⊢N, ℓ(λ)≤M Sλ ⊗W λ, withS λ the Specht module (dimd λ) andW λ t...

  4. [4]

    non- interacting amplitude=immanant of anN×Nsubmatrix

    Scope: other classical families The reduction (A4)–(A6) is specific toG=U(M), where the commutant ofU ⊗N isC[S N]. For the orthogonal and sym- plectic families the relevant module is not the fullV ⊗N but its trace-free part, and the commutant is the Brauer algebra BN(±M), whose basis includes contraction (pairing) diagrams in addition to permutations. The...

  5. [5]

    Reduction to a moment comparison The leakage operator is linear in the single-particle matrix, X= √m QHLieP= mX u=1 X v,u Avu Mvu,M vu =Q E (v) + E(u) − P, (B1) withA vu = √m Uvu forUHaar onU(m) (the Haar model) and Avu =Z vu,Z vu ∼ CN(0,1) independent (the Gaussian model). For anyk∈Nthe operator norm is dominated by thek-th moment of the squared singular...

  6. [6]

    The Weingarten function admits the exact convergent series [75], valid form≥k, Wg(ν,m)=m −k X ℓ≥0 (−1)ℓm−ℓ #{(ρ1,

    Weingarten and Wick expansions For index sequencesi,jof lengthq=k, the exact Haar integral is the Weingarten formula [75, 76], Z U(m) kY a=1 Uia ja kY a=1 U∗ i′a j′a dµ(U)= X σ,τ∈S k δi,i′σ δj,j′τ Wg(σ−1τ,m), (B6) 18 whereδ i,i′σ = Q a δia,i′ σ(a). The Weingarten function admits the exact convergent series [75], valid form≥k, Wg(ν,m)=m −k X ℓ≥0 (−1)ℓm−ℓ #...

  7. [7]

    Genus-resolved bound on the remainder Setπ=σ −1τ,e. The magnitude ofW σ,τ relative to the diagonalW σ,σ is governed by the number of free index loops of the glued ribbon diagram: each independent loop is an un- constrained index summation contributing a factorm. For the bare gluing of theUindices, the loop count obeys the Euler relation L(σ, π)=L 0(σ)− |π...

  8. [8]

    all 4”={gauss iid, gauss Herm, Haar, Herm.ilogU}; “Haar

    Uniformity inkand conclusion At the operating orderk∼nlogm, the relative correction (B17) is |R| EGauss[· · ·] =O k4 m2 = ˜O n4 m2 ,(B18) with convergence conditionm≫k 2, i.e.m≫n 2 log2 m, hencem= ˜Ω(n2). We must check this correction does not accumulate as the operator norm is extracted. The point is that the bound (B17) is controlled by the topological ...

  9. [9]

    A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Nature549, 203 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, inProceedings of the 43rd An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)(2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  11. [11]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silber- horn, and I. Jex, Physical Review Letters119, 170501 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    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,et al., Science370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins,et al., Nature606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    L. G. Valiant, Theor. Comput. Sci.8, 189 (1979)

    1979

  15. [15]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. J. Brod, Physical Review A93, 012335 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, Nature Physics15, 159 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    García-Patrón, J

    R. García-Patrón, J. J. Renema, and V . Shchesnovich, Quantum 3, 169 (2019). 21

    2019

  18. [18]

    J. J. Renema, A. Menssen, W. R. Clements, G. Triginer, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review Letters120, 220502 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    C. Oh, M. Liu, Y . Alexeev, B. Fefferman, and L. Jiang, Nature Physics20, 1461 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Oszmaniec and D

    M. Oszmaniec and D. J. Brod, New Journal of Physics20, 092002 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Clifford and R

    P. Clifford and R. Clifford, inProceedings of the Twenty- Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)(SIAM, 2018) pp. 146–155

    2018

  22. [22]

    Peropadre, A

    B. Peropadre, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Phys- ical Review A95, 032327 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Bürgisser, SIAM Journal on Computing30, 1023 (2000)

    P. Bürgisser, SIAM Journal on Computing30, 1023 (2000)

    2000

  24. [24]

    E.-J. Kuo, Y . Xu, D. Hangleiter, A. Grankin, and M. Hafezi, Physical Review Research4, 043096 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Kam and E.-J

    C.-F. Kam and E.-J. Kuo, npj Quantum Information (2026), 10.1038/s41534-026-01246-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01246-7 2026

  26. [26]

    Oszmaniec, N

    M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. S. Morales, and Z. Zim- borás, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    J. A. Troppet al., Foundations and Trends®in Machine Learn- ing8, 1 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    J. A. Tropp, Foundations of Computational Mathematics12, 389 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    Throughout, ˜Oand ˜Ωsuppress polylogarithmic factors:f= ˜O(g) meansf=O(gpolylog(n,m)), with ˜Ωdefined dually

  30. [30]

    Bouland, D

    A. Bouland, D. J. Brod, I. Datta, B. Fefferman, D. Grier, F. Hernández, and M. Oszmaniec, Physical Review X16, 021059 (2026), arXiv:2312.00286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Richermeet al., Nature511, 198 (2014)

    P. Richermeet al., Nature511, 198 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, inAutomata, Lan- guages, and Programming: 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8-11, 2014, Pro- ceedings, Part I 41(Springer, 2014) pp. 308–319

    2014

  33. [33]

    Zhanget al., Nature508, 91 (2014)

    J. Zhanget al., Nature508, 91 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Pe- trenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge,et al., Science347, 853 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V . V . Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  36. [36]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Kou, N. Frattini, V . Sivak, S. Puri, A. Grimm, L. Frunzio, S. Shankar, and M. Devoret, Physical review letters 122, 080502 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Kam, W.-M

    C.-F. Kam, W.-M. Zhang, D.-H. Feng,et al.,Coherent States: New Insights into Quantum Mechanics with Applica- tions(Springer, 2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Kam and E.-J

    C.-F. Kam and E.-J. Kuo, New Journal of Physics27, 124509 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Leverrier, Journal of Mathematical Physics59(2018)

    A. Leverrier, Journal of Mathematical Physics59(2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Grier, D

    D. Grier, D. J. Brod, J. M. Arrazola, M. B. de Andrade Alonso, and N. Quesada, Quantum6, 863 (2022), arXiv:2110.06964

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    B. Go, C. Oh, and H. Jeong, Quantum10, 2026 (2026), arXiv:2405.01786

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, Physical Review Letters113, 220501 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Wang, C.-Y

    P. Wang, C.-Y . Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y . Wang, X. Yuan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nature Communica- tions12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Porras and J

    D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters92, 207901 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V . Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y . Yao, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V . Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Na- ture551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    M. K. Joshi, F. Kranzl, A. Schuckert, I. Lovas, C. Maier, R. Blatt, M. Knap, and C. F. Roos, Science376, 720 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Guo, Y .-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y .-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y . Wang, R.-Y . Yan, Y .-J. Yi, Y .-L. Xu, B.-W. Li, Y .-H. Hou, Y .-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Zhang, Z.-C. Xu, Z.-Q. Cheng, and L.-M. Duan, Nature630, 613 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Science352, 1297 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  53. [53]

    R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V . V . Al- bert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Re- view Letters115, 137002 (2015)

    2015

  54. [54]

    Reagor, W

    M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Sliwa, E. Holland, C. Wang, J. Blumoff, K. Chou, M. J. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review B94, 014506 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. Çiftyürek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosen- blum, PRX Quantum4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Müller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Chakram, A

    S. Chakram, A. E. Oriani, R. K. Naik, A. V . Dixit, K. He, A. Agrawal, H. Kwon, and D. I. Schuster, Physical Review Letters127, 107701 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    R. K. Naik, N. Leung, S. Chakram, P. Groszkowski, Y . Lu, N. Earnest, D. C. McKay, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Nature Communications8, 1904 (2017)

    1904

  59. [59]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Léséleuc, V . Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  60. [60]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. An- schuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V . Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Science354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Physical Review X8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, and A. M. Kaufman, Physical Review X8, 041054 (2018)

    2018

  64. [64]

    Saskin, J

    S. Saskin, J. T. Wilson, B. Grinkemeyer, and J. D. Thompson, Physical Review Letters122, 143002 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  66. [66]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    Barredo, H

    D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and C. S. Adams, Physical Review Letters114, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  68. [68]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Smith, Nature600, 630 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbène, Nature Physics8, 267 (2012). 22

    2012

  70. [70]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  71. [71]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  72. [72]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  73. [73]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Physical Review Letters73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  74. [74]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  75. [75]

    Carolan, C

    J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martín-López, N. J. Rus- sell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, G. D. Marshall, M. G. Thompson, J. C. F. Matthews, T. Hashimoto, J. L. O’Brien, and A. Laing, Science349, 711 (2015)

    2015

  76. [76]

    Johansson and G

    K. Johansson and G. Lambert, Annals of Probability49, 2961 (2021)

    2021

  77. [77]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Quantum Information and Com- putation14, 1383 (2014), arXiv:1309.7460

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [78]

    Spagnolo, C

    N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Bentivegna, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, S. Giacomini, G. Milani, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Nature Photonics 8, 615 (2014)

    2014

  79. [79]

    Carolan, J

    J. Carolan, J. D. A. Meinecke, P. J. Shadbolt, N. J. Russell, N. Ismail, K. Wörhoff, T. Rudolph, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, J. C. F. Matthews, and A. Laing, Nature Photonics 8, 621 (2014)

    2014

  80. [80]

    M. C. Tichy, K. Mayer, A. Buchleitner, and K. Mølmer, Physi- cal Review Letters113, 020502 (2014)

    2014

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 14, 2026.