REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by
Equalities and inequalities from entanglement, loss, and beam splitters
T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proves that no quantum state suffering 50% or more photon loss can be certified nonclassical by the quadrature coherence scale, settling a conjecture.
desk verdict Solid, useful paper that proves the 50%-loss QCS conjecture, but the central theorem leans on an unpublished companion paper; worth refereeing if that dependency gets addressed. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is the identity $C^2(\rho_T) = 1 + \frac{T}{P(\rho_T)} \frac{\partial P(\rho_T)}{\partial T}$, which turns the QCS nonclassicality criterion $C^2 > 1$ into a statement about the logarithmic derivative of purity with respect to transmission. That derivative is controlled by three imported or proved properties: purity of a pure lossy state is symmetric about $T = 1/2$ and convex in $T$ (Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 of the companion paper), and for mixed states the overlap $\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma_T \rho_T]$ is, by Lemma 3, a polynomial in $\lambda = 1-2T$ with nonnegative coefficients, making it increasing and convex for $T \le 1/2$. The QCS itself is a named measure: it is the average squared separation of quadrature components weighted by the state's coherence, and it certifies nonclassicality when it exceeds one.
What would settle it
A direct check would be to numerically maximize $C^2(\rho_T)$ over finite-dimensional mixed states at a fixed transmission $T < 1/2$, say $T = 0.4$; any state found with $C^2 > 1$ would refute Theorem 12. The more foundational check is to test Lemma 3 by computing the overlap of two lossy positive operators, for example $\mathrm{Tr}[|0\rangle\langle 0|_T \, |1\rangle\langle 1|_T]$, and verifying that all coefficients in the polynomial in $\lambda = 1-2T$ are nonnegative; a single negative coefficient would break the chain leading to the ceiling.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The core claim is Theorem 12: no state subjected to 50% or more photon loss can be certified as nonclassical by the quadrature coherence scale, since $C^2(\rho_T) \le 1$ for all such states. Theorem 11 sharpens this for pure states, with $C^2(\rho_T) = 1$ exactly at $T = 1/2$, $C^2(\rho_T) \ge 1$ for $T \ge 1/2$, and $C^2(\rho_T) \le 1$ for $T \le 1/2$ (where $T$ is the transmission probability, so loss is $1-T$). The argument centers on Lemma 10, which writes $C^2(\rho_T) = 1 + T \, \partial \log P(\rho_T)/\partial T$, so the sign of the deviation from 1 is governed entirely by how purity changes with loss. Pure-state results use the symmetry and convexity of purity from the companion paper; mixed-state results use Corollary 6, which says the Hilbert-Schmidt overlap of two states under loss increases and is convex when loss exceeds 50%. Together these establish the 50% ceiling that was previously conjectured.
Load-bearing premise
The bound rests on an imported lemma—overlaps of any two positive operators under loss are polynomials in $\lambda = 1-2T$ with nonnegative coefficients—and on treating the Glauber-Sudarshan $P$-function as a bona fide integral representation; if either assumption fails, the sign of the purity slope below 50% loss and the QCS ceiling fall with them.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- At 50% loss or more, the QCS witness cannot certify nonclassicality for any state, so experiments using this witness face a hard loss ceiling.
- For pure states, the crossover is exact: QCS equals 1 at 50% loss, is above 1 for less loss, and below 1 for more, providing a sharp universal value to test.
- The purity convexity results yield inequalities for creation and annihilation operators, including fourth-order ones not derivable from Cauchy-Schwarz.
- All physical states obey new inequalities for integrals of s-ordered quasiprobability distributions, constraining the singularities even when P-functions are not regular functions.
- The quantum mutual information between the two outputs of a beam splitter with vacuum input is concave in the transmission probability.
Reading between the lines
- If the paper's Conjecture 7 (log-convex purity in T) holds, the QCS of any initially pure state would fall monotonically as loss grows toward 50%; measuring QCS under controlled loss on a squeezed or photon-subtracted state would test this.
- Conjecture 19 converts the same inequality into a practical probe of whether two modes carry the same state: photon-number-resolving counts on the dark port of a balanced beam splitter could search for violations.
- The Laplace-transform identity for purity suggests that loss acts like a Gaussian convolution in phase space, so classical results on completely monotone functions may yield additional inequalities for all physical states beyond those derived here.
- Because the 50% ceiling follows from purity's convexity rather than from any QCS-specific detail, similar thresholds may hold for other witnesses that depend on purity or its derivatives, and the same proof strategy may transfer.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper derives a series of equalities and inequalities for quantum states undergoing photon loss, using beam splitters and their entanglement properties as the underlying tool. The main results are: (i) monotonicity and convexity properties of the Hilbert-Schmidt overlap between two lossy states for transmission T ≤ 1/2 (Corollary 6); (ii) inequalities for creation and annihilation operators beyond Cauchy-Schwarz (Section IV); (iii) a proof, in Theorem 11 and Theorem 12, that the quadrature coherence scale (QCS) cannot certify nonclassicality once a state has lost 50% or more of its photons; (iv) constraints on s-ordered quasiprobability distributions and characteristic functions (Sections VI and VII); and (v) several supporting lemmas, including an expression for the QCS as a rate of purity change and a Laplace-transform representation of purity. Much of the paper is organized as corollaries of results stated from the companion preprint [1], and the central QCS result for mixed states depends on Lemma 3 of that companion paper, which is not proved here.
Significance. If the results are valid, the paper provides a useful toolbox for quantum optics: it establishes a conjecture on the 50% loss limit for QCS-based nonclassicality certification, gives new inequalities for quasiprobability distributions of all physical states, and connects entanglement generation at beam splitters to loss-induced dynamics of purity and overlap. The derivation of Eq. (35), expressing the QCS as a rate of purity change, is elegant and enables the subsequent theorems; the Laplace-transform representation in Section VII and its connection to Bernstein's theorem are also a strong contribution. The paper is clearly written, with lemmas and corollaries carefully separated from conjectures, and the explicit statements of Conjectures 7 and 19 are useful. However, the central claim for mixed states (Theorem 12) is not self-contained: it rests entirely on Lemma 3 of the unpublished companion paper [1], and the proof of Lemma 10 uses the Glauber-Sudarshan P-function as an ordinary integral without addressing its distributional character. These are the main correctness risks.
major comments (2)
- [Section II, Lemma 3 and Section V, Theorem 12] Theorem 12, the main claim that QCS ≤ 1 for all states subject to 50% or more loss, is proved in three lines as a direct consequence of Corollary 6, and Corollary 6 is in turn a direct consequence of Lemma 3. Lemma 3 is stated in Section II as 'Lemma 6 in Ref. [1]' and is not proved or even sketched in this manuscript. Since Ref. [1] is an unpublished preprint, the correctness of the central claim is not verifiable from the present paper alone. If Lemma 3 were false or inapplicable to the positive operators considered here, the sign of ∂O_T/∂T would not follow and Theorem 12 would collapse. I request that the authors either include a self-contained proof of Lemma 3 in an appendix, or explicitly justify why the result can be taken as established and provide a detailed proof sketch in the text. The two-copy expression in Eq. (24) is suggestive but is not by itself a proof of the nonnegativity of the polynomial coefficients.
- [Section V, Lemma 10] The proof of Lemma 10 uses Eq. (36), writing ρ_T as an integral over the Glauber-Sudarshan P-function P(α) as though P were an ordinary integrable function. As the paper itself notes, P-functions can be singular distributions (see Refs. [32, 93]), so this step requires justification. The resulting identity C^2(ρ_T) = T/P(ρ_T) ∂P(ρ_T)/∂T + 1 is a known and standard result (the paper cites Ref. [20] where it is derived in a more general context), but the proof as written is not rigorous for general states. Since Theorem 11 and Theorem 12 both rely on Lemma 10, the proof should either be regularized explicitly or the result should be cited with a precise statement and a valid derivation.
minor comments (5)
- [Section V, Lemma 10 proof] In the sentence 'Let aj = ( xj + ipj)/√2 for j + 1, 2', the notation 'j + 1, 2' should read 'j = 1, 2'.
- [Section I D, Eq. (20)] The definition of the QCS writes P(ρT) in the denominator, but the state in the numerator is ρ; the notation would be cleaner if the state variable were consistently named, since ρT in Eq. (20) is not related to loss in that definition.
- [Section VI, Corollary 14] The statement of Corollary 14 presents an integral inequality ≤ 0, but the proof shows that this integral is equal to ∂Tr[ρT σT]/∂T multiplied by the positive factor 1/(Tτ); the statement should identify this factor or the inequality should be stated directly for the derivative.
- [General] The paper relies extensively on the companion paper [1] for Lemma 1, Theorem 2, Theorem 4, and Lemma 3. Since Ref. [1] is an unpublished preprint at arXiv:2411.03423, the citation should be updated if it becomes published, and the dependence of the main theorem on it should be stated more prominently in the abstract or introduction.
- [Section VII, Eq. (61)] The variable τ in Eq. (61) is used both as an integration variable and later in Section VI as a Gaussian width parameter; this is not an error but could confuse readers, so a different symbol for one of the two roles is preferable.
Circularity Check
No circular derivation: the QCS results follow from an independently derived purity-rate identity plus convexity and monotonicity results, and the reliance on the companion-paper Lemma 3 is a self-citation and omitted proof but not a reduction to the conclusion.
full rationale
The derivation is not circular. The central claims (Theorem 11 and Theorem 12) are obtained by composing Lemma 10, which expresses the quadrature coherence scale as C^2(ρ_T) = T/P(ρ_T) ∂P(ρ_T)/∂T + 1, with independent monotonicity and convexity results for the purity P(ρ_T). Lemma 10 is derived in the paper from the two-copy expression for the QCS and the loss-channel P-function representation; it is an identity, not an assumption of the theorem. The monotonicity of ∂P/∂T for T ≤ 1/2 used in Theorem 12 is Corollary 6, whose proof invokes Lemma 3 of the companion paper [1]. This is a genuine self-citation and an omitted proof within this manuscript, but it is not circular: Lemma 3 is a separate statement about positive-operator overlaps under loss, its assumptions do not include the QCS bound, and the target result is not used to prove it. No fitted parameters, no renaming, and no imported uniqueness theorem are used. The P-function manipulations in Lemma 10 are formal for singular P functions, but they are standard and can be justified by regularization; this is a rigor concern, not a circular one. Overall, the paper's new results are conditional on the companion-paper lemmas, but the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Purity of a pure state is convex and symmetric in transmission T (Lemma 1, Theorem 2 of companion paper)
- domain assumption Hilbert-Schmidt overlap of positive operators under loss is a polynomial in λ=1-2T with nonnegative coefficients (Lemma 3 of companion paper)
- domain assumption Glauber-Sudarshan P-function exists as a distribution for all states and transforms as ρ_T = ∫ P(α)|√T α><√T α| d²α
- standard math Bernstein's theorem: Laplace transform of a nonnegative measure is completely monotonic
- standard math Monotonicity of quasi-relative entropies under quantum channels (Mosonyi-Hiai)
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Equalities and inequalities from entanglement, loss, and beam splitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAJ3V2B4
@misc{pith2026250102047,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Equalities and inequalities from entanglement, loss, and beam splitters},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAJ3V2B4}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02047}
}
read the original abstract
Quantum optics bridges esoteric notions of entanglement and superposition with practical applications like metrology and communication. Throughout, there is an interplay between information theoretic concepts such as entropy and physical considerations such as quantum system design, noise, and loss. Therefore, a fundamental result at the heart of these fields has numerous ramifications in development of applications and advancing our understanding of quantum physics. Our recent proof for the entanglement properties of states interfering with the vacuum on a beam splitter led to monotonicity and convexity properties for quantum states undergoing photon loss [Lupu-Gladstein et al., arXiv:2411.03423 (2024)] by breathing life into a decades-old conjecture. In this work, we extend these fundamental properties to measures of similarity between states, provide inequalities for creation and annihilation operators beyond the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, prove a conjecture [Hertz et al., PRA 110, 012408 (2024)] dictating that nonclassicality through the quadrature coherence scale is uncertifiable beyond a loss of 50%, and place constraints on quasiprobability distributions of all physical states. These ideas can now circulate afresh throughout quantum optics.
Figures
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Spin coherence scale: operator-ordering sensitivity beyond the Heisenberg-Weyl group
A new SU(2)-invariant spin coherence scale is defined and shown to certify nonclassicality, bound distance to classical states, and quantify rotation-sensing performance.
-
Implementation and representation of qudit multi-controlled unitaries and hypergraph states by N-body angular momentum couplings
A representation of qudit multi-controlled unitaries and hypergraph states in terms of N-body angular momentum couplings, with a concrete cross-Kerr optical implementation for qutrits and a new class of angular moment...
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
N. Lupu-Gladstein, A. Hertz, K. Heshami, and A. Z. Goldberg, (2024), arXiv:2411.03423 [quant-ph]
arXiv 2024
-
[20]
W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)
2003
-
[2]
α-quasi- relative entropies
≤ |α|2 ≤ T (2 + √ 2). Qualitatively, the support of the characteristic function of a pure state in this region must be small compared to everywhere else in phase space. Reexamining the formula for purity in terms of the characteristic function reveals that purity is proportional to the Laplace transform of a nonnegative function. Tr[ρ2 T ] = 1 πT Z d2α e−...
-
[3]
J. K. Asb´ oth, J. Calsamiglia, and H. Ritsch, Physical Review Letters 94, 173602 (2005)
2005
-
[4]
Private communication,
J. K. Asb´ oth, “Private communication,” (2024)
2024
-
[5]
H. P. Yuen and J. H. Shapiro, in Coherence and Quantum Optics IV , edited by L. Mandel and E. Wolf (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1978) pp. 719–727
1978
-
[6]
Yuen and J
H. Yuen and J. Shapiro, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 26, 78 (1980)
1980
-
[7]
Yurke, Phys
B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A 32, 311 (1985)
1985
Show all 135 references
-
[8]
Mandel and E
L. Mandel and E. Wolf., Optical coherence and quantum optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
1995
-
[9]
Saleh and M
B. Saleh and M. Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics , Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics (Wiley, 2007)
2007
-
[10]
Aaronson and A
S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Theory of Computing 9, 143 (2013)
2013
-
[11]
Grangier, G
P. Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, Europhysics Letters 1, 173 (1986)
1986
-
[12]
C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Physical Review Letters 59, 2044 (1987)
1987
-
[13]
Born and E
M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of optics: Electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light. , 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
1999
-
[14]
The L. I. G. O. Scientific Collaboration, Nature Physics 7, 962 (2011)
2011
-
[15]
Lucamarini, Z
M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Nature 557, 400 (2018)
2018
-
[16]
Flamini, N
F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016001 (2018)
2018
-
[17]
Grosshans and P
F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Physical Review Letters 88, 057902 (2002)
2002
-
[18]
W. H. Zurek, S. Habib, and J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1187 (1993)
1993
-
[19]
V. V. Dodonov, S. S. Mizrahi, A. L. de Souza Silva, and S. S. Mizrahi, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 2, 271 (2000)
2000
-
[21]
Hertz and S
A. Hertz and S. De Bi` evre, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090402 (2020)
2020
-
[22]
C. A. Rosiek, M. Rossi, A. Schliesser, and A. S. Sørensen, PRX Quantum 5, 030312 (2024)
2024
-
[23]
Mari and J
A. Mari and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230503 (2012)
2012
-
[24]
Rahimi-Keshari, T
S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. C. Ralph, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021039 (2016)
2016
-
[25]
Oszmaniec and D
M. Oszmaniec and D. J. Brod, New Journal of Physics 20, 092002 (2018)
2018
-
[26]
H. Qi, D. J. Brod, N. Quesada, and R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100502 (2020)
2020
-
[27]
A. Z. Goldberg, G. S. Thekkadath, and K. Heshami, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042610 (2023)
2023
-
[28]
Hertz, A
A. Hertz, A. Z. Goldberg, and K. Heshami, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012408 (2024)
2024
-
[29]
Sperling and W
J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042337 (2009)
2009
-
[30]
Bohmann, E
M. Bohmann, E. Agudelo, and J. Sperling, Quantum 4, 343 (2020)
2020
-
[31]
Steuernagel and R.-K
O. Steuernagel and R.-K. Lee, (2023), arXiv:2311.17399 [quant-ph]
2023
-
[32]
Chabaud, R
U. Chabaud, R. Ghobadi, S. Beigi, and S. Rahimi- Keshari, Quantum 8, 1519 (2024)
2024
-
[33]
E. C. G. Sudarshan, Physical Review Letters 10, 277 (1963)
1963
-
[34]
Englert, Physics Letters A 494, 129278 (2024)
B.-G. Englert, Physics Letters A 494, 129278 (2024)
2024
-
[35]
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
-
[36]
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)
2000
-
[37]
A. Z. Goldberg, Optica Quantum 2, 14 (2024)
2024
-
[38]
K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 177, 1882 (1969)
1969
-
[39]
Filip, Phys
R. Filip, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042308 (2013)
2013
-
[40]
A. A. Semenov, D. Vasylyev, and B. I. Lev, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, 905 (2006)
2006
-
[41]
M. S. Kim, W. Son, V. Buˇ zek, and P. L. Knight, Physical Review A 65, 032323 (2002)
2002
-
[42]
Xiang-bin, Physical Review A 66, 024303 (2002)
W. Xiang-bin, Physical Review A 66, 024303 (2002)
2002
-
[43]
S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett, Physical Review Letters 66, 252 (1991)
1991
-
[44]
B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6811 (1992)
1992
-
[45]
Huang and G
H. Huang and G. S. Agarwal, Physical Review A 49, 52 (1994)
1994
-
[46]
Mukunda, Physics Letters A 259, 421 (1999)
Arvind and N. Mukunda, Physics Letters A 259, 421 (1999)
1999
-
[47]
M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review A 59, 1615 (1999)
1999
-
[48]
M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 90, 047904 (2003)
2003
-
[49]
Generation of npt entanglement from nonclassical photon statistics,
J. S. Ivan, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, “Generation of npt entanglement from nonclassical photon statistics,” (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0603255 [quant-ph]
2006 arXiv
-
[50]
R. P. A. R. Usha Devi and M. Uma., Eur. Phys. J. D 40, 133–138 (2006)
2006
-
[51]
Tahira, M
R. Tahira, M. Ikram, H. Nha, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A 79, 023816 (2009)
2009
-
[52]
S. C. Springer, J. Lee, M. Bellini, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062303 (2009)
2009
-
[53]
J. Li, G. Li, J.-M. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and T.-C. Zhang, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 085504 (2010)
2010
-
[54]
J. S. Ivan, S. Chaturvedi, E. Ercolessi, G. Marmo, G. Morandi, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032118 (2011)
2011
-
[55]
Piani, S
M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and A. Winter, Physical Review Letters 106, 220403 (2011)
2011
-
[56]
J. S. Ivan, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, Quantum Information Processing 11, 873 (2012)
2012
-
[57]
Abdel-Khalek, K
S. Abdel-Khalek, K. Berrada, and C. H. Raymond Ooi, Laser Physics 22, 1449 (2012)
2012
-
[58]
Jiang, M
Z. Jiang, M. D. Lang, and C. M. Caves, Physical Review A 88, 044301 (2013)
2013
-
[59]
Berrada, S
K. Berrada, S. Abdel-Khalek, H. Eleuch, and Y. Hassouni, Quantum Information Processing 12, 69 (2013)
2013
-
[60]
Killoran, M
N. Killoran, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 112, 150501 (2014)
2014
-
[61]
Vogel and J
W. Vogel and J. Sperling, Physical Review A89, 052302 (2014). 15
2014
-
[62]
Monteiro, V
F. Monteiro, V. C. Vivoli, T. Guerreiro, A. Martin, J.- D. Bancal, H. Zbinden, R. T. Thew, and N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 170504 (2015)
2015
-
[63]
W. Ge, M. E. Tasgin, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A 92, 052328 (2015)
2015
-
[64]
Miranowicz, K
A. Miranowicz, K. Bartkiewicz, N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062314 (2015)
2015
-
[65]
Streltsov, U
A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020403 (2015)
2015
-
[66]
Brunelli, C
M. Brunelli, C. Benedetti, S. Olivares, A. Ferraro, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062315 (2015)
2015
-
[67]
I. I. Arkhipov, J. Peˇ rina, J. Peˇ rina, and A. Miranowicz, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013807 (2016)
2016
-
[68]
Rohith and C
M. Rohith and C. Sudheesh, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, 126 (2016)
2016
-
[69]
Gholipour and F
H. Gholipour and F. Shahandeh, Physical Review A 93, 062318 (2016)
2016
-
[70]
J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V. Vedral, and M. Gu, Physical Review Letters 116, 160407 (2016)
2016
-
[71]
Killoran, F
N. Killoran, F. E. S. Steinhoff, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 116, 080402 (2016)
2016
-
[72]
Bose and M
S. Bose and M. S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012330 (2017)
2017
-
[73]
J. Park, Y. Lu, J. Lee, Y. Shen, K. Zhang, S. Zhang, M. S. Zubairy, K. Kim, and H. Nha, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 891 (2017)
2017
-
[74]
A. Z. Goldberg and D. F. V. James, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51, 385303 (2018)
2018
-
[76]
M. E. Tasgin and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012324 (2020)
2020
-
[77]
S. Fu, S. Luo, and Y. Zhang, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 128, 30003 (2020)
2020
-
[78]
Tserkis, J
S. Tserkis, J. Thompson, A. P. Lund, T. C. Ralph, P. K. Lam, M. Gu, and S. M. Assad, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052418 (2020)
2020
-
[79]
A. Z. Goldberg and K. Heshami, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032425 (2021)
2021
-
[80]
Ataman, The European Physical Journal D 76, 233 (2022)
S. Ataman, The European Physical Journal D 76, 233 (2022)
2022
-
[81]
Akella, K
S. Akella, K. Thapliyal, H. S. Mani, and A. Pathak, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 1829 (2022)
2022
-
[82]
B. Li, A. Das, S. Tserkis, P. Narang, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Scientific Reports 13, 11722 (2023)
2023
-
[83]
Simonetti, D
M. Simonetti, D. Perri, and O. Gervasi, in Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2023 Workshops , edited by O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, A. M. A. C. Rocha, C. Garau, F. Scorza, Y. Karaca, and C. M. Torre (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham,
2023
-
[84]
D. and A. Chatterjee, Canadian Journal of Physics 101, 560 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp- 2023-0085
2023 doi
-
[85]
F. E. S. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022409 (2024)
2024
-
[86]
Entangling power of spin- j systems: a geometrical approach,
E. Serrano-Ens´ astiga, D. M. Galindo, J. A. Maytorena, and C. Chryssomalakos, “Entangling power of spin- j systems: a geometrical approach,” (2024), arXiv:2410.03361 [quant-ph]
2024
-
[87]
Entanglement and classical nonseparability convertible from orthogonal polarizations,
M. Li, W. Wang, Z. Tang, and H. Ian, “Entanglement and classical nonseparability convertible from orthogonal polarizations,” (2024), arXiv:2310.04065 [quant-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[88]
Manfredi and M
G. Manfredi and M. R. Feix, Phys. Rev. E 62, 4665 (2000)
2000
-
[89]
VonNeumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, 1932)
J. VonNeumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, 1932)
1932
-
[90]
Vidal, Journal of Modern Optics 47, 355 (2000)
G. Vidal, Journal of Modern Optics 47, 355 (2000)
2000
-
[91]
Bengtsson and K
I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, 2006)
2006
-
[92]
Horodecki, P
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 865 (2009)
2009
-
[93]
De Bi` evre, D
S. De Bi` evre, D. B. Horoshko, G. Patera, and M. I. Kolobov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080402 (2019)
2019
-
[94]
U. M. Titulaer and R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 140, B676 (1965)
1965
-
[95]
Hillery, Phys
M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 35, 725 (1987)
1987
-
[96]
Kenfack and K
A. Kenfack and K. Zyczkowski, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 6, 396 (2004)
2004
-
[97]
Bach and U
A. Bach and U. Luxmann-Ellinghaus, Commun. Math. Phys. 107 (1986), 10.1007/BF01205485
1986 doi
-
[98]
Hillery, Phys
M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2994 (1989)
1989
-
[99]
C. T. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 52, 3374 (1995)
1995
-
[100]
G. S. Agarwal and K. Tara, Phys. Rev. A46, 485 (1992)
1992
-
[101]
L¨ utkenhaus and S
N. L¨ utkenhaus and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3340 (1995)
1995
-
[102]
V. V. Dodonov, O. V. Man’ko, V. I. Man’ko, and A. W¨ unsche, Journal of Modern Optics47, 633 (2000)
2000
-
[103]
Marian, T
P. Marian, T. A. Marian, and H. Scutaru, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 153601 (2002)
2002
-
[104]
Richter and W
T. Richter and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283601 (2002)
2002
-
[105]
S. Ryl, J. Sperling, E. Agudelo, M. Mraz, S. K¨ ohnke, B. Hage, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 92, 011801 (2015)
2015
-
[106]
Sperling and W
J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Physica Scripta 90, 074024 (2015)
2015
-
[107]
Killoran, F
N. Killoran, F. E. S. Steinhoff, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 080402 (2016)
2016
-
[108]
Alexanian, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 16 (2018)
M. Alexanian, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 16 (2018)
2018
-
[109]
Nair, Phys
R. Nair, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063835 (2017)
2017
-
[110]
S. Ryl, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053825 (2017)
2017
-
[111]
Yadin, F
B. Yadin, F. C. Binder, J. Thompson, V. Narasimhachar, M. Gu, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041038 (2018)
2018
-
[112]
H. Kwon, K. C. Tan, T. Volkoff, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040503 (2019)
2019
-
[113]
Takagi and Q
R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062337 (2018)
2018
-
[114]
D. B. Horoshko, S. De Bi` evre, G. Patera, and M. I. Kolobov, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053831 (2019)
2019
-
[115]
Luo and Y
S. Luo and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032116 (2019)
2019
-
[116]
K. C. Tan, S. Choi, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110404 (2020)
2020
-
[117]
A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020505 (2012)
2012
-
[118]
Islam, R
R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Nature 528, 77 (2015)
2015
-
[119]
Griffet, M
C. Griffet, M. Arnhem, S. De Bi` evre, and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023730 (2023)
2023
-
[120]
F. A. Bovino, G. Castagnoli, A. Ekert, P. Horodecki, C. M. Alves, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 240407 (2005)
2005
-
[121]
G. S. Agarwal and E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D2, 2161 (1970). 16
1970
-
[122]
C. T. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 44, R2775 (1991)
1991
-
[123]
C. T. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6586 (1992)
1992
-
[124]
Kiesel and W
T. Kiesel and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A82, 032107 (2010)
2010
-
[125]
Agudelo, J
E. Agudelo, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033811 (2013)
2013
-
[126]
Sperling, Physical Review A 94, 013814 (2016)
J. Sperling, Physical Review A 94, 013814 (2016)
2016
-
[127]
H. C. Lemos, A. C. Almeida, B. Amaral, and A. C. Oliveira, Physics Letters A 382, 823 (2018)
2018
-
[128]
Linowski and L
T. Linowski and L. Rudnicki, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023715 (2024)
2024
-
[129]
Bernstein, Acta Mathematica 52, 1 (1929)
S. Bernstein, Acta Mathematica 52, 1 (1929)
1929
-
[130]
Mosonyi and F
M. Mosonyi and F. Hiai, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 2474 (2011)
2011
-
[131]
Gavrea and M
I. Gavrea and M. Ivan, Applied Mathematics and Computation 241, 70 (2014)
2014
-
[132]
Nikolov, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 418, 852 (2014)
G. Nikolov, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 418, 852 (2014)
2014
-
[133]
Ra¸ sa, Results in Mathematics73, 105 (2018)
I. Ra¸ sa, Results in Mathematics73, 105 (2018)
2018
-
[134]
Ra¸ sa, Results in Mathematics74, 154 (2019)
I. Ra¸ sa, Results in Mathematics74, 154 (2019)
2019
-
[135]
Alzer, Results in Mathematics 75, 29 (2020)
H. Alzer, Results in Mathematics 75, 29 (2020)
2020
-
[136]
R. J. Glauber, Physical Review 130, 2529 (1963)
1963
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.