Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Two-particle quantum interference in a nonlinear optical medium: a witness of timelike indistinguishability

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two photons entering a nonlinear crystal can cancel each other when the crystal's gain is 2.

desk verdict First real low-gain observation of Cerf-Jabbour interference, but the g=2 suppression is model-deduced rather than measured and should be framed that way. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01480 v1 pith:NLJ7Z34Z submitted 2025-02-03 quant-ph

Chao Chen , Shu-Tian Xue , Yu-Peng Shi , Jing Wang , Zi-Mo Cheng , Pei Wan , Zhi-Cheng Ren , Michael G. Jabbour
show 3 more authors
Nicolas J. Cerf Xi-Lin Wang Hui-Tian Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81V80 PACS 42.50.Ar42.65.Lm
keywords Hong-Ou-Mandeleffectparametricdown-conversionCerf-Jabbourinterferencetimelikeindistinguishabilityphoton-numberstatisticsnonlinearquantumnon-Gaussianstatestwo-modesqueezing
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 Hong-Ou-Mandel effect is usually a linear process: two indistinguishable photons meet at a 50:50 beam splitter and never leave with one photon in each output. This paper claims that the same two-photon destructive interference occurs inside a parametric down-conversion crystal, where the beam splitter is replaced by a nonlinear medium and the role of the two spatial paths is played by the two directions of time. The crystal can either pass the two incident photons through or annihilate them and create two new "reborn" photons, and these two amplitudes interfere. When the parametric gain is tuned to $g=2$, the probability of outputting exactly one photon pair is predicted to vanish, $P_1=(2-g)^2/g^3=0$, and the paper reports experimental data consistent with this suppression. A sympathetic reader would care because this "timelike indistinguishability" is a new quantum mechanism and a practical handle on photon-number statistics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-mode squeezing unitary of parametric down-conversion, $U_g^{\mathrm{PDC}}=\exp[r(\hat a_H^\dagger\hat a_V^\dagger-\hat a_H\hat a_V)]$ with parametric gain $g=\cosh 2r$. Acting on $|1,1\rangle$, this unitary creates the transmitted-versus-reborn superposition; the identity $P_1=(2-g)^2/g^3$ is what carries the argument, and it is the nonlinear analogue of the beam-splitter identity $P_{1,1}^{\mathrm{HOM}}=(2T-1)^2$. The formal bridge is a partial-time-reversal duality that maps the beam-splitter transmittance $T$ onto the PDC gain $g$, turning spatial path distinguishability into temporal indistinguishability.

What would settle it

Reconstruct $P_1$ at $g\approx 2$ directly from six-channel coincidence counts without the fitted model, using a heralded $|1,1\rangle$ input with verified near-unit mode overlap; the claim stands if the reconstructed $P_1$ is significantly below its low-gain value and falls as the input pair transmission $T$ approaches 1, and fails if no such dip appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is the Cerf-Jabbour interference: a two-mode squeezing operation acting on an ideal $|1,1\rangle$ input produces a superposition of the transmitted photon pair and a pair that has been annihilated and recreated. In the one-pair sector these two amplitudes interfere destructively with probability $P_1=(2-g)^2/g^3$, which vanishes exactly at $g=2$. The experiment injects heralded H- and V-polarized photons into a high-gain PPKTP crystal, tunes the gain to $g\approx 2.03$, and deduces from six-channel coincidences and a fitted model that $P_1$ is suppressed as the transmission of the input pair increases, reaching a residual value near 0.1 that is attributed to imperfect mode matching. The authors further show that the output state retains Wigner negativity and that at $g=3$ the two-pair component would be suppressed, extending the mechanism to higher-order destructive interference.

Load-bearing premise

The high-gain suppression at $g=2.03$ is not read directly from the measured coincidences; it comes from a model that assumes the real input is an incoherent mixture with independent mode overlaps $O_1$ and $O_2$ and that each mixture component evolves under the ideal two-mode PDC unitary. If the imperfect input is not a classical mixture, or if spectral-temporal correlations survive the 15-nm filter, the deduced $P_1$ dip could be an artifact of that model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At integer gain $g=3$, the same interference suppresses the two-pair component $P_2$, so the destructive mechanism extends to four-photon interference.
  • The output of the $|1,1\rangle$ evolution is non-Gaussian and Wigner-negative, so cascading CJ stages with linear optical circuits is a route to multimode non-Gaussian states needed for photonic quantum computing.
  • The $P_1$ dip at $g=2$ is a time-domain witness of indistinguishability: only photons that match the PDC modes in spectrum, space, and time experience the cancellation, so the dip depth encodes temporal mode matching.
  • Because at low gain an extra injected photon increases $P_1$ while at high gain it decreases it, the effect explains why this interference was missed in previous moderate-power PDC experiments and marks a distinctly multi-photon nonlinear regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension not pursued in the paper: the $P_1$ dip could be used as a delay-scanning probe of temporal indistinguishability between two independent single-photon sources, in direct analogy to how a Hong-Ou-Mandel dip is scanned.
  • A testable consequence beyond the reported data: if the input-state model were replaced by a fully quantum description with spectral correlations, the exact $P_1=0$ might broaden or shift, so measuring $P_1$ versus filter bandwidth would separate the classical-mixture assumption from the unitary core.
  • The integer-gain structure suggests a practical recipe the paper does not develop: cascade PDC stages at $g=2,3,\ldots$ to engineer targeted holes in the photon-number distribution of a multimode state.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of two-photon interference in a parametric down-conversion (PDC) crystal, the nonlinear analogue of the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. For an ideal |1,1> input, the probability P1 of outputting exactly one photon pair is predicted to vanish at parametric gain g=2, and the authors present data and analysis that they interpret as demonstrating this suppression. At low gain (g up to about 1.2), P1 is obtained from six-channel coincidence measurements by a truncated inversion, and delay scans show a dip when both injected photons are temporally matched. At high gain (g=2.03), the reported P1 values are not directly inverted from the measured coincidences but are computed from a fitted model (Supplementary Eq. S45) whose parameters are determined in auxiliary experiments. The paper also discusses reconstructed Wigner functions and potential applications to non-Gaussian state engineering.

Significance. The theoretical effect is clean, elegant, and analytically derived in the supplementary material; if experimentally established, it would constitute a genuinely new nonlinear quantum interference phenomenon with implications for the generation of non-Gaussian states. The low-gain data provide direct evidence of a relative suppression of P1 when a second photon is added, and the delay scan in Fig. 3(c) shows a dip, which is a meaningful first step. However, the paper's headline claim that P1 vanishes at g=2 is not directly measured: at g=2.03 it is inferred from a fitted model whose functional form already contains the (2-g)^2 factor. The central result therefore rests on the validity of assumptions that are not fully tested. The paper would be significantly strengthened by reporting model-independent high-gain data or by explicitly framing the high-gain result as consistent with the prediction rather than as a direct observation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (Determination of P1); Supplementary S5.3, Eq. S45; Fig. 4(a)] The central claim that P1 is suppressed at g≈2 is not directly measured. As the Methods section states, for g>1.2 the authors 'create a model' and deduce P1 from it; the six-channel coincidences are not inverted directly in that regime. The model of Supplementary Eq. S45 contains, for the |1,1> component, the factor (n+1-g)^2, so P1=(2-g)^2/g^3 vanishes at g=2 by construction. The agreement between the model and the measured C_m at g=1.21 (Fig. S10) is a useful consistency check, but it does not independently confirm the zero at g=2 because the prediction is already encoded in the fitted functional form. I recommend either reporting the raw six-channel C_m at g≈2 together with a model-independent bound on P1, or rephrasing the abstract and conclusion to say that the high-gain data are 'consistent with' the predicted suppression rather than that the suppression was 'observed' at g=2.
  2. [Supplementary S5.2-S5.3, Eq. S44] The high-gain extraction depends on the assumption that all input imperfections are described by an incoherent mixture with factorized, independent overlaps O1 and O2, and that each component evolves under the ideal single-mode unitary U_PDC_g. This assumption is load-bearing: if the 15-nm filtered photons retain spectral-temporal correlations, or if there is partial coherence between the |1,0> and |0,1> components of the input, the true high-gain state is not the mixture of Eq. S44 and the deduced P1 becomes a model artifact. The paper should provide a direct test of the factorization and single-mode assumptions, for example by comparing model predictions with two-photon-input measurements at intermediate gains (1.2<g<2) without refitting, or by measuring the spectral-temporal correlations and the effective number of modes of the interacting fields.
  3. [Fig. 2(d) and Supplementary S5.1] The parametric gain g is obtained by fitting the SPDC m-fold coincidences to a single-mode two-mode squeezed vacuum (Eq. S38). With a tightly focused pulsed pump and a 2.5-mm crystal, the PDC is likely multimode, and the fitted g is an effective parameter. The quantitative prediction P1=0 at g=2 assumes a single-mode model in which the same squeezing parameter r enters the (n+1-g)^2 interference term. If the source has multiple spatial or spectral modes with different squeezing parameters, the global output P1 need not vanish at the effective gain g=2. The authors should justify the single-mode effective description more carefully or quantify the number of modes participating in the interference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary S5.4] In the sentence describing the heralded V-polarized state, 'detector Tig-1' should be 'detector Trig-1' (and similarly 'Tig-2' should be 'Trig-2').
  2. [Main text and Supplementary, notation for P1] The notation 'P 5−detectors 1' and 'P 5−detect 1' is awkward and inconsistent; a compact notation such as P1^(5) and P1^(6) would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 4(c) and Fig. S12] The reconstructed Wigner functions are presented without a description of the reconstruction procedure or the exact quadrature definitions; please specify how the Wigner function was obtained from the fitted model and what the axes represent.
  4. [Supplementary S2] The text writes 'g2(0)' in several places; this should be g^(2)(0) to avoid confusion with the parametric gain g.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data are available 'upon request'; given the quantitative nature of the central claim, depositing the raw six-channel coincidence data and the fitted parameters would substantially increase confidence in the results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The g=2 suppression is deduced from a fitted model whose analytic form already contains (2−g)^2; only the low-gain dip is directly measured.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, 'Determination of P1 from multi-channel coincidence measurement'; Supplementary S5.3, Eq. S45]
    "To resolveP1 wheng >1.2, we create a model characterized by parameters – gain g, mode match and detection efficiency ... Then we substitute the fitted parameters into the model to calculate the P1 of the output state for two-photon nonlinear interference experiment when g ≈ 2. ... P|~1,1⟩n = (g−1)n−1/gn+2 [ ... +O1O2(n+1−g)2 ]."

    At g=2.03 the reported P1 values (Fig. 4a, Fig. S11) are not inverted from measured six-channel coincidences; they are outputs of Eq. S45. The |1,1> component contributes O1O2(n+1−g)^2, so for n=1 the model contains the factor O1O2(2−g)^2 by construction. The parameters g, O1, O2 are fitted from auxiliary SPDC and single-photon-stimulation data (S5.1, S5.2), then substituted into this functional form. Thus the 'observation' of suppression at g≈2 is the model's built-in interference term, not an independent measurement. The paper itself states the direct 5-detector inversion is valid only for g≲1.2, so the high-gain curve cannot confirm the zero; the genuine but weaker low-gain dip at g≈1.2 is a separate result.

full rationale

The theoretical prediction P_CJ_1,1 = (2−g)^2/g^3 is derived from the PDC unitary in Supplementary S1.2, so the self-citation to Cerf & Jabbour (PNAS 2020) is not load-bearing for the theory. The low-gain measurements in Fig. 3 provide genuine, non-circular evidence of a relative suppression of P1 for |~1,1> input around g≈1.2, and the fitted model is checked against these data. The circularity is confined to the high-gain claim: for g=2.03, P1 is not measured directly (the Methods admits the direct inversion is valid only for g≲1.2) but is computed from Eq. S45, whose |1,1> term contains (n+1−g)^2, i.e., the zero at n=1, g=2 is encoded by construction. Fitting g, O1, O2 from auxiliary experiments and substituting them into this functional form cannot independently confirm the g=2 zero; it only checks consistency of the model with low-gain data. Hence the headline 'suppression when the gain is tuned to 2' is partially a fitted-model artifact rather than a directly measured effect, warranting a score of 6.

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

The theoretical core is a 2020 prediction by two of the co-authors; the experiment adds two fitted overlap parameters and a fitted gain to connect the ideal formula to the measured counts. No new physical entity is introduced; the 'reborn photons' label is an interpretation of the standard anti-squeezing term in the PDC unitary.

free parameters (5)
  • Parametric gain g = g=1 to 2.03 depending on pump power
    Fitted from six-channel coincidence counts of the squeezed vacuum output (Supplementary Fig. S7); sets the interference depth and is used to deduce P1 at high gain.
  • H-mode overlap O1 = 0.65 to 0.67
    Fitted from m-fold coincidences with a single injected H photon (Supplementary Fig. S8); enters the mixture weights in Eq. S44.
  • V-mode overlap O2 = 0.72 to 0.74
    Fitted from m-fold coincidences with a single injected V photon (Supplementary Fig. S9); enters the mixture weights in Eq. S44.
  • Detection efficiency eta per detector = about 0.8
    Measured from single and coincidence count rates (Supplementary S3); used in the detector inversion formula Eq. S32.
  • Trigger efficiencies eta_T1 and eta_T2 = not given numerically in main text
    Used to correct the heralded photon-number distributions in Supplementary Eqs. S47 and S49; measured from auxiliary data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bosonic commutation relations, e.g. [a_H, a_V†] = 0, underlie the sign cancellation in the interference.
    Used in Supplementary Eq. S11 to derive both the HOM and CJ output probabilities.
  • domain assumption The PDC crystal is described by the two-mode squeezing unitary U = exp[r(a_H a_V - a_H† a_V†)] with gain g = cosh 2r.
    Standard quantum-optical model for PPKTP below threshold; used throughout Supplementary S1.2.
  • domain assumption The duality between a beam splitter and PDC under partial time reversal maps the HOM effect to the CJ effect.
    Invoked in Supplementary S1.2, attributed to Cerf 2012 (SI Ref. [1]); this motivates the whole transposition.
  • ad hoc to paper The real input state for |~1,1> is an incoherent mixture of |0,0>, |1,0>, |0,1>, |1,1> with independent overlap probabilities O1 and O2.
    Supplementary Eq. S44 is a modeling choice: the mode-overlap imperfections are treated as classical mixtures. No coherence between components is assumed.
  • domain assumption Detector array responds according to the inclusion-exclusion formula Eq. S31 with equal per-detector efficiency eta and dead-time correction Eq. S27.
    Standard threshold-detector model; needed to relate measured coincidences to the photon-number distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-particle quantum interference in a nonlinear optical medium: a witness of timelike indistinguishability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLJ7Z34Z

@misc{pith2026250201480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-particle quantum interference in a nonlinear optical medium: a witness of timelike indistinguishability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLJ7Z34Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01480}
}
read the original abstract

The Hong-Ou-Mandel effect is a paradigmatic quantum phenomenon demonstrating the interference of two indistinguishable photons that are linearly coupled at a 50:50 beam splitter. Here, we transpose such a two-particle quantum interference effect to the nonlinear regime, when two single photons are impinging on a parametric down-conversion crystal. Formally, this transposition amounts to exchanging space and time variables, giving rise to an unknown form of timelike quantum interference. The two-photon component of the output state is a superposition of the incident photons being either transmitted or reborn, that is, replaced by indistinguishable substitutes due to their interaction with the nonlinear crystal. We experimentally demonstrate the suppression of the probability of detecting precisely one photon pair when the amplification gain is tuned to 2, which arises from the destructive interference between the transmitted and reborn photon pairs. This heretofore unobserved quantum manifestation of indistinguishability in time pushes nonlinear quantum interference towards a new regime with multiple photons. Hence, composing this effect with larger linear optical circuits should provide a tool to generate multimode quantum non-Gaussian states, which are essential resources for photonic quantum computers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01480 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum interferometer configurations. (a), Mach-Zehnder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup and PDC source. (a), A 779 nm pulsed laser with pulse width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measured probability [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. Characteristics of the output state resulting from two-photon CJ nonlinear interference. (a), Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Multi-Stage Assignment Problem: A Fairness Perspective

    cs.MA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    This submission pairs an abstract about fair multi-stage assignment (C-Balance, DC-Balance, NP-hardness) with a body that is a different paper about quantum-optical duality, leaving the abstract's claims unsupported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mandel, Quantum effects in one-photon and two-photon in- terference, Rev

    L. Mandel, Quantum effects in one-photon and two-photon in- terference, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  3. [3]

    L. J. Wang, X. Y . Zou, and L. Mandel, Induced coherence with- out induced emission, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4614 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    X. Y . Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Heuer, R

    A. Heuer, R. Menzel, and P. W. Milonni, Induced Coherence, Vacuum Fields, and Complementarity in Biphoton Generation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 053601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    T. Ono, G. F. Sinclair, D. Bonneau, M. G. Thompson, J. C. F. Matthews, and J. G. Rarity, Observation of nonlinear interfer- ence on a silicon photonic chip, Opt. Lett., OL44, 1277 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Hochrainer, M

    A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum indistinguishability by path identity and with undetected photons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    L.-T. Feng, M. Zhang, D. Liu, Y .-J. Cheng, G.-P. Guo, D.-X. Dai, G.-C. Guo, M. Krenn, and X.-F. Ren, On-chip quantum interference between the origins of a multi-photon state, Optica 10, 105 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Simon, G

    C. Simon, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Optimal Quantum Cloning via Stimulated Emission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2993 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Lamas-Linares, C

    A. Lamas-Linares, C. Simon, J. C. Howell, and D. Bouwmeester, Experimental Quantum Cloning of Sin- gle Photons, Science 296, 712 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    F. W. Sun, B. H. Liu, Y . X. Gong, Y . F. Huang, Z. Y . Ou, and G. C. Guo, Stimulated Emission as a Result of Multiphoton In- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 043601 (2007). 6

    2007

  4. [12]

    G. B. Lemos, V . Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lap- kiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum imaging with undetected photons, Nature 512, 409 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    G. Qian, X. Xu, S.-A. Zhu, C. Xu, F. Gao, V . V . Yakovlev, X. Liu, S.-Y . Zhu, and D.-W. Wang, Quantum Induced Co- herence Light Detection and Ranging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 033603 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Qin, Y .-H

    J. Qin, Y .-H. Deng, H.-S. Zhong, L.-C. Peng, H. Su, Y .-H. Luo, J.-M. Xu, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H.-L. Liu, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Unconditional and Robust Quantum Metrological Advantage beyond N00N States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 070801 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpi- cosecond time intervals between two photons by interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  8. [16]

    Santori, D

    C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vu ˇckovi´c, G. S. Solomon, and Y . Ya- mamoto, Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon de- vice, Nature 419, 594 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    R. B. Patel, A. J. Bennett, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Two-photon interference of the emission from electrically tunable remote quantum dots, Nature Photon4, 632 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Ikuta, S. Yasui, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, H. Terai, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Frequency- domain Hong–Ou–Mandel interference, Nature Photon 10, 441 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    J. S. Fakonas, H. Lee, Y . A. Kelaita, and H. A. Atwater, Two- plasmon quantum interference, Nature Photon 8, 317 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Lopes, A

    R. Lopes, A. Imanaliev, A. Aspect, M. Cheneau, D. Boiron, and C. I. Westbrook, Atomic Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment, Nature 520, 66 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Toyoda, R

    K. Toyoda, R. Hiji, A. Noguchi, and S. Urabe, Hong–Ou–Mandel interference of two phonons in trapped ions, Nature 527, 74 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Wang, L.-K

    X.-L. Wang, L.-K. Chen, W. Li, H.-L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, Y .-H. Luo, Z.-E. Su, D. Wu, Z.-D. Li, H. Lu, Y . Hu, X. Jiang, C.-Z. Peng, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y .-A. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental Ten-Photon Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210502 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    A. J. Menssen, A. E. Jones, B. J. Metcalf, M. C. Tichy, S. Barz, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Distinguishability and Many-Particle Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 153603 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Photonic Boson Sampling in a Tunable Circuit, Science 339, 794 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Tillmann, B

    M. Tillmann, B. Daki ´c, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Experimental boson sampling, Nature Photon7, 540 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Crespi, R

    A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv ˜ao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, and F. Scia- rrino, Integrated multimode interferometers with arbitrary de- signs for photonic boson sampling, Nature Photon 7, 545 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    H. Wang, Y . He, Y .-H. Li, Z.-E. Su, B. Li, H.-L. Huang, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, C. Liu, J. Qin, J.-P. Li, Y .-M. He, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, C.-Z. Peng, S. H ¨ofling, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, High-efficiency multiphoton boson sampling, Nature Photon 11, 361 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Zhong, Y

    H.-S. Zhong, Y . Li, W. Li, L.-C. Peng, Z.-E. Su, Y . Hu, Y .-M. He, X. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, L. You, X.-L. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Li, Y .-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y . Lu, and J.- W. Pan, 12-Photon Entanglement and Scalable Scattershot Bo- son Sampling with Optim...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Zhong, H

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

    2020

  22. [30]

    N. J. Cerf and M. G. Jabbour, Two-boson quantum interference in time, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 33107 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    M. V . Chekhova and Z. Y . Ou, Nonlinear interferometers in quantum optics, Adv. Opt. Photon., AOP 8, 104 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Squeezed light, arXiv:1401.4118 [physics, physics:quant-ph] (2016), arxiv:1401.4118 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. V . Paterova and L. A. Krivitsky, Nonlinear interference in crystal superlattices, Light Sci Appl 9, 82 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    K.-H. Luo, M. Santandrea, M. Stefszky, J. Sperling, M. Mas- saro, A. Ferreri, P. R. Sharapova, H. Herrmann, and C. Silber- horn, Quantum optical coherence: From linear to nonlinear in- terferometers, Phys. Rev. A 104, 043707 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive Wigner Functions Render Clas- sical Simulation of Quantum Computation Efficient, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Veitch, N

    V . Veitch, N. Wiebe, C. Ferrie, and J. Emerson, Efficient sim- ulation scheme for a class of quantum optics experiments with non-negative Wigner representation, New J. Phys. 15, 013037 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Rahimi-Keshari, T

    S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. C. Ralph, and C. M. Caves, Sufficient Conditions for Efficient Classical Simulation of Quantum Op- tics, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021039 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Zhong, Y .-H

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

    2021

  31. [39]

    Christ, K

    A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Sil- berhorn, Probing multimode squeezing with correlation func- tions, New J. Phys. 13, 033027 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    K. Qian, K. Wang, L. Chen, Z. Hou, M. Krenn, S. Zhu, and X.- s. Ma, Multiphoton non-local quantum interference controlled by an undetected photon, Nat Commun 14, 1480 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Wenger, R

    J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Non-Gaussian Statistics from Individual Pulses of Squeezed Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 153601 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    Jeong, A

    H. Jeong, A. Zavatta, M. Kang, S.-W. Lee, L. S. Costanzo, S. Grandi, T. C. Ralph, and M. Bellini, Generation of hybrid entanglement of light, Nature Photon 8, 564 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Y .-S. Ra, A. Dufour, M. Walschaers, C. Jacquard, T. Michel, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, Non-Gaussian quantum states of a mul- timode light field, Nat. Phys. 16, 144 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    H ¨ubel, D

    H. H ¨ubel, D. R. Hamel, A. Fedrizzi, S. Ramelow, K. J. Resch, and T. Jennewein, Direct generation of photon triplets using cascaded photon-pair sources, Nature 466, 601 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Guerreiro, A

    T. Guerreiro, A. Martin, B. Sanguinetti, J. S. Pelc, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden, N. Sangouard, and R. T. Thew, Nonlinear Interaction between Single Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 173601 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Zhang, J

    K. Zhang, J. Jing, N. Treps, and M. Walschaers, Maximal en- tanglement increase with single-photon subtraction, Quantum 7 6, 704 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    M. G. Jabbour and N. J. Cerf, Multiparticle quantum interfer- ence in Bogoliubov bosonic transformations, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043065 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    W. E. Salazar, O. Calder ´on-Losada, and J. H. Reina, Linear- nonlinear duality for circuit design on quantum computing plat- forms (2023), arxiv:2310.20416 [quant-ph]

    2023

  42. [50]

    Two-particle quantum interference in a nonlinear optical medium: a witness of timelike indistinguishability

    M. E. O. Bezerra and V . Shchesnovich, Families of bosonic suppression laws beyond the permutation symmetry principle, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02192v3 (2023). METHODS Determination of P1 from multi-channel coincidence mea- surement. For an arbitrary state with photon number...

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N. J. Cerf, The optical beam splitter under partial time reversal, 9th Central European Workshop on Quantum Optics, July 2012, Sinaia, Romania (unpublished)

    2012

  44. [52]

    N. J. Cerf and M. G. Jabbour, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 33107 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Science 370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Nakazato, S

    H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, M. Stobi´ nska, and K. Yuasa, Physical Review A 93, 023845 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.