Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement robust to noise?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photonic entanglement survives far more noise when the measurement space is enlarged beyond the entanglement dimension.

desk verdict Clean operational result separating entanglement dimension from measurement dimension, with the headline d=300 gain honestly labeled as an idealization in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08943 v3 pith:PU3NOGUQ submitted 2019-08-23 quant-ph

Feng Zhu , Max Tyler , Natalia Herrera Valencia , Mehul Malik , Jonathan Leach This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords high-dimensionalentanglementphotonicnoisetolerancequantumcontrastmutuallyunbiasedbasescertificationspatialsignal-to-noiseratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether high-dimensional photonic entanglement is robust to noise and answers that the question has no unconditional yes or no. Its central claim is that the noise tolerance of entanglement certification is set not by the dimension k of the entanglement alone but by the size d of the operational Hilbert space in which the state is measured, and that making d modestly larger than k sharply lowers the required signal-to-noise ratio. All state, channel, and detector imperfections are distilled into one measured number, the quantum contrast Q, which the paper shows predicts the certifiable entanglement dimension, the state fidelity, EPR-steering violations, and nonlocality violations. The predictions are verified with spatial entanglement in d=3, 5, and 7, and by reanalysis of earlier data up to d=11, with numerical simulations showing that a finite source bandwidth bounds the advantage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum contrast, defined as $Q = 1 + \frac{\mu(1+\mu)}{(n/\eta + \mu)^2}$, where $\mu$ is the photon-pair generation probability, $n$ the combined dark-plus-background count probability, and $\eta$ the collection efficiency; it is exactly the ratio of two-photon coincidence counts to accidental counts. This single number is tied to the standard isotropic-state model through $p = (Q-1)/(Q-1+d)$, turning a whole noise budget into one measurable parameter. The second load-bearing piece is the fidelity-witness formalism built on mutually unbiased bases (bases in which any state from one basis has overlap $1/d$ with any state of another): measurements in two such bases give the lower bound $\tilde{F} \ge \frac{Q-d+1}{Q+d-1}$ and hence the threshold in Eq. (6), while measurements in all $d+1$ bases give the exact-fidelity bound in Eq. (8), $k < \frac{(d+1)Q}{d+Q-1}$. The mechanism carrying the argument is the deliberate mismatch between the operational dimension $d$ and the entanglement dimension $k$: enlarging the measurement space dilutes the noise relative to the target state, so the same amount of noise permits certification of larger $k$.

What would settle it

Measure the minimum quantum contrast required to certify a fixed $k=5$ dimensional entanglement using two-MUB witnesses at $d=5, 7, 9,$ and $12$ on the same source, adding spatial modes without changing per-mode loss or noise. The claim predicts the threshold falls to a minimum near $d_{\mathrm{opt}}\approx 9$; if the measured threshold rises with d instead, or if the reduction is far smaller than Eq. (6), the central claim is falsified. A complementary check is to repeat with a deliberately bandwidth-limited source, where the theory predicts the advantage saturates: locating the d at which the advantage vanishes tests the bound the paper identifies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a separation between the operational Hilbert-space dimension d and the entanglement dimension k being certified. For certification with measurements in two mutually unbiased bases, the quantum contrast must satisfy $Q > \frac{(d-1)(d+k-1)}{d-k+1}$; for fixed k, this is minimized at $d_{\mathrm{opt}} = \sqrt{2}\sqrt{k^2 - 3k + 2} + k - 1$, giving $Q_{\mathrm{opt}} = 3k + 2\sqrt{2}\sqrt{(k-2)(k-1)} - 4$. For large k the optimal dimension is about $2.41k$ and the required contrast about $5.83k$, in contrast to roughly $2k^2$ when $d=k$; therefore, for example, certifying $k=1000$ entanglement with two MUBs needs $Q\approx 2\times 10^6$ at $d=1000$ but only $Q\approx 5.8\times 10^3$ at $d\approx 2410$. When all $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases are used, the certifiable dimension is bounded by $k < \frac{(d+1)Q}{d+Q-1}$, and in the infinite-dimensional limit $k$ approaches $Q$, so the minimal contrast for $k$-dimensional entanglement is $k$. The paper defines $Q$ as the coincidence-to-accidental ratio and connects it to the isotropic-state noise parameter through $p = (Q-1)/(Q-1+d)$, then verifies the thresholds experimentally.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical result assumes that adding Hilbert-space modes costs nothing—no extra noise, no extra loss, and no change in mode amplitudes—and that the state remains maximally entangled, with equal amplitudes across all d modes. If a physical source's noise or per-mode efficiency degrades as d grows, the predicted threshold reductions shrink, as the paper's own finite-bandwidth simulations show.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Certifying a fixed k-dimensional entanglement becomes cheaper in noise terms as d grows to $d_{\mathrm{opt}}$: the required quantum contrast falls by a factor of about $0.343k$, so for $k=1000$ it drops from about $2\times10^6$ to about $5.8\times10^3$.
  • When all $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases are measured, the certifiable dimension k is bounded by $k < \frac{(d+1)Q}{d+Q-1}$, and in an infinite-dimensional space the maximum certifiable k equals Q, so the minimum quantum contrast for k-dimensional entanglement is k.
  • A single measured quantum contrast Q predicts not only the certifiable dimension but also the violation of EPR-steering and CGLMP nonlocality inequalities, giving experimenters a fast diagnostic of system performance.
  • The practical benefit is large for multi-outcome detectors: certifying $k=1000$ with two MUBs tolerates two orders of magnitude higher detector noise and an efficiency drop from 80% to 23% when d is enlarged from 1000 to about 2410.
  • Finite source bandwidth bounds the advantage: numerical simulations show that d can be increased only up to a point set by the state's mode width, so the analytical thresholds are upper bounds rather than universal guarantees.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Q is an online-measurable parameter, an entanglement distribution system could in principle dynamically adjust the operational dimension d to keep certification possible as channel noise fluctuates; the paper does not discuss this adaptive strategy.
  • The same k-versus-d separation should carry over to time-bin and frequency entanglement, but the quantitative detector-efficiency gains would need to be re-derived for those mode structures, since their noise coefficients n and η are dimension-dependent in practice.
  • The optimal overhead $d_{\mathrm{opt}}/k \approx 2.41$ suggests a design rule: modest alphabet expansion can substitute for costly detector and source upgrades; that is an economic consequence of the physics, not a physics claim the paper makes.
  • For non-maximally entangled states, the relation between Q and p changes, so an analogous single-parameter theory would be needed to know whether the $5.83k$ scaling survives when the flat-spectrum assumption is dropped.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an operational noise model for high-dimensional photonic entanglement. It defines the quantum contrast Q as the ratio of coincidence to accidental counts (Eq. 4), relates Q to the isotropic-state noise parameter p (Eq. 2), and derives the minimum Q required to certify k-dimensional entanglement using two-MUB witnesses (Eq. 6) and all-MUB witnesses (Eq. 8). The central observation is that separating the operational Hilbert-space dimension d from the certified entanglement dimension k lowers the required Q; for two-MUB witnesses the optimal d is approximately 2.41k, reducing the required Q from O(k^2) to O(k). The authors verify the Q-based predictions against experimental data in d = 3, 5, and 7 and against numerical simulations of finite-bandwidth states (Fig. 7). They conclude that high-dimensional entanglement is neither universally robust nor universally fragile; the benefit depends on the relationship between Q, d, and k.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful, experimentally accessible single-parameter framework for predicting noise tolerance and for choosing measurement strategies. The analytical formulas are simple, and the model assumptions are stated explicitly. The experimental data at d = 3, 5, and 7 agree with the predicted trends, and the finite-bandwidth numerical simulations honestly show where the ideal model breaks down. The main caveat is that the headline d = 300, two-orders-of-magnitude improvement is an extrapolation of the penalty-free, maximally-entangled model and is not demonstrated for realistic sources; the paper's own simulations show the advantage saturates with finite bandwidth. This is a significant qualification, but not a fatal one, because the manuscript is transparent about the model assumptions and the core Q-based predictive framework remains useful.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; 'Assumptions of the model'; 'Example for an EMCCD camera'; Fig. 7] The two-orders-of-magnitude reduction at d = 300 is derived under the two assumptions stated in the model: the dimension of the state can be increased without any penalty, and the mode coefficients are equal, i.e., the state is maximally entangled. The paper's own finite-bandwidth simulations (Fig. 7, sigma = 2, 4, 10) show that the advantage of increasing d saturates when the state has finite bandwidth, and only the sigma = 100000 curve recovers the analytic upper bound. As written, the abstract and the EMCCD example present an idealized upper bound as a general capability claim. Please qualify the headline claim in the abstract and, ideally, provide a quantitative estimate of the achievable advantage for a finite-bandwidth source, since the current d = 300 statement is not a prediction for SPDC-like sources.
  2. [Section 'Entanglement verification via all mutually unbiased bases', Eqs. (7) and (8)] The step from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8) is not spelled out and does not follow from the fidelity criterion F > (k-1)/d used for the two-MUB witness. Combining Eq. (7) with that criterion gives k < [(d+1)Q + (d-1) + d/(d-1)]/(Q+d-1), which differs from Eq. (8) by a term of order d in the numerator; the difference is negligible only for Q >> d. Since Eq. (8) is used to state the d -> infinity limit k -> Q and to define the upper bounds in Fig. 5, please state the entanglement-dimensionality criterion used in this section and either correct Eq. (8) or explicitly label it as a conservative approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'entaglement' should be 'entanglement'. Also, the phrase 'doubling the size of a Hilbert space with local dimension d=300' is ambiguous; please specify the starting and final dimensions (e.g., from d = 300 to d = 600, or from k = 124 to d_opt ~ 300).
  2. [Section 'Experimental verification'] The sentence 'the computational basis uses the standard anti-correlations in photon momenta that are are observed in the far-field of SPDC' contains a duplicated 'are'.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says 'the dotted lines are the analytical thoery' and the text claims 'Increasing the size of the space d continues to provide noise resistance'; for finite sigma the caption should make clear that the advantage saturates rather than continuing indefinitely, and the typo 'thoery' should be corrected.
  4. [Section 'Entanglement verification via all mutually unbiased bases'] The notation ilde F is used for both the two-MUB lower bound (Eq. 5) and the all-MUB expression (Eq. 7); please define both and clarify whether Eq. (7) is an exact fidelity or an achievable lower bound.
  5. [References] Reference [37] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if it has been published by the time of submission, please update the reference to the journal version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Q-to-k relations are derived analytically from an external MUB-fidelity witness, and the experimental re-analysis is in-sample but not tautological.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claims are the thresholds in Eq. (6) (two MUBs) and Eq. (8) (all MUBs), which follow algebraically from the two-MUB and all-MUB fidelity witnesses of Ref. [25] together with the isotropic-state model. Quantum contrast Q is operationally defined in Eq. (4) as a ratio of coincidence to accidental counts and is not defined in terms of k; the entanglement dimension k is a separate quantity obtained from fidelity thresholds. The analytical derivation is therefore self-contained and does not fit k to Q. The experimental verification in Table I and Fig. 5 computes Q from the same coincidence matrices that are used to infer k, so the validation is in-sample; however, the predicted fidelity is a lower bound and is not identical to the measured fidelity (e.g. d=11: 78.1% vs 74.8%), so k_pred is not forced by construction. The d=300 two-orders-of-magnitude example is explicitly presented as an upper bound under stated assumptions (penalty-free dimension increase and equal mode amplitudes), and the finite-bandwidth simulations in Fig. 7 acknowledge the resulting limitation; this is a modeling caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations to Ref. [25] cite a published, parameter-free witness result rather than an unverified uniqueness claim, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. No step in the derivation reduces by definition or by fit to its own inputs.

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

The central derivation is parameter-light: no free parameters are fitted to data. The main load-bearing assumptions are the isotropic noise model and, crucially, the penalty-free dimension increase, which the authors explicitly flag as providing an upper bound. There are no invented physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math SPDC with undepleted pump produces the multi-mode squeezed state of Eq. (14), leading to the explicit form of Eq. (3).
    Used to derive the state used for computing coincidence rates and Q. This is a standard quantum optics treatment of spontaneous parametric downconversion.
  • domain assumption Noise is modeled by the isotropic state (white noise) with parameter p, as in Eq. (1).
    The mapping between p and Q (Eq. 2) assumes white noise, a simplification of real noise sources. This is a common assumption in entanglement theory, referenced to Werner 1989.
  • domain assumption Equal mode amplitudes, i.e., the state is maximally entangled.
    Stated in the 'Assumptions of the model' section. Real sources may have non-uniform amplitudes, requiring entanglement concentration to restore the maximally entangled form.
  • ad hoc to paper Noise n and efficiency eta are dimension-independent, and increasing d has no penalty.
    Stated in the 'Assumptions of the model' section. This is the key optimistic assumption that enables the d=300 gain. The authors acknowledge it provides an upper bound to noise resistance.
  • standard math Fidelity witnesses from Bavaresco et al. [25] correctly certify entanglement dimensionality.
    Used to derive Eqs. (5)-(8). This is an accepted result from the cited literature, used without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement robust to noise?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PU3NOGUQ

@misc{pith2026190808943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement robust to noise?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PU3NOGUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08943}
}
read the original abstract

High-dimensional entangled states are of significant interest in quantum science as they increase the information content per photon and can remain entangled in the presence of significant noise. We develop the analytical theory and show experimentally that the noise tolerance of high-dimensional entanglement can be significantly increased by modest increases to the size of the Hilbert space. For example, doubling the size of a Hilbert space with local dimension d=300 leads to a reduction of the threshold detector efficiencies required for entanglement certification by two orders of magnitude. This work is developed in the context of spatial entanglement, but it can easily be translated to photonic states entangled in different degrees of freedom. We also demonstrate that knowledge of a single parameter, the signal-to-noise ratio, precisely links measures of entanglement to a range of experimental parameters quantifying noise in a quantum communication system, enabling accurate predictions of its performance. This work serves to answer a simple question: "Is high-dimensional photonic entaglement robust to noise?". Here we show that the answer is more nuanced than a simple "yes" or "no" and involves a complex interplay between the noise characteristics of the state, channel, and detection system

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The relationship between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The signal-to-noise ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The measured signal-to-noise ratios for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Numerical simulation of average quantum contrast vs. entangled dimension for a range of finite-width states. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.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. Bright Source of High-Dimensional Temporal Entanglement

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A compact ppKTP source generates high-dimensional time-bin entanglement, with a new witness certifying Schmidt numbers up to 8 and peak key/entanglement rates at dimension 4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    Bavaresco, N

    J. Bavaresco, N. H. Valencia, C. Kl¨ ockl, M. Pivoluska, P. Erker, N. Friis, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Nature Physics 14, 1032 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  3. [2]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  4. [3]

    M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009)

    2009

  5. [4]

    Ac´ ın, N

    A. Ac´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007)

    2007

  6. [5]

    A. C. Dada, J. Leach, G. S. Buller, M. J. Padgett, and E. Andersson, Nature Physics 7, 677 (2011)

    2011

  7. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  8. [7]

    Fickler, M

    R. Fickler, M. Krenn, R. Lapkiewicz, S. Ramelow, and A. Zeilinger, Scientific Reports 3, 1914 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Bornman, M

    N. Bornman, M. Agnew, F. Zhu, A. Vall´ es, A. Forbes, and J. Leach, npj Quantum Information 5, 63 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Ringbauer, B

    M. Ringbauer, B. Duffus, C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, A. G. White, and A. Fedrizzi, Nature Physics 11, 249 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Proietti, J

    M. Proietti, J. Ho, F. Grasselli, P. Barrow, M. Malik, and A. Fedrizzi, arXiv , 2002.01491 (2020), 2002.01491

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Collins, N

    D. Collins, N. Gisin, N. Linden, S. Massar, and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 040404 (2002)

    2002

  5. [12]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 127902 (2002)

    2002

  6. [13]

    R. T. Thew, A. Ac´ ın, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 010503 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  8. [15]

    V´ ertesi, S

    T. V´ ertesi, S. Pironio, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 060401 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Krenn, M

    M. Krenn, M. Malik, M. Erhard, and A. Zeilinger, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20150442 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Erhard, R

    M. Erhard, R. Fickler, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Light: Science & Applications 7, 17146 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Kaszlikowski, P

    D. Kaszlikowski, P. Gnaci´ nski, M. ˙Zukowski, W. Mik- laszewski, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4418 (2000)

    2000

  12. [19]

    A. K. Jha, M. Malik, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 180405 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Manˇ cinska, D. Bacco,et al., Science 360, 285 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Bouchard, K

    F. Bouchard, K. Heshami, D. England, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, B.-G. Englert, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and E. Karimi, Quantum 2, 111 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    N. H. Valencia, S. Goel, W. McCutcheon, H. Defienne, and M. Malik, arXiv , 1910.04490 (2019), 1910.04490

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ecker, F

    S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, F. Steinlechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041042 (2019)

    2019

  17. [26]

    R. F. Werner, Physical Review A 40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  18. [27]

    Christ, K

    A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silberhorn, New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

    2011

  19. [28]

    H. P. Yuen, Physical Review A 13, 2226 (1976)

    1976

  20. [29]

    Takeoka, R.-B

    M. Takeoka, R.-B. Jin, and M. Sasaki, New Journal of Physics 17, 043030 (2015)

    2015

  21. [30]

    Alibart, J

    O. Alibart, J. Fulconis, G. Wong, S. Murdoch, W. Wadsworth, and J. Rarity, New Journal of Physics 8, 67 (2006)

    2006

  22. [31]

    Wasilewski, C

    W. Wasilewski, C. Radzewicz, R. Frankowski, and K. Banaszek, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033831 (2008)

    2008

  23. [32]

    R. H. Hadfield, Nature Photonics 3, 696 (2009)

    2009

  24. [33]

    P. P. Rohde and T. C. Ralph, Journal of Modern Optics 53, 1589 (2006)

    2006

  25. [34]

    Takesue, S

    H. Takesue, S. W. Nam, Q. Zhang, R. H. Hadfield, T. Honjo, K. Tamaki, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature Pho- tonics 1, 343 (2007)

    2007

  26. [35]

    M. P. Edgar, D. S. Tasca, F. Izdebski, R. E. Warburton, J. Leach, M. Agnew, G. S. Buller, R. W. Boyd, and M. J. Padgett, Nature Communications 3, 984 (2012)

    2012

  27. [36]

    Defienne, M

    H. Defienne, M. Reichert, and J. W. Fleischer, Physical review letters 121, 233601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Valencia, V

    N. Valencia, V. Srivastav, M. Pivoluska, M. Hu- ber, N. Friis,, W. McCutcheon, and M Malik, https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04994 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Leach, B

    J. Leach, B. Jack, J. Romero, A. K. Jha, A. M. Yao, S. Franke-Arnold, D. G. Ireland, R. W. Boyd, S. M. Bar- nett, and M. J. Padgett, Science 329, 662 (2010)

    2010

  30. [39]

    Schneeloch, C

    J. Schneeloch, C. J. Broadbent, S. P. Walborn, E. G. Cavalcanti, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103 (2013)

    2013

  31. [40]

    Leach, E

    J. Leach, E. Bolduc, D. J. Gauthier, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. A 85, 060304 (2012)

    2012

  32. [41]

    Salavrakos, R

    A. Salavrakos, R. Augusiak, J. Tura, P. Wittek, A. Ac´ ın, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 040402 (2017). Generation of high-dimensional entanglement through nonlinear optical processing The Hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field in the interaction picture in nonlinear ...

    2017

Pith tools

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