Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Uncovering Non-Gaussianity through Multi-Copy Symmetries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every single-mode Gaussian state obeys one fixed multi-copy mixing identity, calibrated by purity alone; a measured violation certifies non-Gaussianity, via a three-copy interferometric protocol with O(1/ε²) samples.

desk verdict The algebraic witness family is sound and the closed-form Gaussian reference is a genuinely useful addition, but the experimental protocol's confidence claim ignores systematic loss and needs a serious caveat before it can be called experimentally accessible. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03755 v1 pith:UNNOS7KP submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Hao Dai , Yue Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-GaussianitydetectionGaussianstatesmulti-copysymmetriespassivelinearopticsHowedualitycommutantstructurecontinuous-variablequantuminformationFisher
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

Non-Gaussian states are the resource behind many continuous-variable quantum advantages, yet detecting them is hard because the set of Gaussian states is not convex, so no single linear observable cleanly separates the two families. This paper proves that every single-mode Gaussian state obeys a fixed identity when k identical copies are mixed by a passive linear-optical transformation: the expectation value depends only on the state's thermal parameter λ, and λ is fixed by a single purity measurement. A state that violates the identity is therefore certified non-Gaussian. The paper gives a concrete three-copy protocol — a Fourier tritter followed by photon-number-resolved detection — whose sample complexity scales as 1/ε², and extends the identity to multi-mode states through their Williamson thermal parameters.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the commutant of the Gaussian action on k copies. Orthogonal copy-mixing unitaries Γ(O), O ∈ O(k), commute with the tensor product of any single-copy squeezing or rotation — a pairing between the metaplectic group and the orthogonal group known as Howe duality — while the displacement (Heisenberg) part of a Gaussian unitary restricts commutation to matrices satisfying Oe1 = e1, a subgroup isomorphic to O(k−1). This structure makes the Gaussian expectation value a function of λ and O alone, and the spectral decomposition of O turns the trace into a product of geometric series, yielding the closed-form determinant reference (1−λ)^k / det(I_k − λO). In the three-copy c

What would settle it

Numerically compute Tr(ρ^⊗3 Γ(e^{θG})) in a truncated Fock basis for a displaced squeezed thermal state with known λ and compare it with (1−λ)²/(1−2λcos(√3θ)+λ²) across a sweep of θ — any statistically significant disagreement would refute the algebraic identity. Alternatively, run the three-copy tritter protocol on a pure coherent state, for which the identity predicts the flat value 1 for every θ; a systematic deviation beyond the Hoeffding bound would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the identity Tr(ρ_G^⊗k Γ(O)) = (1−λ)^k / det(I_k − λO), valid for every single-mode Gaussian state ρ_G with thermal parameter λ and every orthogonal copy-mixing matrix O that fixes the collective-mode vector e1. The identity is proven from a commutant structure: the symplectic part of any Gaussian unitary commutes with every orthogonal copy-mixing transformation Γ(O), while the displacement part reduces the commuting family to the stabilizer subgroup O(k−1). Because λ is recoverable from the purity p = Tr(ρ²) through λ = (1−p)/(1+p), the right-hand side becomes a computable reference: any measured violation, for any k ≥ 3 and any admissible O, certifies that the

Load-bearing premise

The certification step assumes every estimator is unbiased: the k copies are independently and identically prepared, the Fourier tritter implements exactly the intended transformation, and photon counting is lossless with unit efficiency, so any systematic bias shifts the violation signal or the purity-derived λ outside the stated 1−δ_z−δ_p confidence interval; the multi-mode witness makes the analogous assumption for covariance-matrix estimation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One purity measurement plus one multi-copy phase observable gives a one-sided certificate of non-Gaussianity for unknown single-mode states, with no full state tomography or Wigner-function reconstruction.
  • The three-copy protocol uses only a Fourier tritter and photon-number-resolved detection, and its estimators are bounded phase factors |X| = 1, so Hoeffding bounds give O(1/ε²) samples to additive error ε, independent of the photon-number distribution.
  • For multi-mode states the reference factors over modes with Williamson thermal parameters, so the same commutant argument yields a multi-mode witness from covariance-matrix data.
  • The sensitivity of ρ^⊗k to copy-mixing rotations suggests a quantitative, asymmetry-based measure of non-Gaussianity built from quantum-Fisher-information-type quantities, which the paper leaves for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Passing the test for a single θ does not certify Gaussianity — the witness is purely one-sided — so in practice an experimenter would sweep θ and scan the O(k−1) family to build evidence, and the achievable gap between a non-Gaussian state and its Gaussian reference is not bounded a priori.
  • The purity error enters the certification twice, once in the reference value W(λ̂,θ) and once in the threshold via L_λ, so the stated 1−δ_z−δ_p confidence is only as good as the purity measurement's own calibration; a self-tested purity estimate on the same ensemble would be the natural stress test.
  • Because the examples already detect non-Gaussianity through the second derivative at θ = 0, taking derivatives of the identity at θ = 0 yields a systematic family of polynomial witnesses that avoid tuning the interferometer to special angles.
  • The construction's cost grows with k (more copies to prepare, count, and pass through a larger interferometer) while the detector family O(k−1) grows too; the paper does not optimize this trade-off, so the choice of k for a given platform remains open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 develops a group-theoretic, multi-copy method for detecting non-Gaussianity of bosonic states. The main result is that for every single-mode Gaussian state ρ_G with thermal parameter λ, and every orthogonal copy-mixing matrix O∈O(k) with Oe_1=e_1, the multi-copy expectation value Tr(ρ_G^{⊗k} Γ(O)) equals (1−λ)^k / det(I_k−λO) (Eq. (80)), independent of displacement and squeezing. After fixing λ from the measured purity, a violation of this identity certifies non-Gaussianity. The authors illustrate the witness with Fock states, cat states, and a mixture of coherent states, and propose an interferometric protocol based on a Fourier tritter and photon-number-resolved detection, with Hoeffding-based sample complexity O(ε^{−2}). They also extend the construction to multi-mode systems. The algebraic core appears sound; the experimental confidence analysis, however, currently covers only sampling noise and not systematic loss or detector inefficiency.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable new witness: it is derived from first principles rather than fitted, depends on a single purity-calibrated parameter, and gives a one-sided certificate with a concrete linear-optics protocol. The examples are analytically nontrivial (e.g., Per(O)=5/9 for the n=1 Fock case and the cat-state second derivative) and the multi-copy symmetry perspective connects to Howe duality. The statistical bounds for sampling noise (Eqs. (144)–(147)) are correctly derived for an ideal lossless implementation. The main gap is that the claimed experimental confidence, Eq. (153), is not robust to photon loss, detector inefficiency, or imperfect interferometers, and the multi-mode extension omits error propagation from covariance estimation. These gaps are fixable but currently limit the 'experimentally accessible' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (153)] The claimed confidence 1−δ_z−δ_p for the certification rule assumes the estimator X(n2,n3)=exp(i√3θ(n3−n2)) in Eq. (139) is unbiased. With per-photon efficiency η, the measured expectation becomes Σ_n p(n)(1−η+η e^{i√3θ})^{n3}(1−η+η e^{−i√3θ})^{n2}, which is not z(θ) for any state and, for a Gaussian state, is not W(λ,θ) for any λ. This systematic bias is not covered by the threshold ε_z+L_λ ε_λ, so a Gaussian state can be falsely certified with probability exceeding δ_z+δ_p. Please either include loss in the statistical model (e.g., calibrate η, use a loss-tolerant estimator, or add a systematic-error term) or restate the protocol as applying only to a lossless, unit-efficiency, ideal-tritter setting.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, purity estimation (Eqs. (137)–(148))] The same loss bias affects the SWAP purity estimate: with loss, the measured purity is systematically low, so λ̂=(1−p̂)/(1+p̂) is biased upward. The bound |λ̂−λ|≤2ε_p in Eq. (148) is derived under the assumption that the SWAP estimator is unbiased; with loss it does not hold. Consequently, the error-propagation term L_λ ε_λ in Eq. (153) does not cover the purity-calibration bias. A complete protocol needs a loss-calibrated purity estimator or an explicit worst-case systematic offset.
  3. [Sec. V.A, Eqs. (186)–(188)] The multi-mode criterion assumes exact knowledge of the covariance matrix and hence of the symplectic eigenvalues λ_r. In an experiment, the covariance matrix is estimated from finitely many quadrature measurements, and the map from covariance matrix to λ_r is nonlinear. No error propagation is provided, so the violation condition in Eq. (188) has no stated confidence. To make the multi-mode witness experimentally meaningful, the authors should include finite-sample error bounds for λ_r or explicitly state that the criterion is algebraic and does not yet carry a statistical guarantee.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B, after Eq. (8)] The text says 'Γ′(A)† = −Γ(A)', but it should be '−Γ′(A)' (the prime is missing on the right-hand side).
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (29)] The line 'Γ(O)aΓ(O)−1 = O^T a = O^T a' contains a duplicated expression; one occurrence should be removed.
  3. [Sec. III.C, after Eq. (124)] The text refers to 'Fig. III C' for the comparison of W(r) and f(r), but no figure appears in the manuscript. Please either include the figure or remove the reference.
  4. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (144)] 'applying Hoeffding’s inequality to the real and imaginary parts separately gives yields'—'gives yields' is redundant; use 'gives'.
  5. [Sec. V.A, around Eq. (187)] The sentence beginning 'Let ρ be an unknown d-mode state' is repeated almost verbatim in two consecutive paragraphs; the duplication should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-copy Gaussian identity is derived from representation theory, and the purity-calibrated witness is not a fit.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (80), is derived in Section III.B: Theorem 1 proves the commutation of Γ(O) with Λ(S)^⊗k directly, Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 handle the displacement constraint, and the thermal expectation value W(λ,O) is computed explicitly from the definition of the thermal state in Eqs. (74)-(79). No parameter is tuned to force agreement; the thermal parameter λ is the state parameter of the Gaussian decomposition, and the purity relation Eq. (61) is a derived consequence, not an input assumption. The witness protocol is a one-sided test: the purity is measured independently by a SWAP measurement, λ is fixed by Eq. (137), and z(θ) is measured in a separate interferometric experiment. If Eq. (153) is violated, the state is certified non-Gaussian. The Gaussian reference is not constructed from the measured z(θ), so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The only self-citation is Ref. [62] in the concluding speculation about quantum-Fisher-information measures; it is not load-bearing for any theorem or witness. The experimental confidence claim ignores systematic detection loss and efficiency; this is a robustness/correctness gap, not a circular reduction. The algebraic identity and the statistical statement about noise under idealized assumptions are self-contained. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central witness identity rests on three external pillars: the Gaussian normal form D S ρ_λ S† D†, the Howe-duality structure of the oscillator representation (proven directly for the quadratic generator case but acknowledged as an instance of Howe duality), and the second-quantization mode-mixing formulas. None are new to this paper and none are fitted. The only state-dependent input is the thermal reference λ (or the symplectic spectrum {λ_r}), fixed by an independent purity or covariance measurement rather than tuned to the witness. The experimental claim additionally assumes i.i.d. copies and ideal linear optics and detection.

free parameters (1)
  • thermal reference parameter λ (single-mode) / {λ_r} (multi-mode) = λ = (1-p)/(1+p) with p = Tr(ρ²) measured; λ_r = (ν_r-1)/(ν_r+1) from symplectic eigenvalues of the measured covariance m
    Not fitted: the witness value (1-λ)^k/det(I_k - λO) is a derived necessary condition for Gaussian states, and λ is fixed by an independent measurement before comparison. Listed because the reference value depends on it and finite-precision measurement of p or σ propagates into the certification.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Every single-mode Gaussian state has the normal form ρ_G = D(α)S(ζ)ρ_λS†(ζ)D†(α) with 0 ≤ λ < 1 (Eq. 16, Sec. II.D); multi-mode analog with product thermal reference.
    Standard Williamson/thermal decomposition of Gaussian states, cited to [8,9,52,53]. The witness identity is derived from this normal form.
  • standard math Howe duality / multiplicity-free decomposition of the oscillator representation for the dual pair (Mp(n,R), O(k)) (Proposition 1, Sec. III.A, citing [54,55]).
    Grounds Theorem 1's commutation [Γ(O), Λ(S)^⊗k] = 0. The authors also give a direct proof for the quadratic generator case.
  • standard math Second quantization identities Eq. (9): Γ(e^A)aΓ(e^A)^{-1} = e^{-A}a and the adjoint formula, used to derive the mode-mixing action of Γ(O) for real orthogonal O (Sec. II.B).
    Used in all commutation proofs (Theorem 1, Lemma 1, Lemma 3, Lemma 4).
  • domain assumption Trace cyclicity with unbounded displacement/squeezing operators inside Tr(ρ^⊗k Γ(O)) (the chain leading to Eq. 56).
    The manipulation Tr(D S ρ S† D† Γ) = Tr(S ρ S† Γ) = Tr(ρ Γ) assumes trace-class products and invariance under unitary conjugation; standard in physics treatments, not fully justified at the operator level.
  • domain assumption Identical, independent preparation of k copies of the unknown state (Sec. IV.B protocol).
    The witness is defined on ρ^⊗k; the sample-complexity and certification rule assume i.i.d. copies. Drift or correlations between copies invalidate the estimator unbiasedness.
  • domain assumption Ideal passive interferometry and unit-efficiency photon-number-resolved detection (Eqs. 127-129).
    Unbiasedness of the phase estimator requires the interferometer to realize Γ(V)† exactly and PNRD to be lossless; the paper provides no systematic-error model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncovering Non-Gaussianity through Multi-Copy Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNNOS7KP

@misc{pith2026260803755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncovering Non-Gaussianity through Multi-Copy Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNNOS7KP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03755}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian states are fundamental in continuous-variable quantum information, yet characterizing non-Gaussianity remains challenging due to the non-convexity of the Gaussian set. Existing witnesses typically rely on Wigner negativity or other information-theoretic quantities. In this work, we develop a group-theoretic, multi-copy approach to detect non-Gaussianity in bosonic systems. We study passive linear optical transformations that mix copies of a quantum state and analyze their commutation with identical Gaussian unitaries applied to each copy. Orthogonal copy-mixing transformations commute with the symplectic part of the Gaussian action, while the displacement part restricts the symmetry to the stabilizer of the collective mode. This structure yields a family of witnesses satisfied by all single-mode Gaussian states. Fixing the thermal reference parameter via the purity, violation of these identities certifies non-Gaussianity. We illustrate the method with several single-mode examples and present an experimental protocol based on passive interferometry and photon-number-resolved detection, showing that the relevant multi-copy expectation values can be estimated from bounded phase observables. Finally, we extend the construction to multi-mode systems and discuss how the same symmetry framework may lead to quantitative measures of non-Gaussianity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    dX r=1 αra† r −¯αrar # .(170) Forkcopies, D⊗k α = exp

    Sample complexity First, consider the estimator bz(θ) = 1 Nshot NshotX ℓ=1 Xℓ, X ℓ = exp h i √ 3θ(n3,ℓ −n 2,ℓ) i ,(143) and it’s unbiased, namely,E bz(θ) =z(θ).Since|X ℓ|= 1, applying Hoeffding’s inequality to the real and imaginary parts separately gives yields, Pr [|bz(θ)−z(θ)| ≥ϵz]≤4 exp − Nshotϵ2 z 4 (144) 25 for anyϵ z >0. Therefore, to estimatez(θ) ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Bachor and T

    H.-A. Bachor and T. C. Ralph,A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Grosshans, G

    F. Grosshans, G. Van Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, and P. Grangier, Nature421, 238 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Pirandola and S

    S. Pirandola and S. Mancini, Laser Physics16, 1418 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Fernholz, H

    T. Fernholz, H. Krauter, K. Jensen, J. F. Sherson, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 073601 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    D’Auria, S

    V. D’Auria, S. Fornaro, A. Porzio, S. Solimeno, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 020502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Daems, F

    D. Daems, F. Bernard, N. J. Cerf, and M. I. Kolobov, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B27, 447 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

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

    2005

  2. [11]

    C. D. Cushen and R. L. Hudson, Journal of Applied Probability8, 454–469 (1971)

    1971

  3. [12]

    Holevo, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory21, 533 (1975)

    A. Holevo, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory21, 533 (1975)

    1975

  4. [13]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  5. [14]

    Giorda and M

    P. Giorda and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 020503 (2010)

    2010

  6. [15]

    M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 080502 (2006)

    2006

  7. [16]

    Olivares and M

    S. Olivares and M. G. A. Paris, Optics and Spectroscopy103, 231 (2007)

    2007

  8. [17]

    S. Fu, S. Luo, and Y. Zhang, Physics Letters A384, 126037 (2020)

    2020

  9. [18]

    Zhang and Z

    G. Zhang and Z. Dong, Annual Reviews in Control54, 274 (2022)

    2022

  10. [19]

    Dell’Anno, S

    F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A81, 012333 (2010)

    2010

  11. [20]

    N. J. Cerf, O. Kr¨ uger, P. Navez, R. F. Werner, and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 070501 (2005)

    2005

  12. [21]

    Xu, Y.-R

    K. Xu, Y.-R. Zhang, Z.-H. Sun, H. Li, P. Song, Z. Xiang, K. Huang, H. Li, Y.-H. Shi, C.-T. Chen, X. Song, D. Zheng, F. Nori, H. Wang, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150501 (2022)

    2022

  13. [22]

    Opatrn´ y, G

    T. Opatrn´ y, G. Kurizki, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A61, 032302 (2000)

    2000

  14. [23]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Science345, 424 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1250147

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    J. Lee, J. Park, and H. Nha, npj Quantum Information5, 49 (2019)

    2019

  16. [25]

    Y.-S. Ra, A. Dufour, M. Walschaers, C. Jacquard, T. Michel, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, Nature Physics16, 144 (2020)

    2020

  17. [27]

    M. Tian, X. Gao, B. Jing, F. Sun, M. Fadel, M. Gessner, and Q. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 140201 (2025)

    2025

  18. [28]

    Guo, F.-X

    J. Guo, F.-X. Sun, M. Fadel, and Q. He, Phys. Rev. A113, 012409 (2026)

    2026

  19. [29]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  20. [30]

    O. Hahn, G. Ferrini, and R. Takagi, PRX Quantum6, 010330 (2025)

    2025

  21. [31]

    Allegra, P

    M. Allegra, P. Giorda, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 100503 (2010)

    2010

  22. [32]

    Allevi, S

    A. Allevi, S. Olivares, and M. Bondani, Opt. Express20, 24850 (2012)

    2012

  23. [33]

    K. K. Sabapathy and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A95, 062309 (2017)

    2017

  24. [34]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

    2018

  25. [35]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

    2018

  26. [36]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  27. [37]

    Chatterjee and U

    K. Chatterjee and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 190202 (2026)

    2026

  28. [38]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  29. [39]

    M. G. Genoni, M. L. Palma, T. Tufarelli, S. Olivares, M. S. Kim, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A87, 062104 (2013)

    2013

  30. [40]

    Marian and T

    P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Phys. Rev. A88, 012322 (2013)

    2013

  31. [41]

    I. Ghiu, P. Marian, and T. A. Marian, Physica Scripta2013, 014028 (2013)

    2013

  32. [42]

    Hughes, M

    C. Hughes, M. G. Genoni, T. Tufarelli, M. G. A. Paris, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A90, 013810 (2014)

    2014

  33. [43]

    Son, Phys

    W. Son, Phys. Rev. A92, 012114 (2015)

    2015

  34. [44]

    Baek and H

    K. Baek and H. Nha, Phys. Rev. A98, 042314 (2018)

    2018

  35. [45]

    S. Fu, S. Luo, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A101, 012125 (2020)

    2020

  36. [46]

    Zhang and S

    Y. Zhang and S. Luo, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics204, 1046 (2020)

    2020

  37. [47]

    J. Park, J. Lee, K. Baek, and H. Nha, Phys. Rev. A104, 032415 (2021)

    2021

  38. [48]

    Malpani, K

    P. Malpani, K. Thapliyal, J. Banerji, and A. Pathak, Annalen der Physik535, 2200261 (2023), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.202200261

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    Turner, M

    L. Turner, M. Gut ¸˘ a, and G. Adesso, New Journal of Physics27, 094507 (2025)

    2025

  40. [50]

    B. C. Hall,Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in 32 Mathematics No. 222 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  41. [51]

    Woit,Quantum theory, groups and representations, Vol

    P. Woit,Quantum theory, groups and representations, Vol. 4 (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  42. [52]

    G. B. Folland,Harmonic analysis in phase space.(AM-122)(Princeton university press, 2016)

    2016

  43. [53]

    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

  44. [54]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Systems & Information Dynamics21, 1440001 (2014)

    2014

  45. [55]

    Goodman, N

    R. Goodman, N. R. Wallach,et al.,Symmetry, representations, and invariants, Vol. 255 (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  46. [56]

    Goodman, inRepresentations of real and p-adic groups(World Scientific, 2004) pp

    R. Goodman, inRepresentations of real and p-adic groups(World Scientific, 2004) pp. 305–415

    2004

  47. [57]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  48. [58]

    Rosenberg, A

    D. Rosenberg, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Phys. Rev. A71, 061803(R) (2005)

    2005

  49. [59]

    Fukuda, G

    D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, T. Numata, K. Amemiya, A. Yoshizawa, H. Tsuchida, H. Fujino, H. Ishii, T. Itatani, S. Inoue, and T. Zama, Opt. Express19, 870 (2011)

    2011

  50. [60]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  51. [61]

    Spagnolo, C

    N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Aparo, P. Mataloni, F. Sciarrino, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, and R. Osellame, Nature communi- cations4, 1606 (2013)

    2013

  52. [62]

    J. R. Taylor,An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements, 2nd ed. (University Science Books, 1997)

    1997

  53. [63]

    Dai, Physical Review A108, 012427 (2023)

    H. Dai, Physical Review A108, 012427 (2023)

    2023

  54. [64]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Nature communications5, 3821 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.