Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Bright Source of High-Dimensional Temporal Entanglement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a bright, polarization-agnostic source of time-bin entangled photons, analyzed with a nested-Franson interferometer and a newly proved Schmidt-number witness, can certify dimension-8 entanglement and deliver asymptotic

desk verdict A genuinely bright, low-complexity time-bin source and a clean new Schmidt-number witness carry the paper; the headline d=4 QKD key-rate claim is not certified because the exactly-one-click sifting rule isn't shown to match the imported security proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07678 v2 pith:YZJA3DQM submitted 2026-01-12 quant-ph

Dorian Schiffer , Robert Kindler , Alexandra Bergmayr-Mann , Florian Kanitschar , Amin Babazadeh , Paul Erker , Marcus Huber , Anton Zeilinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords time-binentanglementhigh-dimensionalparametricdown-conversionppKTPFransoninterferometerSchmidtnumberwitnessquantumkeydistributionpost-selection
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 sets out to prove that high-dimensional time-bin entanglement can be produced at high brightness and certified with practical measurements, and that the same dataset can then be used to extract QKD key rates beyond the qubit regime. A periodically poled KTP crystal pumped by a narrow-band laser reaches 2.2 million coincidences per second per milliwatt with roughly 30% heralding efficiency. By grouping the recorded time stream into interleaved time bins of variable dimension, the authors evaluate a new Schmidt-number witness from time-of-arrival and time-superposition measurements, certifying Schmidt numbers up to 8. The entanglement rate and asymptotic key rate both peak at dimension 4, at about 143 kebit/s and 74 kbit/s respectively. If the claims hold, the source is roughly an order of magnitude brighter than typical polarization-entangled sources while remaining independent of polarization alignment.

What carries the argument

The nested Franson interferometer: each detection module contains two imbalanced Mach-Zehnder interferometers with delays of about 1.3 ns and 2.6 ns, giving access to superpositions of time bins |i⟩ and |i−1⟩ as well as |i⟩ and |i−2⟩. Combined with a discretization that interleaves d time bins of length τ=433 ps into interleaved time frames, time-of-arrival measurements fix the diagonal of the density matrix while time-superposition measurements bound off-diagonal elements. The new witness W(ρ)=Σ_{i,j}|⟨ii|ρ|jj⟩| is proved to be at most k for every state with Schmidt number at most k, so observing W(ρ)>k certifies Schmidt number at least k+1; the paper evaluates this via a semidefinite progr

What would settle it

Take the same time-tagged dataset and recompute the Schmidt number and key rate under a different sifting rule, for example accepting every frame or allowing at most one click per side; a significant drop in certified dimension or key rate would show that the reported values depend on the discarded frames. Alternatively, insert a calibrated attenuator in front of one receiver and check whether the certified Schmidt number remains constant as detection efficiency changes; if it drifts, the post-selection is biasing the entanglement estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Type-0 ppKTP SPDC source, pumped by a wavelength-stabilized 404.5 nm continuous-wave laser and operated at non-degenerate temperature, produces time-bin entangled photon pairs with a coincidence rate of 2.2×10^6 per second per milliwatt and a symmetric heralding efficiency of about 30% at 0.1 mW. The authors introduce a Schmidt-number witness W(ρ)=Σ_{i,j}|⟨ii|ρ|jj⟩|, prove that it cannot exceed k for any state with Schmidt number at most k, and evaluate it with a semidefinite program using diagonal elements from time-of-arrival measurements and off-diagonal elements from time-superposition measurements in a nested Franson interferometer. With the nested setup they

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the post-selection rule—keeping only time frames with exactly one click at Alice's side and one at Bob's side—does not bias the statistics that enter the Schmidt-number witness, entanglement rate, and key rate; the paper does not show that the imported security proof covers this sifting rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Working at d=4, the same dataset gives both the maximum entanglement rate (about 143 kebit/s) and a key rate around 74 kbit/s, showing a concrete advantage of higher dimensions over qubits under low loss and noise.
  • Because the source is polarization-agnostic, polarization misalignment between source and receivers only increases loss; the temporal correlations used for key generation remain intact.
  • A single recorded time stream can be re-discretized to optimize for different figures of merit, so one measurement campaign can be adapted to changing channel conditions without re-running the experiment.
  • The nested-Franson configuration adds off-diagonal information that raises the certifiable Schmidt number relative to a single Franson, while the high brightness offsets the lower entanglement per photon pair.
  • These properties make the source a candidate for demanding entanglement-based communication links such as satellite-based QKD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same dataset were analyzed without the 'exactly one click per side' post-selection, the reported Schmidt numbers and key rates could change; this is a testable extension rather than a claim of the paper.
  • The new Schmidt-number witness is general: it could be applied to any platform where only the diagonal and a few off-diagonal elements of the density matrix can be measured, not just time-bin photons.
  • The brightness of the source is bounded by detector dead-time rather than pump power, so in high-loss channels the source could be pumped harder to sustain rates; conversely, adding spectral filtering or single-mode coupling might raise per-pair entanglement at the cost of brightness, a trade-off the paper leaves open.
  • The polarization-agnostic design could be combined with a separate polarization qubit to create hyperentanglement without the alignment burden of traditional hybrid sources—an extension the paper does not claim.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a ppKTP-based SPDC source of high-dimensional time-bin entangled photons, characterized with a nested Franson interferometer. The authors introduce a Schmidt-number witness (proved in Appendix A), compute entanglement of formation and entanglement rates from TOA/TSUP measurements, and use a semi-analytic security framework from prior work [45,46] to estimate asymptotic QKD key rates. The main reported results are a brightness of 2.2×10^6 coincidences/s/mW, ~30% heralding efficiency, Schmidt-number certification up to 8, entanglement rates peaking at ~143 kebit/s at d=4, and key rates of ~74-77 kbit/s at d=4. The entire analysis is based on post-selecting time frames with exactly one detection event on each side and then varying the discretization (time-bin length and dimension) on the same dataset.

Significance. If correct, the source would be a substantial practical advance: it is polarization-agnostic, avoids Sagnac-type interferometric stability requirements, and the flexible post-processing enables optimization of dimension and time-bin length for given channel conditions. The Schmidt-number witness proof in Appendix A is clean and appears correct; the SDP-based lower bounding is a useful tool. However, the headline quantitative claims—entanglement rate and QKD key rate—are computed on a detector-dependent post-selected subset, and the compatibility of the exactly-one-click sifting with the imported security proof is not demonstrated. Since the d=4 key-rate advantage is a central message, the current manuscript does not fully certify that claim. The work is potentially significant, but the evidence as presented is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, post-selection paragraph; Section III.C] The QKD key-rate claim rests on applying the security proof of [45,46] to data that have been post-selected on frames with exactly one click per side. The manuscript states this rule but does not prove that the imported security framework covers this detector-dependent sifting. In particular, Eq. (8) bounds H_min(X|E) for a conditional state estimated from accepted frames; the paper gives no argument that this lower-bounds Eve's knowledge in the actual protocol, where the sifting decision itself depends on detection outcomes. The protocol description in III.C allows arbitrary 'discard' and 'subspace post-selection' without stating the conditions under which the security proof remains valid. This is load-bearing for the d=4 key-rate claim (≈74 kbit/s). The authors must either adapt the security proof to this sifting rule, show that [45,46] already covers it, or substantially weaken the QK
  2. [Section III.A and Section IV, Fig. 3] All figures of merit are computed after discarding all frames that do not contain exactly one click per side. The 'entanglement rate' is defined as EoF times the coincidence rate in the TOA setting, but that coincidence rate is the rate after post-selection. The result is a conditional rate, not a lower bound on the source's unconditional entanglement generation per second. Similarly, the key rate is a rate per accepted (sifted) frame and does not account for the discarded rounds unless the security proof explicitly incorporates the sifting efficiency. The caption of Fig. 3 says all quantities are 'lower bounds,' but this is misleading: conditioning on a detector-dependent subset can increase both the estimated EoF and the apparent rate. The paper should report the unconditional rates or clearly define these as conditional rates, and explain how the discarded fraction affects the claimed
  3. [Section II.A, II.B, IV, Fig. 3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or raw data are provided for any reported quantity: brightness, heralding efficiency, Franson visibility, Schmidt-number witness values, entanglement rates, or key rates. This is particularly problematic for the d=4 key-rate comparison (≈74 vs ≈77 kbit/s), which is a small difference that could easily be within statistical or systematic uncertainty. The claim of advantage from higher dimensions is central, yet the paper provides no statistical support. Similarly, the Schmidt-number certification depends on SDP constraints derived from measured click rates, and without uncertainty propagation the certified values (e.g., Schmidt number 8) are not robust. The authors should include error bars or provide the raw data and analysis code so that uncertainties can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, key-rate paragraph] The sentence 'with the nested setup providing a smaller but notable advantage of ≈74 kbit/s versus ≈77 kbit/s at d=4' appears to have the numbers swapped: if the nested setup provides the advantage, it should be ≈77 kbit/s for the nested and ≈74 kbit/s for the single Franson, or vice versa. Please correct.
  2. [Section I/II] The claim that the source is 'order-of-magnitude brighter than typical polarization-entangled sources' is not supported by a direct comparison with specific sources and numbers. Adding a short comparison table or citing quantitative benchmarks would strengthen the claim.
  3. [Section III.A] The definition of entanglement rate as 'EoF times the coincidence rate in the TOA setting' should specify whether the coincidence rate is the raw rate or the post-selected rate. This connects to Major Comment 2.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (29)-(35)] The notation for the nested-Franson POVMs is very dense. A short explanation of the indexing (e.g., why the bases are built from blocks of four time bins) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the experimental measurements and the Schmidt-number witness proof are self-contained, and the QKD security citations are external published results.

full rationale

The central claims are not derived from their own conclusions: the brightness and heralding numbers are measured time-tag statistics, and the Schmidt-number certification rests on a self-contained proof in Appendix A that max over Schmidt-number-k states of W(rho) is at most k, so the d=8 witness certification does not reduce to a fitted target. The entanglement-of-formation bound and the asymptotic key-rate formula are imported as standard or previously published results. Refs. [32,45,46] are prior works with overlapping authors, and they are load-bearing for the key-rate estimates, but they are external published security derivations rather than parameters fit to this dataset; using them does not make an equation in this paper equal to its input by construction. A real concern, noted but not a circularity, is that the exactly-one-click frame sifting in Sec. III is not explicitly shown in this manuscript to be covered by the imported security proof from [45,46]; that is a correctness/application gap that should be checked, but it is not a self-definitional or fitted-input reduction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's own derivation is a short convexity/Cauchy-Schwarz proof of a Schmidt-number witness (Appendix A), which is valid as far as it goes. Everything else is imported from standard quantum-optics modeling and prior QKD security results. The main ledger items are the equal-superposition time-bin model and the post-selection assumption, neither of which is given independent experimental justification in this manuscript.

free parameters (2)
  • time-bin length τ = 433 ps
    Chosen in post-processing to match MZI delay multiples and detector jitter; all dimensionality results depend on this choice.
  • state dimension d = 4 (reported optimum; scanned 2–128)
    Dimension is a free analysis parameter; the paper reports the maximizing d=4 for key and entanglement rates without a robustness analysis across the scan.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SPDC output factorizes as |VV> ⊗ ∫dt f(t)|tt>, with polarization separable and later filtered to |D> (Eq. 1).
    Central source model; the experimental claims depend on the temporal DOF being the only entangled one.
  • domain assumption Pump coherence time is much longer than d·τ, making the discretized state (1/√d)Σ|ii> (Eq. 2).
    Required for the equal-superposition qudit model; asserted for the cw pump but no measured coherence time is given.
  • domain assumption The EoF lower bound Eq. (4) and the SDP reconstruction from Refs. [40,41] are valid and applicable to the post-selected click data.
    All entanglement figures are lower bounds only if these reconstruction constraints are correct for the processed dataset.
  • domain assumption The semi-analytic security proof of Refs. [45,46] applies to this nested-Franson measurement setup and to the post-selection rule used in §III.
    Key rates in Eq. (9) are imported from prior work by the same group; the paper does not re-derive or verify the applicability to the postselected dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bright Source of High-Dimensional Temporal Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZJA3DQM

@misc{pith2026260107678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bright Source of High-Dimensional Temporal Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZJA3DQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07678}
}
read the original abstract

High-dimensional entanglement is considered to hold great potential for quantum key distribution (QKD) in high-loss and -noise scenarios. To harness its robustness, we construct a source for high-dimensional time-bin entangled photons optimized for high brightness, low complexity, and long-term stability. We certify the generated high-dimensional entanglement with a new witness employing nested Franson interferometry. Finally, we obtain key rates using a novel, noise-resilient QKD protocol. Our flexible evaluation method, centered around discretizations of the time stream, enables the same dataset to be processed while varying parameters such as state dimensionality and time bin length, allowing optimization of performance under given environmental conditions. Our results indicate regions within the accessible parameter space where high key rates per time are achievable for dimensionalities larger than two.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experimental Setup. In the photon source, we pump a Type-0 ppKTP crystal, kept at a non-degenerate temperature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Discretizations of the time stream for different dimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Figures of merit for the source and proof-of-principle realization of the novel QKD protocol. Each quantity is computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

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

    1935

  2. [2]

    J. S. Bell, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Physical Review Let- ters28, 938 (1972)

    1972

  4. [4]

    J. S. Bell, J. Phys. Colloq.42, 41 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Physical Review Letters47, 460 (1981)

    1981

  6. [6]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Physical Review Letters49, 91 (1982)

    1982

  7. [7]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Physical Review Letters49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature390, 575 (1997)

    1997

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Weihs, T

    G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters81, 5039 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9810080

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. A. Bertlmann, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424007 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Giustina, M

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- ner, J. Kofler, J.-A. Larsson, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittma...

    2015

  4. [12]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, inProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing(IEEE, India, 1984) p. 175

    1984

  5. [13]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement ro- bust to noise?

    F. Zhu, M. Tyler, N. H. Valencia, M. Malik, and J. Leach, “Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement ro- bust to noise?” (2020), arXiv:1908.08943 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 412, 313 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    Fickler, R

    R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, W. N. Plick, M. Krenn, C. Schaeff, S. Ramelow, and A. Zeilinger, Science338, 640 (2012), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1227193

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Fickler, R

    R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, M. Huber, M. P. J. Lavery, M. J. Padgett, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Communications 5, 4502 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Bavaresco, N

    J. Bavaresco, N. Herrera Valencia, C. Kl¨ ockl, M. Pivo- luska, P. Erker, N. Friis, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Nature Physics14, 1032 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Hu, W.-B

    X.-M. Hu, W.-B. Xing, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, P. Erker, and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 090503 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Chang, X

    K.-C. Chang, X. Cheng, M. C. Sarihan, A. K. Vinod, Y. S. Lee, T. Zhong, Y.-X. Gong, Z. Xie, J. H. Shapiro, F. N. C. Wong, and C. W. Wong, npj Quantum Infor- mation7, 48 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Reviews Physics2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Cabrejo-Ponce, A

    M. Cabrejo-Ponce, A. L. M. Muniz, M. Huber, and F. Steinlechner, Laser and Photonics Reviews17(2023), 10.1002/lpor.202201010

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Serino, W

    L. Serino, W. Ridder, A. Bhattacharjee, J. Gil-Lopez, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Optica Quantum2, 339 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Brendel, N

    J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2594 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    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. X9, 041042 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    T. Kim, M. Fiorentino, and F. N. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. A73, 012316 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Hentschel, H

    M. Hentschel, H. H¨ ubel, A. Poppe, and A. Zeilinger, Opt. Express17, 23153 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Bulla, M

    L. Bulla, M. Pivoluska, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021001 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Bulla, K

    L. Bulla, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, R. Ursin, and M. Pivoluska, Phys. Rev. A107, L050402 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kanitschar, A

    F. Kanitschar, A. Bergmayr-Mann, M. Pivoluska, and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 054054 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, J. Handsteiner, B. Liu, J. Yin, L. Zhang, D. Rauch, M. Fink, J.-G. Ren, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, F.-Z. Li, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Koidl, P. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, X.-B. Wang, M. Steindor- fer, G. ...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Srikara, H

    S. Srikara, H. Leone, A. S. Solnstev, and S. J. Devitt, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043041 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Ad- vances in entanglement-based qkd for space applica- tions,

    S. Ecker, J. Pseiner, J. Piris, and M. Bohmann, “Ad- vances in entanglement-based qkd for space applica- tions,” (2022), arXiv:2210.02229 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Steinlechner, M

    F. Steinlechner, M. Gilaberte, M. Jofre, T. Scheidl, J. P. Torres, V. Pruneri, and R. Ursin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 31, 2068 (2014)

  29. [37]

    R. S. Bennink, Phys. Rev. A81, 053805 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2205 (1989). 8

    1989

  31. [39]

    J. E. Debs, N. P. Robins, A. Lance, M. B. Kruger, and J. D. Close, Appl. Opt.47, 5163 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Tiranov, S

    A. Tiranov, S. Designolle, E. Z. Cruzeiro, J. Lavoie, N. Brunner, M. Afzelius, M. Huber, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A96, 040303 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Martin, T

    A. Martin, T. Guerreiro, A. Tiranov, S. Designolle, F. Fr¨ owis, N. Brunner, M. Huber, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 110501 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki, Physical Review A61 (2000), 10.1103/physreva.61.040301

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    M. Doda, M. Huber, G. Murta, M. Pivoluska, M. Plesch, and C. Vlachou, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 034003 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Sheridan and V

    L. Sheridan and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. A82, 030301 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Kanitschar and M

    F. Kanitschar and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 010802 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Kanitschar and M

    F. Kanitschar and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 054028 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Nature Reviews Physics1, 72–87 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc.R.Soc.461, 207 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    P. J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, P. Wasylczyk, A. B. U’Ren, C. Silberhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 133601 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Meyer-Scott, N

    E. Meyer-Scott, N. Montaut, J. Tiedau, L. Sansoni, H. Herrmann, T. J. Bartley, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. A95, 061803 (2017). 9 Appendix A: Proof Of Schmidt-Number Witness In this section we prove that for every stateρonH=H A ⊗ HB with dim(H A) = dim(H B) =d≥2 and an orthon...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.