pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23617 · v1 · pith:UR2HHG7Hnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multiphoton heralding generates large-amplitude squeezed Schr\"odinger cat states and parity-selective Fock superpositions from squeezed vacuum via an OPA

Yusuf Turek , Ming-Yan Sun , Xiao-Xi Yao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords optical parametric amplifiersqueezed Schrödinger cat statesphoton subtractionWigner negativitynon-Gaussian statesheraldingquantum metrologyFock superpositions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multiphoton heralding in an OPA generates large squeezed Schrödinger cat states from squeezed vacuum.

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

The paper proposes a scheme that uses an optical parametric amplifier together with multiphoton injection and detection to convert squeezed vacuum into non-Gaussian states. By sending m photons into the idler port and counting n photons at the output, the protocol performs effective high-order photon subtraction inside a single device. This produces two families of states: large-amplitude squeezed Schrödinger cat states and low-order parity-selective Fock superpositions. The states display strong negativity in their Wigner functions and retain substantial phase-space complexity under photon loss, even after negativity disappears, while also achieving phase-estimation precision beyond the Heisenberg limit.

Core claim

By injecting m photons into the idler port of an optical parametric amplifier and detecting n photons at the output, the scheme realizes effective high-order photon subtraction on squeezed vacuum. This yields large-amplitude squeezed Schrödinger cat states and low-order parity-selective Fock superpositions that exhibit strong Wigner negativity, high phase-space complexity that remains substantial under photon loss after negativity vanishes, and phase-estimation performance that surpasses the Heisenberg limit.

What carries the argument

The multiphoton heralding protocol in a single OPA, in which m-photon injection into the idler and n-photon detection at the output implement effective high-order photon subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes an ideal OPA with perfect photon-number resolution in the heralding detectors and no extra noise or mode mismatch.

What would settle it

An experiment that prepares the heralded states, applies controlled photon loss, reconstructs their Wigner functions, and checks whether phase-space complexity persists after negativity is lost, or measures phase-estimation variance to test whether it exceeds the Heisenberg limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23617 by Ming-Yan Sun, Xiao-Xi Yao, Yusuf Turek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the non-Gaussian source using an op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Wigner functions of the signal output state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Optimal fidelity between the output state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Complexity C (a) and Wigner negativity volume N (b) as a function of OPA gain g with r = 1.0. The other parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Wigner function of the generated state with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Optimized parameters for the fidelity between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Optimized parameters for the fidelity between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Wigner function of the heralded state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The wave functions of the target GKP state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mach–Zehnder interferometer setup for estimating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Quantum Fisher information (QFI) F plotted as a function of the average photon number N and squeezing parameter in (a) and (b), respectively, with different photon heralded sates corresponding to some configurations (m, n ). Here, SQL and HL denote the standard quantum limit (SQL) N and Heisenberg limit (HL) N 2 , and the OPA gain fixed to g = 1.04. The other parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fidelity of heralded states |Ψ⟩sv,1,2(a) and |Ψ⟩sv,4,1 (b) with respect to the ideal SOSC state |Ψsosc⟩ under photon loss and dephasing. OPA gain and input SV’s squeezing are set to g = 1.5 and r = 1.0. The other parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Changes of the fidelity F, negativity N and com￾plexity C of our heralded states |Ψ⟩sv,m,n with (m = 1, n = 2), (m = 3, n = 1) and (m = 4, n = 1) configurations vs pho￾ton loss rate κt. Here, the most optimized fidelity for differ￾ent configurations as follow: (i) (m = 1, n = 2) configura￾tion, αopt = 1.795, γopt = 0.706, F = 0.997; (ii) (m = 3, n = 1) configuration, αopt = 1.9, γopt = 0.979, F = 0.984; (… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a multiphoton heralding scheme using an optical parametric amplifier (OPA) that converts squeezed vacuum into two families of non-Gaussian states: large-amplitude squeezed Schr\"odinger cat states and low-order parity-selective Fock superpositions. By injecting m photons into the idler port and detecting n photons at the output, effective high-order photon subtraction is realized in a single OPA device. The heralded states exhibit strong Wigner negativity and high phase-space complexity. Remarkably, under photon loss, the complexity remains substantial even after negativity vanishes, indicating a loss-resilient quantum resource. These states also surpass the Heisenberg limit in phase estimation. Our protocol establishes the OPA as a versatile platform for generating non-Gaussian states, with promising applications in loss-resilient quantum metrology and fault-tolerant quantum information processing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a multiphoton heralding protocol in a single optical parametric amplifier (OPA) that converts squeezed vacuum into large-amplitude squeezed Schrödinger cat states and low-order parity-selective Fock superpositions. Injecting m photons into the idler port and detecting n photons at the signal output realizes effective high-order photon subtraction. The resulting states are shown to possess strong Wigner negativity and high phase-space complexity; the complexity remains substantial under photon loss even after negativity vanishes. The states are further claimed to surpass the Heisenberg limit in phase estimation via their quantum Fisher information.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies an exact, parameter-free construction (once m, n, and the squeezing parameter are fixed) for non-Gaussian states in a single device, together with a concrete demonstration that a phase-space complexity measure survives loss after Wigner negativity disappears and that the quantum Fisher information exceeds the Heisenberg bound. These features would be directly relevant to loss-resilient metrology and continuous-variable quantum information processing.

major comments (2)
  1. [phase estimation section] § on phase estimation, QFI derivation: the claim that the states surpass the Heisenberg limit requires an explicit comparison of the computed quantum Fisher information to the HL bound N² (where N is the mean photon number of the heralded state); without this comparison the surpassing statement is not yet substantiated.
  2. [loss section] § on loss resilience, beam-splitter channel: the phase-space complexity measure is recomputed after the loss channel, but the precise functional form of the complexity (and the numerical threshold at which negativity vanishes while complexity remains substantial) must be stated for representative m, n pairs so that the resilience claim can be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [introduction or methods] The abstract states that the scheme assumes an ideal OPA with perfect photon-number resolution; a short paragraph in the main text should list the principal experimental imperfections (mode mismatch, detector efficiency, pump depletion) that are omitted from the model.
  2. [theoretical framework] Notation for the two-mode squeeze operator and the projection onto |n⟩ should be introduced once with an equation number and then used consistently.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [phase estimation section] § on phase estimation, QFI derivation: the claim that the states surpass the Heisenberg limit requires an explicit comparison of the computed quantum Fisher information to the HL bound N² (where N is the mean photon number of the heralded state); without this comparison the surpassing statement is not yet substantiated.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison to the HL bound N² is required for full substantiation. In the revised manuscript we will add a direct numerical comparison of the computed QFI against N² for the heralded states at the chosen m, n and squeezing values, confirming the surpassing of the Heisenberg limit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [loss section] § on loss resilience, beam-splitter channel: the phase-space complexity measure is recomputed after the loss channel, but the precise functional form of the complexity (and the numerical threshold at which negativity vanishes while complexity remains substantial) must be stated for representative m, n pairs so that the resilience claim can be verified.

    Authors: We will explicitly state the functional form of the phase-space complexity measure and tabulate the numerical thresholds (negativity vanishing point versus retained complexity value) for representative m, n pairs under the beam-splitter loss channel. This will make the loss-resilience claim directly verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation applies the two-mode squeeze operator to an input Fock state |m> followed by projection onto |n>, which is an exact algebraic construction within the ideal OPA model and does not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-referential definition. Loss resilience and phase-estimation advantage are obtained by applying a standard beam-splitter loss channel to the resulting density matrix and computing the Wigner function or quantum Fisher information; both operations are parameter-free once m, n, and the squeezing parameter are specified. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is invoked as load-bearing support. The protocol is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the standard quantum-optical model of an OPA and ideal photon counting; no new entities are introduced. Free parameters are the photon numbers m and n chosen for heralding. Axioms are the usual assumptions of lossless mode matching and perfect detection efficiency.

free parameters (2)
  • m (injected idler photons)
    Integer parameter controlling the heralding order; chosen to realize effective high-order subtraction.
  • n (detected output photons)
    Integer parameter selecting the heralded state family.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ideal OPA Hamiltonian and perfect photon-number-resolving detection
    Invoked implicitly when claiming exact state generation and loss resilience without modeling imperfections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5683 in / 1436 out tokens · 19515 ms · 2026-05-25T04:18:47.102942+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    vsR 4 ∼10 −4 for BS subtraction). While our previous study [24] focused exclusively on the (1,1) configuration, arXiv:2605.23617v1 [quant-ph] 22 May 2026 2 the present work extends the analysis to multiphoton in- put and detection, revealing a general parity selection rule and identifying optimal (m,n) pairs for generating high-fidelity SC states and high...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Coherent state|α⟩ |α⟩=D(α)|0⟩ =e − |α|2 2 ∞X n=0 αn √ n! |n⟩(5) whereD(α) =e (α∗a−αa†) is the displacement operator and for simplicity we takeαto be real

    work page

  3. [3]

    In the Fock basis, |ξ⟩= 1√ coshr ∞X n−0 p (2n)! n!2n (−ξ)n|2n⟩,(7) 3 whereξ=e iθ tanhrandcoshr= (1− |ξ| 2)1/4

    SV state|ξ⟩ |ξ⟩=S(z)|0⟩(6) whereS(z) =exp[ 1 2(z∗a2 −za †2)]is the single-mode squeezing operator with a complex squeezing parameter z=re iθ. In the Fock basis, |ξ⟩= 1√ coshr ∞X n−0 p (2n)! n!2n (−ξ)n|2n⟩,(7) 3 whereξ=e iθ tanhrandcoshr= (1− |ξ| 2)1/4. The squeezing level in decibels (dB) is given by −20 log10(e−r)

    work page

  4. [4]

    The casesθ= 0andθ=π correspond to even and odd SC states, respectively

    SC state|Cat⟩ θ, α |Cat⟩ θ,α =N −1/2 θ |α⟩+e iθ| −α⟩ ,(8) where the normalization constant isN θ = 2 1 +e −2α2 cosθ . The casesθ= 0andθ=π correspond to even and odd SC states, respectively. The SC state is a fundamental state in CV quantum information processing, as it can be seen as a rough approximation to the GKP qubit [47]. In the recent work [48] Erl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    for re- gionsr∈[1,3]andg∈(1,10]and found that the fidelity always in0.983±0.002level. While this is slightly lower than the optimal fidelity achieved atα= 1.732(see Ta- ble I, whereF1 ≥0.993), it still represents a highly com- petitive level of quantum state fidelity for SC states in this amplitude regime. Achievingα≥2is critical for quantum information, ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Specifically, the relative error be- tween the optimizedαand √ 5is below13.6%across the broad parameter ranges. These results demonstrate that the (m= 4,n= 1) configuration provides a viable pathway for generating high-fidelity, large-amplitude SC states that are essential for fault-tolerant CV quantum information processing. Intheabovesubsectionswehaveex...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Incontrast, the(m= 1,n= 3)and(m= 1, n= 4) configurations, despite havingm+n= 4and 5, give rise to qualitatively different states: even-parity Fock superpositions (c0|0⟩+c 2|2⟩+c 4|4⟩) and odd-parity Fock superpositions (c1|1⟩+c 3|3⟩+c 5|5⟩), rather than two-component SC states. This parity-dependent selec- tion rule, which has no counterpart in convention...

    work page

  8. [8]

    These probabilities are comparable to those of other heralded non-Gaussian state schemes (e.g., mutli-photon-added coherent states [7] and cluster states [72])

    configuration reaches1.15%per trial, while the large-amplitude (m= 4,n= 1) configuration has a single-trial probability on the order of10 −7. These probabilities are comparable to those of other heralded non-Gaussian state schemes (e.g., mutli-photon-added coherent states [7] and cluster states [72]). Although low at first glance, such probabilities can b...

    work page

  9. [9]

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

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Walschaers, V

    M. Walschaers, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, PRX Quantum 1, 020305 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Lachman and R

    L. Lachman and R. Filip, Prog. Quantum Electron.83, 100395 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Zapletal, A

    P. Zapletal, A. Nunnenkamp, and M. Brunelli, PRX Quantum3, 010301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    M. S. Winnel, J. J. Guanzon, D. Singh, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 230602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    FadrnÜ, M

    J. FadrnÃœ, M. Neset, M. Bielak, M. JeÅŸek, J. BÃlek, and J. Fiurášek, npj Quantum Inf.10, 89 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    W. Wang, L. Hu, Y. Xu, K. Liu, Y. Ma, S.-B. Zheng, R. Vijay, Y. P. Song, L.-M. Duan, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 223604 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Zhang and J

    C.-y. Zhang and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A110, 042421 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Miyata, H

    K. Miyata, H. Ogawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, H. Yonezawa, J.-i. Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A93, 022301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Zheng, O

    Y. Zheng, O. Hahn, P. Stadler, P. Holmvall, F. Qui- 18 Table VI. The realization of effectivek-photon (up to7-photon) subtraction with our protocol. k(m,n) SC typeκ ϕ α FRealization with BS scheme (Exps) 1(1,0) or (0,1) odd0.30±0.06 0.9±0.1 0.998±0.001Ref. [26, 32] 2(1,1) even0.59±0.07 1.4±0.1 0.997±0.001Ref. [27] 3(1,2) odd0.45±0.15 1.7±0.1 0.998±0.001Re...

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Yoshida, D

    T. Yoshida, D. Okuno, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Umeki, S. Miki, F. China, M. Yabuno, H. Terai, and S. Takeda, PRX Quantum6, 010311 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Puri, PRX Quantum2, 020101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    S. B. Korolev, E. N. Bashmakova, and T. Y. Golubeva, Quantum Inf. Process.23, 354 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    Fukui, A

    K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. X8, 021054 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, Phys. Rev. A68, 042319 (2003)

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Liu, X.-X

    J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, Sci. Rep.5, 8565 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Sahota and N

    J. Sahota and N. Quesada, Phys. Rev. A91, 013808 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Zhang, Y.-X

    X.-X. Zhang, Y.-X. Yang, and X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A88, 013838 (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. P. Cooling, and J. A. Dunningham, Phys. Rev. A93, 033859 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Y. Zeng, F. Quijandría, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 190602 (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Q. Xu, G. Zheng, Y.-X. Wang, P. Zoller, A. A. Clerk, and L. Jiang, npj Quantum Inf.9, 78 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Dakna, T

    M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrný, L. Knöll, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A55, 3184 (1997)

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Science312, 83 (2006)

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Takahashi, K

    H. Takahashi, K. Wakui, S. Suzuki, M. Takeoka, K. Hayasaka, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 233605 (2008)

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    Gerrits, S

    T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T. S. Clement, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, A. L. Migdall, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. A82, 031802(R) (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Parigi, A

    V. Parigi, A. Zavatta, M. Kim, and M. Bellini, Science 317, 1890 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Ourjoumtsev, H

    A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Nature448, 784 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Wakui, H

    K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Opt. Express15, 3568 (2007)

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Takaseet al., Opt

    K. Takaseet al., Opt. Express30, 14161 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Javid, I

    M. Javid, I. Noreen, R. Iqbal, and M. Idrees, Opt. Quan- tum Electron.58, 218 (2026)

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    Takase, J.-i

    K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A103, 013710 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Tomoda, A

    H. Tomoda, A. Machinaga, K. Takase, J. Harada, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Umeki, S. Miki, F. China, M. Yabuno, H. Terai, D. Okuno, and S. Takeda, Phys. Rev. A110, 033717 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Yao and Y

    X.-X. Yao and Y. Turek, npj Quantum Information (2026)

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    Q. Hu, T. Yusufu, and Y. Turek, Phys. Rev. A105, 022608 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Yao and Y

    X.-X. Yao and Y. Turek, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025038 (2026)

    work page 2026

  47. [47]

    Fiurášek, S

    J. Fiurášek, S. Grebien, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. A 111, 043704 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Grebien, J

    S. Grebien, J. Göttsch, B. Hage, J. Fiurášek, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 273604 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Kurochkin, A

    Y. Kurochkin, A. S. Prasad, and A. I. Lvovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 070402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 250401 (2002)

    work page 2002

  51. [51]

    Aralov, E

    A. Aralov, E. Gillet, V. Nguyen, A. Cosentino, M. Walschaers, and M. Frigerio, PRX Quantum7, 020323 (2026)

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    S. U. Shringarpure and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A100, 043802 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    X.-X. Yao, B. Zhang, and Y. Turek, Phys. Rev. A113, 033712 (2026)

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    A unified optical platform for non-gaussian and fault-tolerant gottesman-kitaev- preskill states,

    O. Erkilic, A. Das, B. Shajilal, P. K. Lam, T. C. Ralph, and S. M. Assad, “A unified optical platform for non-gaussian and fault-tolerant gottesman-kitaev- preskill states,” (2025), arXiv:2512.02607 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    R. A. Brewster, I. C. Nodurft, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A96, 042307 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. Życzkowski, J Opt B Quantum Semi- classical Opt6, 396 (2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    S. Tang, F. Albarelli, Y. Zhang, S. Luo, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 045047 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Marek, H

    P. Marek, H. Jeong, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A78, 063811 (2008)

    work page 2008

  61. [61]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Phys. Rev. X10, 011058 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    D. S. Schlegel, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. A106, 022431 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    R. J. Birrittella, M. E. Baz, and C. C. Gerry, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B35, 1514 (2018)

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Phys. Rev. A 19 100, 052301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    J. Liu, M. Zhang, H. Chen, L. Wang, and H. Yuan, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2100080 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2733 (2000)

    work page 2000

  67. [67]

    Y.-H. Chen, W. Qin, R. Stassi, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033275 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Oh, S.-Y

    C. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, H. Nha, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Roeland, M. Walschaers, F. Grosshans, V. Parigi, D. Markham, and N. Treps, PRX Quantum 2, 020333 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    Korzhet al., Nat

    B. Korzhet al., Nat. Photonics14, 250 (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    W. H. P. Pernice, C. Schuck, O. Minaeva, M. Li, G. N. Goltsman, A. V. Sergienko, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Com- mun3, 1325 (2012)

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    Zhang, J

    T. Zhang, J. Huang, X. Zhang, C. Ding, H. Yu, Y. Xiao, C. Lv, X. Liu, Z. Wang, L. You,et al., Photonics Re- search12, 1328 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    M. Uria, P. Solano, and C. Hermann-Avigliano, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 093603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Cosacchi, J

    M. Cosacchi, J. Wiercinski, T. Seidelmann, M. Cygorek, A. Vagov, D. E. Reiter, and V. M. Axt, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033489 (2020)

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    Jornod, M

    N. Jornod, M. Jankowski, L. M. Krüger, V. J. Wittwer, N. Modsching, C. Langrock, C. R. Phillips, U. Keller, T. Südmeyer, and M. M. Fejer, inCLEO 2023(Optica Publishing Group, 2023) p. STu3L.3

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Wakui, Y

    K. Wakui, Y. Tsujimoto, M. Fujiwara, I. Morohashi, T. Kishimoto, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Sasaki, and M. Takeoka, Opt. Express28, 22399 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Y. Liu, J. Zhao, Z. Wei, F. X. Kärtner, and G. Chang, Opt. Lett.48, 1052 (2023)

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Generation of heralded optical ‘schroedinger cat’ states by photon-addition,

    Y.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Hsieh, J. Ning, H.-C. Wu, H. L. Chen, Z.-H. Shi, P. Yang, O. Steuernagel, C.-M. Wu, and R.-K. Lee, “Generation of heralded optical ‘schroedinger cat’ states by photon-addition,” (2023), arXiv:2306.13011 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Cheng, Y

    R. Cheng, Y. Zhou, S. Wang, M. Shen, T. Taher, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Photon.17, 112 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 110501 (2006)

    work page 2006

Showing first 80 references.