Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 cited by

Adding displacements to Gaussian Boson Sampling raises the success rate for finding maximum weighted cliques when loss or limited squeezing is present.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 17:04 UTC pith:SAIQCZT7

load-bearing objection Displaced GBS claims a practical boost for lossy max-clique search, but the gain needs a controlled test to confirm it comes from the displacements rather than setup changes. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.27522 v1 pith:SAIQCZT7 submitted 2026-05-26 quant-ph

Displaced Gaussian Boson Sampling for enhanced max-clique search

Ewan Mer , Zhenghao Li , Shang Yu , Ian A. Walmsley , Raj B. Patel This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords gaussian boson samplingmaximum weighted cliquedisplaced statesphoton losssqueezingquantum graph algorithmshafnian
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Gaussian Boson Sampling produces samples connected to the hafnian that can locate cliques in weighted graphs. Practical devices suffer from photon loss and restricted squeezing levels that lower the rate at which the largest cliques are found. The paper shows that superposing coherent displacements on the squeezed inputs improves this rate. The same displacements can be prepared with an attenuated laser and added to existing setups. The reported gain continues as graph size grows while demanding only modest extra resources.

Core claim

The authors establish that displaced Gaussian Boson Sampling yields higher success rates for identifying maximum weighted cliques compared to standard GBS when photon loss occurs or squeezing levels are restricted. By configuring displacements alongside squeezing parameters and the linear optical network, the samples better correspond to the desired cliques. This holds even as graph size increases, requiring only modest additional resources.

What carries the argument

Displaced squeezed states, formed by adding coherent displacements to the input modes of a GBS device that is otherwise programmed from graph weights via squeezing amplitudes and a linear interferometer.

Load-bearing premise

The observed improvement is produced by the displacements themselves rather than by any simultaneous change in how the graph is mapped to the optical parameters or how samples are post-selected.

What would settle it

Run identical lossy or low-squeezing GBS experiments on the same graph once with and once without displacements, keeping squeezing values, interferometer settings, and post-selection rules fixed, then compare the fraction of samples that recover the known maximum weighted clique.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Success rate for maximum weighted clique recovery increases when displacements are added under loss.
  • The same gain appears when the available squeezing is restricted.
  • The improvement extends to large graphs while the added resource cost remains limited.
  • Coherent states, prepared from attenuated lasers, become a practical supplement to the GBS input.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Classical optimization of the displacement amplitudes could be performed before each run to maximize the gain without altering the quantum hardware.
  • The same displaced-input strategy may improve GBS performance on other hafnian-related graph tasks such as dense subgraph search.
  • Photonic experiments that already implement GBS could add displacement stages with existing laser sources to test the scaling on graphs of hundreds of vertices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes displaced Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS) as a method to enhance the success rate of finding maximum weighted cliques in undirected graphs. It maps graphs to optical experiments via squeezing parameters and linear networks, then claims that adding displacements (using coherent states) improves performance specifically under photon loss or limited squeezing, while scaling to large graphs with limited resource overhead.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated with controlled comparisons, the result would be significant for near-term photonic quantum computing: it suggests a practical route to mitigate loss and squeezing limitations in GBS-based graph algorithms by incorporating a classical resource (displacements) that is experimentally straightforward to prepare, potentially improving the viability of GBS for combinatorial optimization without requiring major hardware upgrades.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that displacements specifically enhance max-clique success rate under loss or limited squeezing requires a controlled ablation in which the graph-to-optical mapping (squeezing parameters and linear network) and post-selection rules are held fixed between the undisplaced and displaced cases. The abstract provides no indication that such a comparison was performed, so it is impossible to isolate the contribution of displacements from possible retuning of the network or post-selection.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no derivation, simulation protocol, error bars, or data-exclusion criteria are supplied, so the reported enhancement cannot be verified from the given text and the central claim remains uncheckable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and positive assessment of the work's potential significance. We address the two major comments on the abstract below. Both points are addressed through revisions to the abstract that clarify the controlled nature of the comparisons and indicate where supporting details appear in the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that displacements specifically enhance max-clique success rate under loss or limited squeezing requires a controlled ablation in which the graph-to-optical mapping (squeezing parameters and linear network) and post-selection rules are held fixed between the undisplaced and displaced cases. The abstract provides no indication that such a comparison was performed, so it is impossible to isolate the contribution of displacements from possible retuning of the network or post-selection.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract must make clear that the reported enhancement arises from a controlled comparison. In the full manuscript the graph-to-optical mapping (squeezing parameters and linear network) together with the post-selection rules are held identical between the undisplaced and displaced cases; displacements are the sole added variable. We have revised the abstract to state explicitly that all other experimental parameters and post-selection criteria remain fixed, thereby isolating the contribution of the displacements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no derivation, simulation protocol, error bars, or data-exclusion criteria are supplied, so the reported enhancement cannot be verified from the given text and the central claim remains uncheckable.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise and therefore omits the full simulation protocol, derivations, error-bar methodology, and data-exclusion criteria; these are supplied in the methods section and supplementary material of the manuscript, where numerical results are obtained from repeated Monte-Carlo runs with reported standard errors. To improve immediate verifiability from the abstract itself we have added a brief clause noting that the enhancement is obtained from controlled numerical simulations whose protocols, error bars, and selection criteria are detailed in the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain; result is empirical report

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical enhancement in GBS max-clique search success rate when displacements are added under lossy conditions or limited squeezing. The abstract and provided text describe standard graph-to-optical mapping via squeezing parameters and linear networks, followed by a claim of improved performance. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present that would reduce the central claim to an input by construction. The result rests on simulation or experiment rather than a self-referential derivation, satisfying the default expectation for non-circular papers. The skeptic concern about mapping/post-selection controls is a question of experimental isolation, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review means free parameters, axioms, and invented entities cannot be audited in detail; the work appears to rest on standard quantum optics assumptions about GBS-to-hafnian mapping and loss models without introducing new entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5726 in / 1108 out tokens · 31008 ms · 2026-06-29T17:04:05.266957+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS) is capable of solving certain classes of graph problems owing to the samples produced by such a device having a connection to the hafnian matrix function. In particular, a GBS device has been shown to provide an enhancement in the search of cliques -- or complete subgraphs -- in undirected weighted graphs over classical algorithms. A graph can be mapped to a GBS experiment by configuring the squeezing parameters of the input states and programming the linear optical network. In practice, limited squeezing and photon loss degrade the performance of the GBS device for max-clique search. In comparison, coherent states -- often considered a classical resource due to their Poissonian statistics -- can be readily prepared across many modes using an attenuated laser. In this paper, we report an enhancement of the success rate of GBS in finding maximum weighted cliques by adding displacements under lossy conditions or when a limited amount of squeezing is available. Moreover, we report that this enhancement can be scaled up to large graphs with limited resource overheads.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27522 by Ewan Mer, Ian A. Walmsley, Raj B. Patel, Shang Yu, Zhenghao Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Displaced Gaussian Boson Sampling for max-clique [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: depicts the variation of the probability of find￾ing the max-clique in the 6-node graph as a function of the loop strength γ and c, which encodes the strength of the squeezing parameters. When γ is set to zero, the setup is equivalent to a GBS configuration. The prob￾ability of finding the max-clique is optimal in the GBS scenario for high levels of squeezing and denoted popt. However, this high level of s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) and b) Adjacency matrices. c) and d): Probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Histogram of probability distribution for GBS sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gaussian Boson Sampling for Asset Clustering in Statistical Arbitrage Portfolios

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    GBS-based clustering (GBS Roots and adapted GBS Boost) produced higher StatArb portfolio returns than classical Spectral/SPONGE clustering in simulated S&P 500 backtests, with the advantage shrinking outside high-vola...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The probability of detecting the outcomen= (1, . . . ,1,0, . . . ,0), i.e., 2Nphotons are detected on the first 2Nmodes: p(n) = 2N N! Haf(A n),(A2) whereAis a non-negativeM×Mmatrix defined as fol- lows: Aij ≡ KX k=1 qk|U (k) 1,i |2|U (k) 1,j |2 =V QV T =W W T (A3) withV ik ≡ |U (k) 1,i |2,W ik ≡ √qk|U (k) 1,i |2,Q= diag(q1, . . . , qK). An explicit expres...

  2. [2]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Physical Review Letters119, 1 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Kruse, C

    R. Kruse, C. S. Hamilton, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Physical Review A100, 32326 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    H. S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y. H. Deng, M. C. Chen, L. C. Peng, Y. H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X. Y. Yang, W. J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N. L. Liu, C. Y. Lu, and J. W. Pan, Science370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Zhong, Y.-H

    H.-S. Zhong, Y.-H. Deng, J. Qin, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H. Su, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, J. J. Renema, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review Letters127, 180502 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Ver- non, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Nature606(2022), 10.1038/s41586-022-04725-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04725-x 2022

  7. [7]

    H.-L. Liu, H. Su, S.-Q. Gong, Y.-C. Gu, H.-Y. Tang, M.- H. Jia, Q. Wei, Y. Song, D. Wang, M. Zheng, F. Chen, L. Li, S. Ren, X. Zhu, M. Wang, Y. Chen, Y. Liu, L. Song, P. Yang, J. Chen, H. An, L. Zhang, L. Gan, G. Yang, J.-M. Xu, Y.-M. He, H. Wang, H.-S. Zhong, M.-C. Chen, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y.-H. Deng, X.-L. Su, Q. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan,...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Bagheri Novir, Quantum Reports7, 56 (2025)

    S. Bagheri Novir, Quantum Reports7, 56 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    C. Oh, M. Liu, Y. Alexeev, B. Fefferman, and L. Jiang, Nature Physics20, 1461 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    M. Liu, C. Oh, J. Liu, L. Jiang, and Y. Alexeev, Physical Review A108, 052604 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Cilluffo, N

    D. Cilluffo, N. Lorenzoni, and M. B. Plenio, ArXiv preprint (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    H. Qi, D. J. Brod, N. Quesada, and R. Garci´ a-Patr´ on, Physical Review Letters124, 100502 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Huh and M

    J. Huh and M. H. Yung, Scientific Reports7, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Jnane, N

    H. Jnane, N. P. Sawaya, B. Peropadre, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Garcia-Patron, and J. Huh, ACS Photonics8, 2007 (2021)

    2007

  15. [15]

    S. Yu, J. Sun, Z. Li, E. Mer, Y. K. Alwehaibi, O. Scholin, G. J. Machado, K.-C. Chen, A. Zhang, R. B. Patel, Y. Dong, I. A. Walmsley, V. Vedral, and G. Bianconi, ArXiv preprint (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    J. M. Arrazola and T. R. Bromley, Physical Review Let- ters121, 30503 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Sempere-Llagostera, R

    S. Sempere-Llagostera, R. Patel, I. Walmsley, and W. Kolthammer, Physical Review X12, 031045 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Banchi, M

    L. Banchi, M. Fingerhuth, T. Babej, C. Ing, and J. M. Arrazola, Science Advances6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Yu, Z.-P

    S. Yu, Z.-P. Zhong, Y. Fang, R. B. Patel, Q.-P. Li, W. Liu, Z. Li, L. Xu, S. Sagona-Stophel, E. Mer, S. E. Thomas, Y. Meng, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, Z.-A. Wang, N.- J. Guo, W.-H. Zhang, G. K. Tranmer, Y. Dong, Y.-T. Wang, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, I. A. Walmsley, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Computational Science3, 839 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    S. Yu, J. Sun, K.-C. Chen, Z.-H. Yang, Z. Li, E. Mer, Y. K. Alwehaibi, S. H. Winston, D. M. D. Lopena, Z.- C. Zhang, G. Yang, R. Tao, M. Zhou, G. J. Machado, Y. Dong, R. Bondesan, V. Vedral, M. S. Kim, I. A. Walm- sley, and R. B. Patel, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06544 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Thekkadath, S

    G. Thekkadath, S. Sempere-Llagostera, B. Bell, R. Patel, M. Kim, and I. Walmsley, PRX Quantum3, 020336 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Z. Li, N. R. Solomons, J. F. F. Bulmer, R. B. Patel, and I. A. Walmsley, npj Quantum Information11, 119 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    J. Huh, G. G. Guerreschi, B. Peropadre, J. R. Mcclean, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Nature Photonics9, 615 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    Schuld, K

    M. Schuld, K. Br´ adler, R. Israel, D. Su, and B. Gupt, Physical Review A101, 1 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    B. Gupt, J. Izaac, and N. Quesada, Journal of Open Source Software4, 1705 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Barvinok, Discrete Analysis (2017), 10.19086/da.1244

    A. Barvinok, Discrete Analysis (2017), 10.19086/da.1244

    work page doi:10.19086/da.1244 2017

  27. [27]

    Van Vlasselaer, L

    V. Van Vlasselaer, L. Akoglu, T. Eliassi-Rad, M. Snoeck, and B. Baesens, in2015 48th Hawaii International Con- ference on System Sciences(IEEE, 2015) pp. 918–927

    2015

  28. [28]

    Shi, X.-Q

    F.-B. Shi, X.-Q. Sun, H.-W. Shen, and X.-Q. Cheng, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 513, 565 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Khodadadi and S

    A. Khodadadi and S. Saeidi, Computational Social Net- works8, 6 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Z. Lu, J. Wahlstr¨ om, and A. Nehorai, Scientific Reports 8, 5982 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    A. R. Benson, D. F. Gleich, and J. Leskovec, Science 353, 163 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    R. M. Karp, inComplexity of Computer Computations (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1972) pp. 85–103

    1972

  33. [33]

    Marino, L

    R. Marino, L. Buffoni, and B. Zavalnij, ArXiv preprint (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2403.09742

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.09742 2024

  34. [34]

    Wu and J.-K

    Q. Wu and J.-K. Hao, European Journal of Operational Research242, 693 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    C. Oh, B. Fefferman, L. Jiang, and N. Quesada, PRX Quantum5, 020341 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Anand, Z

    K. Anand, Z. Chen, M. Cryan, G. Freifeld, L. A. Gold- berg, H. Guo, and X. Zhang, ArXiv preprint (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Zhou, X. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Yang, R. Yang, Y. Xue, and T. Li, Nature Communications16(2025), 10.1038/s41467-025-64442-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64442-7 2025

  38. [38]

    Killoran, J

    N. Killoran, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, V. Bergholm, M. Amy, and C. Weedbrook, Quantum3, 129 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, S. Jahangiri, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, A. D. Gran, M. Schuld, J. Swinarton, Z. Za- baneh, and N. Killoran, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy5(2020), 10.1088/2058-9565/ab8504

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8504 2020

  40. [40]

    Tomita, A

    E. Tomita, A. Tanaka, and H. Takahashi, Theoretical Computer Science363, 28 (2006)

    2006

  41. [41]

    Bruno, A

    N. Bruno, A. Martin, T. Guerreiro, B. Sanguinetti, and R. T. Thew, Optics Express22, 17246 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    J. Chen, A. J. Pearlman, A. Ling, J. Fan, and A. L. Migdall, Optics Express17, 6727 (2009)

    2009

  43. [43]

    J. F. F. Bulmer, B. A. Bell, R. S. Chadwick, A. E. Jones, D. Moise, A. Rigazzi, J. Thorbecke, U.-U. Haus, T. Van Vaerenbergh, R. B. Patel, I. A. Walmsley, and A. Laing, Science Advances8(2022), 10.1126/sci- adv.abl9236. 11

    work page doi:10.1126/sci- 2022

  44. [44]

    B. Go, C. Oh, and H. Jeong, ArXiv (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Pullan and H

    W. Pullan and H. H. Hoos, Journal of Artificial Intelli- gence Research25, 159 (2006)

    2006

  46. [46]

    Pullan, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization12, 303 (2006)

    W. Pullan, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization12, 303 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    Feige, D

    U. Feige, D. Peleg, and G. Kortsarz, Algorithmica29, 410 (2001)

    2001

  48. [48]

    Jerrum, Journal of Statistical Physics48, 121 (1987)

    M. Jerrum, Journal of Statistical Physics48, 121 (1987)

    1987

  49. [49]

    Heilmann and Elliott H

    Ole J. Heilmann and Elliott H. Lieb, Comm. Math. Phys. 25, 190 (1972)

    1972

  50. [50]

    Barvinok,Combinatorics and Complexity of Partition Functions, Vol

    A. Barvinok,Combinatorics and Complexity of Partition Functions, Vol. 30 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016)

    2016

  51. [51]

    Lu and S.-H

    T.-T. Lu and S.-H. Shiou, Computers & Mathematics with Applications43, 119 (2002)

    2002