Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Variational learning of integrated quantum photonic circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training a whole photonic circuit as one operator $W$ yields a CNOT gate with success probability 0.1524 and an integrated-photonics quantum stochastic simulation.

desk verdict A genuinely new on-chip variational design method with a solid first integrated-photonics stochastic simulation, but the CNOT success-rate gain is theoretical until they measure it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12417 v1 pith:QPBGJADZ submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

Hui Zhang , Chengran Yang , Wai-Keong Mok , Lingxiao Wan , Hong Cai , Qiang Li , Feng Gao , Xianshu Luo
show 6 more authors
Guo-Qiang Lo Lip Ket Chin Yuzhi Shi Jayne Thompson Mile Gu Ai Qun Liu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords variationalquantumcircuitsintegratedphotonicslinearopticalcomputingpost-selectionCNOTgatestochasticsimulationdual-railencodingpermanent
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 tries to establish an alternative way to design quantum photonic circuits in the NISQ era: instead of decomposing a desired circuit into a sequence of entangling gates (which are nondeterministic in photonics and cause exponentially decaying success probabilities), treat the whole multi-mode integrated photonic circuit as a single trainable complex matrix $W$ and optimize its parameters against a task-specific cost function. The cost function directly includes post-selection and the chip's elementary optical elements, so the trained configuration is tailored to the actual hardware. The authors demonstrate this on a programmable silicon photonic chip: they train a single-ancilla CNOT gate whose success probability reaches 0.1524, and they give the first integrated-photonics demonstration of a quantum stochastic simulation (a dual Poisson process) in which the quantum memory entropy is below the classical statistical complexity. If the approach holds, photonic circuit design no longer needs to fight the nondeterminism of entangling gates by cascading them; instead, the whole logic operation is learned as one nonlinear operator.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the full $2n\times2n$ complex matrix $W$ (or $W$ on the relevant path modes) that maps input path-mode operators to output operators, $\hat a_i \to \sum_j w_{ij}(\theta)\hat a'_j$, with the entries made programmable by thermal-optic phase shifters in an SVD decomposition $W = R_1\Sigma R_2^\dagger$; the diagonal $\Sigma$ requires normalizing so the spectral norm $\|W\|\le1$, and the induced post-selected logical unitary has elements given by permanents of $3\times3$ (or $n\times n$) submatrices of $W$. This object carries the argument because the training cost is evaluated directly on the logical operation $\bar U$ that $W$ induces, so post-selection and the probabilistic nature of the photonic elements are inside the optimization rather than obstacles outside it.

What would settle it

Train a larger, three-logical-qubit post-selected operation on the chip, perform full process tomography of the induced logical unitary, and compare measured fidelity with the cost-function value reached in training; if the fidelity drops as the number of modes or the pump power rises while the same trained matrix is programmed, the limiting step is the gap between implemented and trained $W$ rather than the learning algorithm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a linear optical network of beam splitters and phase shifters, represented by a complex matrix $W$ acting on path modes, can be trained end-to-end as a single nonlinear logical operator for a desired quantum operation. Under dual-rail encoding, the logical unitary $\bar U$ induced by $W$ is obtained by post-selecting outputs with one photon per qubit pair, and its matrix elements are permanents of submatrices of $W$. The training minimizes a cost such as $C=\|\bar U-U_{\mathrm{CNOT}}\|^2+\alpha(1-1/\|W\|^6)$, with $\|W\|$ the spectral norm, so the optimization simultaneously improves logical fidelity and success probability. The authors report that the trained CNOT configuration reaches theoretical success probability 0.1524 and experimental truth-table fidelity $0.829\pm0.013$, and that the stochastic-simulation training (using a genetic algorithm and on-chip measurement feedback) yields memory-state fidelities of 97.9% (training) and 97.2% (validation) with measured quantum entropy below the classical entropy. The paper presents this as a systematic methodology for variational photonic circuit design rather than as a benchmark record.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the complex matrix $W$ actually realized on the chip is close enough to the numerically trained $W$; the paper reports Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility $0.852 \pm 0.065$ and lists source imperfections, MZI visibility, and thermal crosstalk as reasons the implemented matrix deviates from ideal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photonic circuit design no longer needs a gate-by-gate decomposition: the same training loop can directly shape a post-selected multi-mode operation, avoiding the exponential success-probability decay of cascaded nondeterministic gates.
  • The method works both offline (used for the CNOT) and through on-chip measurement-feedback training with a genetic algorithm (used for the stochastic simulator), so hardware imperfections enter the cost function during learning.
  • A single-ancilla CNOT gate with success probability 0.1524--above the previous 1/8--and mean statistical fidelity $0.829\pm0.013$ can be discovered automatically rather than hand-designed.
  • Integrated photonics can realise quantum stochastic simulation: the dual-Poisson-process model reaches 97.9% training and 97.2% validation fidelity, and measured quantum memory entropy stays below classical entropy for the probed parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not optimise for hardware noise explicitly, but a natural extension is to put measured device noise (source purity, phase crosstalk) into the cost function so training compensates for it rather than suffering from it.
  • Since the induced logical unitary is built from permanents of submatrices of $W$, the optimisation landscape is nonconvex; the paper leaves open a systematic comparison of genetic search with gradient-based or hybrid optimisers at larger scale.
  • If the gap between implemented and trained $W$ stays controlled as mode count grows, the same machinery should discover other heralded two-qubit gates and multi-photon error-detecting circuits, because the cost-function formulation is not specific to CNOT or stochastic simulation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational learning framework for integrated quantum photonic circuits, in which the entire chip is treated as a single trainable complex matrix W, with post-selection and elementary photonic elements incorporated directly into the training cost. The authors demonstrate the approach on two tasks implemented on a programmable silicon-photonic chip with automated control: (i) design of a single-ancilla CNOT gate, for which they claim an improved success probability of 0.1524 over the previous 1/8, based on the trained W matrix; and (ii) the first integrated-photonics demonstration of quantum stochastic simulation of a dual Poisson process, reporting memory-state fidelities around 97% and experimental evidence that quantum statistical complexity is below classical statistical complexity. The central methodological claim is that treating a complicated circuit as one nonlinear logical operator and optimizing its parameters against task-specific cost functions provides a systematic alternative to gate-by-gate decomposition for photonic NISQ circuits.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper presents a genuinely useful design methodology for integrated photonics: it replaces the exponential success-probability penalty of cascaded post-selected gates with direct on-chip training of a single logical operator. The experimental apparatus—automated real-time control of a programmable chip with a genetic training loop—is a meaningful engineering contribution, and the stochastic-simulation experiment provides concrete evidence that the method can learn working quantum models, including a demonstrated quantum memory advantage. The appendices are detailed and include the trained W matrix and derivations of the induced logical unitaries. However, the CNOT "improved success rate" claim, which appears in the abstract and is presented as an illustrative benefit of the method, is not experimentally validated; the quoted 0.1524 is a theoretical value computed from the trained W, while the measured logical truth-table fidelity is only 0.829±0.013 with known source and crosstalk imperfections. Because this gap affects a headline claim, the paper needs revision before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [A single ancilla CNOT gate; Abstract] The claim that the variational approach improves the CNOT success probability to 0.1524 is not supported by experimental data. The value 0.1524 is the theoretical post-selection success probability 1/||W||^6 computed from the trained W matrix (Eq. (4) and Appendix E), not a measured quantity. The paper reports a measured logical truth-table fidelity of 0.829±0.013, HOM visibility of 0.852±0.065, and thermal crosstalk as a source of deviation, but no measured success probability for the implemented circuit is given. Since the abstract presents "single ancilla CNOT gate with improved success rate" as a concrete benefit, the authors must either report the experimentally measured success probability (e.g., the fraction of accepted valid three-photon events) or clearly state that the success-probability improvement is a property of the numerically trained W and has not been verified on chip.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The cost function contains the success-probability term α(1−1/||W||^6) as an optimization objective, so the final value 0.1524 is an optimized quantity rather than an independent prediction or validation. This is not a logical flaw in a variational-training demonstration, but it should be stated explicitly. In particular, the sentence "Overall, our discovery of the photonic implementation through the variational learning approach improves the success probability to 0.1524" conflates the optimized theoretical W with the experimentally realized circuit. The authors should qualify this claim and provide an experimental success probability, or reframe the CNOT result as a numerical illustration of the training method without claiming an experimentally demonstrated improvement.
  3. [Appendix D vs. A single ancilla CNOT gate] There is an apparent inconsistency about the size of the implementable W matrix. Appendix D states that the eight-mode chip "can accommodate a complex-valued W with up to four path modes," while the CNOT experiment uses a trained 5×5 W on five path modes (Appendix E, Eq. (22)), and the main text says the chip can implement arbitrary complex transformations on up to four path modes but unitary transformations on up to eight path modes. Since the normalized W in Appendix E is unitary, the implementation may be possible via the eight-mode unitary structure, but the text does not explain how the five-mode non-unitary (or unitary) matrix is embedded in the chip. This needs clarification because the claim that the implemented matrix matches the trained W is load-bearing for the CNOT demonstration.
  4. [Simulating stochastic process] The stochastic-simulation experiment is the strongest experimental support for the method, but the paper does not report whether the trained genetic-algorithm optimization converged reliably across the nine parameter settings, nor does it provide error bars for the KL-divergence values in Fig. 4b. For a validation claim, the authors should state how many independent training runs or circuit configurations were used and how the quoted fidelities and KL divergences were averaged. This is not fatal, but it would strengthen the claim that the learned circuits are robust rather than selected by chance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains several typos and grammatical errors, including "Archetecture" in the section title, "casual states" instead of "causal states" in Appendix G, "coincidences-to-singles" without hyphenation, and "The results proves" in Appendix H. These should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix B] The text says an arbitrary complex-valued matrix is realized by a passive linear transformation and cites "[ ? ]" as a placeholder. This is an incomplete reference and must be replaced with the appropriate citation.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The definition of f2 writes √|P−P̄|², which is simply |P−P̄|. Either simplify the expression or clarify the intended metric, since the square-root notation is redundant and potentially confusing.
  4. [Framework and Archetecture] The sentence "Our chip can implement arbitrary complex-valued transformations W on up to 4 path mode operators ai, thus facilitating the implementation of a generic logic unitary operator U on two qubits. Alternatively, we can implement unitary transformation W on up to 8 path mode operators ai, thus restricting the implementation of any generic logical unitary operators" is confusing and appears to be internally inconsistent with the five-mode CNOT. Please rephrase to clarify the chip's actual mode capacity and the distinction between complex and unitary transformations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational training outputs are presented as optimized design outcomes, not as independent predictions derived from the same data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. In the CNOT section, the cost function C = ||Ubar - UCNOT||^2 + alpha(1 - 1/||W||^6) is explicitly minimized over W, and the reported success probability 0.1524 is the optimized value of the success-probability term of that same cost function. Reporting an optimized objective as a design outcome is the method being proposed, not a disguised restatement of the conclusion; the optimization could in principle have failed to find a W with both small l2 loss and high success probability. The measured logical truth-table fidelity of 0.829 +/- 0.013 is an independent experimental check of the implemented chip, and the paper openly attributes deviations to HOM visibility, source imperfections, and thermal crosstalk (Appendix D). The success probability itself is not measured, so the 'improved success rate' claim rests on a theoretical number from the trained W; this is a validation gap, not circularity. In the stochastic-simulation section, training uses f1 and f2, but validation is reported for k = 10 while training is at k = 3 (Fig. 4a), providing a check outside the trained step. The quantum memory advantage Cq < Cc is imported from the published dual-Poisson-process theory (Ref. [47]) and is computed from reconstructed states rather than from the cost function's fitted values alone. Self-citations occur, notably Ref. [30] for the formula 1/||W||^{2n} and Ref. [47] for the dual-Poisson quantum model, but these are parameter-free structural/mathematical statements whose assumptions do not include the present experimental results, so they are not load-bearing circular appeals. No equation is secretly defined in terms of its own conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard linear-optics results (permanents, SVD decomposition) and on several assumptions inherited from prior theory. The CNOT success probability is a property of the trained W matrix, so the W entries and cost hyperparameters are the main free parameters. The stochastic simulation inherits the dual Poisson quantum model from prior work, with process parameters chosen by hand. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • W matrix entries (CNOT design) = 5x5 matrix given in Appendix E, Eq. 22
    The trained circuit matrix; the reported success probability 0.1524 is a property of this matrix.
  • Chip phase parameters θ (stochastic simulation) = not reported
    Tunable phase shifter settings found by genetic algorithm; the realized U operator depends on them.
  • Cost hyperparameter α (CNOT) = 10^-3
    Weights the success probability term in Eq. (4); hand-chosen.
  • Cost hyperparameter α (stochastic simulation) = not specified
    Weights f1 and f2 in f = (1-f1) + α f2; value not stated.
  • Dual Poisson process parameters p, q1, q2 = p ∈ {0.2, 0.5, 0.8}, three (q1, q2) settings per p
    Hand-chosen parameters of the stochastic process being simulated; not fitted to the paper's data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Elements of the logical unitary Ū are permanents of submatrices of W
    Bosonic linear optics result invoked in main text and Appendix A, Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption Post-selection success probability of transformation W is 1/∥W∥^(2n)
    Stated in main text, cited to ref [30] (co-authored by some of the present authors); used in the CNOT cost function Eq. (4).
  • standard math Any complex W with ∥W∥ ≤ 1 can be realized by SVD decomposition into beam splitters, phase shifters, and photon loss
    Reck et al. decomposition, invoked in main text and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Quantum model of the dual Poisson process (Eqs. 25-26) from prior theory
    Relies on Elliott et al. [47] and previous quantum stochastic simulation theory; used to set the target U.
  • domain assumption Dual-rail encoding with post-selection on one photon per pair yields the logical subspace
    Standard photonic qubit encoding, used throughout.
  • domain assumption The chip's implemented W matches the trained W up to calibration errors
    Assumed in the experiment; paper reports deviations from HOM visibility 0.852 and thermal crosstalk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational learning of integrated quantum photonic circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPBGJADZ

@misc{pith2026241112417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational learning of integrated quantum photonic circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPBGJADZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12417}
}
read the original abstract

Integrated photonic circuits play a crucial role in implementing quantum information processing in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era. Variational learning is a promising avenue that leverages classical optimization techniques to enhance quantum advantages on NISQ devices. However, most variational algorithms are circuit-model-based and encounter challenges when implemented on integrated photonic circuits, because they involve explicit decomposition of large quantum circuits into sequences of basic entangled gates, leading to an exponential decay of success probability due to the non-deterministic nature of photonic entangling gates. Here, we present a variational learning approach for designing quantum photonic circuits, which directly incorporates post-selection and elementary photonic elements into the training process. The complicated circuit is treated as a single nonlinear logical operator, and a unified design is discovered for it through variational learning. Engineering an integrated photonic chip with automated control, we adjust and optimize the internal parameters of the chip in real time for task-specific cost functions. We utilize a simple case of designing photonic circuits for a single ancilla CNOT gate with improved success rate to illustrate how our proposed approach works, and then apply the approach in the first demonstration of quantum stochastic simulation using integrated photonics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The framework of the variational learning of integrated quantum photonic circuits. (a) The quantum photonic circuit - an arbitrary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The results of the single ancilla CNOT gate. (a,b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Transition diagram of a renewal process. Renewal processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Experimental results of dual Poisson process. (a) The fi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The comparison of quantum entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. W. Silverstone, D. Bonneau, K. Ohira, N. Suzuki, H. Yoshida, N. Iizuka, M. Ezaki, C. M. Natarajan, M. G. Tanner, R. H. Had- field, et al., Nature Photonics 8, 104 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    S. F. Preble, M. L. Fanto, J. A. Steidle, C. C. Tison, G. A. How- land, Z. Wang, and P. M. Alsing, Physical Review Applied 4, 021001(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Paesani, M

    S. Paesani, M. Borghi, S. Signorini, A. Ma ¨ınos, L. Pavesi, and A. Laing, Nature communications 11, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    J. W. Silverstone, R. Santagati, D. Bonneau, M. J. Strain, M. Sorel, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Nature com- munications 6, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Li, Z.-Y

    Y .-H. Li, Z.-Y . Zhou, L.-T. Feng, W.-T. Fang, S.-L. Liu, S.-K. Liu, K. Wang, X.-F. Ren, D.-S. Ding, L.-X. Xu, et al., Physical Review Applied 7, 064005 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Llewellyn, Y

    D. Llewellyn, Y . Ding, I. I. Faruque, S. Paesani, D. Bacco, R. Santagati, Y .-J. Qian, Y . Li, Y .-F. Xiao, M. Huber, et al. , Nature Physics 16, 148 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Osada, Y

    A. Osada, Y . Ota, R. Katsumi, M. Kakuda, S. Iwamoto, and Y . Arakawa, Physical Review Applied11, 024071 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Katsumi, Y

    R. Katsumi, Y . Ota, A. Osada, T. Yamaguchi, T. Tajiri, M. Kakuda, S. Iwamoto, H. Akiyama, and Y . Arakawa, APL Photonics 4, 036105 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    A. W. Elshaari, W. Pernice, K. Srinivasan, O. Benson, and V . Zwiller, Nature photonics14, 285 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Z. Zhou, X. Ou, Y . Fang, E. Alkhazraji, R. Xu, Y . Wan, and J. E. Bowers, Elight 3, 1 (2023). 7

    2023

  3. [11]

    L. Lu, X. Zheng, Y . Lu, S. Zhu, and X.-S. Ma, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies 4, 2100068 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Vigliar, S

    C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, Y . Ding, J. C. Adcock, J. Wang, S. Morley-Short, D. Bacco, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. G. Rarity, et al., Nature Physics 17, 1137 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Zhang, L

    H. Zhang, L. Wan, S. Paesani, A. Laing, Y . Shi, H. Cai, X. Luo, G.-Q. Lo, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, PRX Quantum4, 030340 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    J. M. Arrazola, V . Bergholm, K. Br ´adler, T. R. Bromley, M. J. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. Helt, et al., Nature 591, 54 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y . Chi, Y . Cao, C. Zhai, Y . Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen,et al., Nature Photonics , 1 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, Nature com- munications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, et al., Nature Physics 13, 551 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Koltham- mer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, et al., Science 339, 798 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Paesani, Y

    S. Paesani, Y . Ding, R. Santagati, L. Chakhmakhchyan, C. Vigliar, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. Wang, M. G. Thompson, and A. Laing, Nature Physics 15, 925 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    F. Hoch, S. Piacentini, T. Giordani, Z.-N. Tian, M. Iuliano, C. Esposito, A. Camillini, G. Carvacho, F. Ceccarelli, N. Spag- nolo, et al., npj Quantum Information 8, 55 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    X.-Q. Zhou, T. C. Ralph, P. Kalasuwan, M. Zhang, A. Peruzzo, B. P. Lanyon, and J. L. O’brien, Nature communications2, 413 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    T. C. Ralph, A. G. White, W. J. Munro, and G. J. Milburn, Physical Review A 65, 012314 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Nature 426, 264 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin- Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al. , Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, in Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  19. [27]

    M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Science 339, 794 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Physical review letters 73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    Y . Shen, N. C. Harris, S. Skirlo, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr-Jones, M. Hochberg, X. Sun, S. Zhao, H. Larochelle, D. Englund, et al., Nature Photonics 11, 441 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Y . Li, L. Wan, H. Zhang, H. Zhu, Y . Shi, L. K. Chin, X. Zhou, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, npj Quantum Information 8, 112 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Tanida, R

    M. Tanida, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, Optics express 20, 15275 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    P. J. Shadbolt, M. R. Verde, A. Peruzzo, A. Politi, A. Laing, M. Lobino, J. C. Matthews, M. G. Thompson, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Photonics 6, 45 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    T. C. Ralph, N. K. Langford, T. B. Bell, and A. G. White, Physical Review A 65, 062324 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Carolan, C

    J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Mart´ın-L´opez, N. J. Rus- sell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 349, 711 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Pittman, M

    T. Pittman, M. Fitch, B. Jacobs, and J. Franson, Physical Re- view A 68, 032316 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Blank, D

    C. Blank, D. K. Park, and F. Petruccione, npj Quantum Infor- mation 7, 126 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ghafari, N

    F. Ghafari, N. Tischler, C. Di Franco, J. Thompson, M. Gu, and G. J. Pryde, Nature communications 10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    F. C. Binder, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, Physical review letters 120, 240502 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    M. Gu, K. Wiesner, E. Rieper, and V . Vedral, Nature Commu- nications 3, 762 (2012), arXiv:arXiv:1102.1994v5

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. R. Mahoney, C. Aghamohammadi, and J. P. Crutchfield, Sci- entific reports 6, 20495 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    J. P. Crutchfield and K. Young, Physical Review Letters63, 105 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    J. P. Crutchfield, Nature Physics 8, 17 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    C. R. Shalizi, K. L. Shalizi, and R. Haslinger, Physical review letters 93, 118701 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    R. N. Mu ˜noz, A. Leung, A. Zecevik, F. A. Pollock, D. Cohen, B. van Swinderen, N. Tsuchiya, and K. Modi, Physical Review Research 2, 023219 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Aghamohammadi, S

    C. Aghamohammadi, S. P. Loomis, J. R. Mahoney, and J. P. Crutchfield, Physical Review X 8, 011025 (2018), arXiv:1707.09553

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. Yang, F. C. Binder, V . Narasimhachar, and M. Gu, Physical Review Letters 121, 260602 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    T. J. Elliott, C. Yang, F. C. Binder, A. J. P. Garner, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260501 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    M. S. Palsson, M. Gu, J. Ho, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Science Advances 3, e1601302 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    K.-D. Wu, C. Yang, R.-D. He, M. Gu, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and T. J. Elliott, Nature Communications 14, 2624 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. Thompson, M. Gu, X. D. Jiang, H. Cai, P. Y . Liu, Y . Shi, Y . Zhang, M. F. Karim, G. Q. Lo,et al., Acs Photonics 8, 1662 (2021). Appendix for Variational learning of integrated quantum photonic circuits Hui Zhang, Chengran Yang, Wai-Keong Mok, Lingxiao Wan, Hong ...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.