Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Frequency-Resolved Simulations of Highly Entangled Biphoton States: Beyond the Single-Pair Approximation. II. Application to Entanglement-based Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 3 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 This paper establishes that frequency-resolved simulations including multi-pair events reproduce measured QKD key rates and quantum bit error rates.

desk verdict Solid applied QKD simulation paper; the reconstructed JSA phase is the main unvalidated load-bearing assumption, but the methods and validation are worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00958 v1 pith:JW5RJHCE submitted 2024-12-01 quant-ph

Philipp Kleinpa{ss} , Thomas Walther , Erik Fitzke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionBBM92protocolbiphotonstatescovarianceformalismjointspectralamplitudemulti-paireffectschromaticdispersionsingle-photondetectorimperfections
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

This paper argues that entanglement-based QKD systems can be simulated accurately without neglecting multi-pair events, by expanding the covariance matrix and detection probabilities of the biphoton state in powers of its joint spectral amplitude. It applies that expansion, developed in Part I, to two SPDC-based implementations of the time-bin BBM92 protocol: a type-II polarized system and a type-0 system with wavelength-division demultiplexing. The simulation includes the measured photon spectra, chromatic dispersion in optical fibers, interferometer mode mismatch, and detector dark counts, dead times, and afterpulses. Across varied mean pair number, fiber distance, repetition rate, and detector settings, the simulated sifted key rates and time-basis quantum bit error rates agree with measurements. If this holds, the method provides a predictive design tool for choosing optimal operating parameters of entanglement-based QKD networks.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the covariance-matrix expansion: the renormalized covariance $\Gamma$ of a Gaussian biphoton state is approximated by $\Gamma_N = \sum_{n=1}^N (2Z)^n/(2n!)$, with $Z$ built from the joint spectral amplitude $\psi$, and detection probabilities follow from the probability-generating function $\det(1+W\Gamma)^{-1/2}$. For the type-0 system, the key object is the projected reduced JSA $\tilde{\psi} = P\psi P$, where $P$ selects only frequencies within $N\Delta_+/2$ of the wavelength-division channel bounds, so that the Schmidt decomposition of the reduced state can be computed directly. For the type-II system, the bivariate Poisson approximation yields analytic expressions for the detection probabilities in terms of the reconstructed JSA. These objects carry the argument because they turn continuous frequency entanglement and multi-pair events into finite matrix computations whose outputs are directly compared with measured key rates and QBER.

What would settle it

Measure the non-local two-photon interference visibility of the type-II source as a function of added chromatic dispersion and compare it with the simulation's prediction; a systematic deviation growing with dispersion would indicate that the reconstructed complex phase-matching function is wrong. Alternatively, measure the two-photon spectral phase directly using stimulated emission tomography and compare it with the model's phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full photon statistics of highly entangled biphoton states, including multi-pair emission, spectral-temporal correlations, and realistic detector behavior, can be captured by a truncated series expansion of the renormalized covariance, and that the resulting simulations quantitatively reproduce measured QKD performance. For the type-II system, the complex phase-matching function is reconstructed from measured power spectra through a decoupling approximation. For the type-0 system, the joint spectral amplitude is restricted by a projection onto the frequency components that can reach the wavelength-division channels, making higher-order expansions numerically tractable. The predicted sifted key rates and time-basis QBER match experimental data for both systems.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted interference and error rates rely on the assumption that the measured photon-pair spectrum's asymmetry is fully explained by a phase mismatch that separates into a uniform frequency-dependent part and a smoothly varying crystal perturbation; if the true phase couples frequency and position differently, all predicted visibilities and error rates shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The simulation reproduces measured sifted key rates and time-basis QBER for both SPDC systems, so it can predict performance at parameter values that have not yet been measured.
  • Because multi-pair events, fiber dispersion, and detector imperfections are included, the simulation can identify the dominant error source at each operating point, such as detector saturation from dead time at high mean pair number.
  • The predicted non-monotonic time-basis QBER as a function of fiber distance, caused by spectral side lobes and chromatic dispersion, is a directly observable signature of the model.
  • The method extends to other biphoton-based quantum communication protocols, since the covariance expansion and the detection model are not specific to BBM92.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to invert the simulation: with a fast surrogate, one could search for the globally optimal combination of pump power, repetition rate, fiber length, and detector settings rather than scanning best-case and worst-case parameter bounds.
  • The wavelength-division channel-restriction argument suggests a general rule of thumb: for highly entangled states, only frequencies within roughly $N\Delta_+/2$ of the channel edges matter at expansion order $N$, which could be used to bound truncation error a priori.
  • The method's reliance on a reconstructed joint spectral amplitude implies an independent experimental check: measuring non-local two-photon interference visibility as a function of added dispersion would isolate phase-reconstruction errors from other imperfections.
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. This paper reports time- and frequency-resolved simulations of two experimental entanglement-based QKD systems implementing the time-bin BBM92 protocol, using the covariance-expansion formalism introduced in part I. The simulation includes the joint spectral amplitude reconstructed from measured pump and pair spectra, wavelength-division multiplexing for the type-0 source, chromatic dispersion, interferometer mode mismatch, and SPADs with dark counts, dead times, and afterpulses. The main results are comparisons of simulated and measured sifted key rates and time-basis QBERs for both systems over varying mean pair number, fiber lengths, repetition rates, and detector settings, with the claim that the results agree with measurements.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work provides a practical tool for predicting the performance of entanglement-based QKD systems with realistic multi-pair and spectral effects, going beyond the single-pair approximation. The combination of continuous-mode spectral degrees of freedom with multi-pair statistics, the analytic reduction of the covariance expressions, and the testing against two independent systems are notable strengths. The device parameters are largely characterized independently rather than fitted to the key-rate or QBER data. However, the validation is qualitative, the reconstructed JSA phase is not directly tested against phase-sensitive data, and the N=5 truncation for the type-0 system lacks a convergence check, so the strength of the central agreement claim is currently limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV A 1, eqs. (17) and (20)] The complex phase of the phase-matching function is reconstructed from the measured power spectrum under the decoupling ansatz Δk(ω−, z) ≈ Δk(ω−) + δk(z) and the quadratic expansion δk(ξ) = δk′ξ + (1/2)δk″ξ², with δk′, δk″, Δk0, and a background fitted to |Φ(ω−)|². A power spectrum fixes only the modulus of Φ, so any frequency-position coupling not of this separable form would change the JSA phase and, through eqs. (A8)–(A9), the predicted Franson interference and dispersion-induced time-basis QBER. The comparisons in Figs. 6, 7, and 10 do not isolate this phase dependence: Fig. 7 shows mainly the expected cosine fringe shape, and the μ-sweeps in Fig. 10 combine many simultaneous effects. The simulation error bands also do not include uncertainties in the fitted JSA parameters. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis over the reconstructed phase parameters or validate the phase with a phase-sensitive measurement (e.g., Franson visibility or time-domain correlation) to support the central agreement claim.
  2. [IV A 2, eq. (24)] The type-0 simulations truncate the covariance expansion at order N = 5 and rely on the channel-separation condition eq. (24), but no convergence study is given. Equation (24) only ensures that up to order N no same-channel pair contribution occurs; it does not demonstrate that N = 5 is sufficient for the sifted key rate and QBER predictions at the μ values considered. The authors should show results for increasing N (for example N = 3, 5, 7) or otherwise quantify the truncation error.
  3. [IV D, Fig. 10] The agreement between simulation and measurement is assessed visually, with best-/worst-case parameter bands, and no quantitative agreement statistic is reported. Because the bands are wide and the horizontal μ error bars are also large, the statement that the simulations 'closely match' or are 'in agreement' is stronger than the evidence supports. The authors should provide a quantitative comparison metric (e.g., reduced chi-square) or explicitly qualify the comparison as a semi-quantitative validation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV C, after eq. (39)] The sentence following eq. (39) contains apparent typographical errors: 'where Ie = ∅, Ic = Ie and Il = Ie ∪ Ic' should likely read something like 'Īe = ∅, Īc = Ie, Īl = Ie ∪ Ic'; please correct the notation.
  2. [IV A, first paragraph] The text contains a duplicated phrase, 'In section section IV A'; please revise.
  3. [Appendix A, eq. (A9)] In eq. (A9), the argument of ψ* contains 'τ (µ′) B', which appears to be a typographical error for a path label such as y′; please check and correct.
  4. [IV B, fiber loss definition] The definition of the characteristic loss distance 'L0 = 103/ln(10α·0.1 km)' is difficult to parse; please clarify the intended expression, for example L0 = 10³/(ln(10) α [dB/km] × 0.1 km).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is calibrated on component-level characterizations, not on the predicted key rates or QBER; the JSA phase reconstruction is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. All simulation inputs are characterized before the QKD predictions: component test reports, measured pump and pair spectra, WDM transmission curves, fiber lengths and losses, interferometer transmittivities and mode mismatches, and detector tomography for dark counts, afterpulses, and dead times. The only fitted quantities, delta k', delta k'', Delta k0, and the background in eq. (20), are obtained by fitting the reconstructed spectral density to the measured pair spectrum; the predicted sifted key rates and QBERs in figs. 6, 7, and 10 are separate measurements not used in those fits. Thus no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citation to Part I (ref. 26) supplies the covariance-expansion formalism, but the essential equations are reproduced in Section II and the present experiment provides an external check of that framework, so this is ordinary cumulative reliance rather than a circular reduction. The reconstructed JSA phase is a genuine unvalidated-model assumption: eq. (17) assumes a separable phase mismatch and only intensity data are fitted, so phase-sensitive predictions carry an unquantified systematic risk. That is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circularity, because the spectral fit does not already encode the key-rate or QBER values.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The auxiliary mismatch modes are a virtual modeling device from ref. 15, and the reduced JSA projection is a mathematical restriction. The main ledger items are the fitted JSA phase coefficients, the hand-chosen truncation order, and the large set of empirical device parameters that the predictions depend on.

free parameters (6)
  • delta k' = not reported
    Lowest-order symmetric correction to the spatial phase-matching perturbation in eq. (19); fitted to the measured type-II photon-pair spectrum in fig. 2 and used to reconstruct the complex JSA phase.
  • delta k'' = not reported
    Antisymmetric second-order correction in eq. (19); fitted together with delta k' to the measured type-II spectrum.
  • Delta k0 = not reported
    Peak position offset of the phase-matching function, fitted to the measured type-II spectrum in Section IV A 1 to set the central frequency.
  • constant background = not reported
    Baseline offset fitted to the measured type-II spectrum to zero the noise floor before JSA reconstruction.
  • expansion order N = 5
    The covariance series in eq. (8) is truncated at N=5 for the type-0 system. This is a hand-chosen cutoff for numerical feasibility; no convergence study is shown.
  • device calibration parameters (losses, mode matches, dead times, dark counts, afterpulse probabilities) = empirical ranges, not tabulated in the paper
    Obtained from test reports, conversion-efficiency measurements, and detector tomography (Section III). They are inputs to the simulation, not fitted to the key-rate or QBER data, but the central predictions depend on them.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The SPDC state is a Gaussian two-mode squeezed state in each Schmidt mode, so the covariance formalism from ref. 26 correctly captures all orders of multi-pair emission.
    Invoked throughout Sections II and IV; it is the standard Gaussian-state treatment of SPDC and is consistent with the cited literature.
  • domain assumption The JSA factorizes as psi(omega_s, omega_i) approximately alpha(omega+) Phi(omega-) (eq. 15), because the phase-matching function is nearly constant over the narrow pump bandwidth.
    Used to reconstruct the JSA from separate pump and photon-pair spectrum measurements in Section IV A. It requires a large aspect ratio and can fail for broad pumps or strong frequency-dependent phase matching.
  • domain assumption The decoupling approximation Delta k(omega-, z) approximately Delta k(omega-) + delta k(z), with delta k expanded to second order in z (eqs. 17-19), gives the correct complex phase of the phase-matching function.
    This is the basis of the JSA phase reconstruction in Section IV A 1. The fitted coefficients are then used in all interference and dispersion predictions.
  • domain assumption Time-ordering effects in SPDC are negligible.
    Stated at the start of Section IV A; neglecting time ordering is standard for low-gain SPDC but is an approximation.
  • domain assumption For the type-0 crystal, the measured spectrum asymmetry is entirely due to the spectrograph, and the true generated spectrum is symmetric.
    The measured type-0 spectrum is symmetrized in Section IV A 2; if real asymmetry exists in the source, the JSA model would be wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncating the covariance expansion at N=5 and requiring channel separation condition eq. (24) is sufficient for the type-0 results.
    Section IV A 2 chooses N=5 for numerical tractability; no test of convergence at the simulated mu values is provided.
  • domain assumption Afterpulses are sufficiently diluted over time that they can be treated as a Poissonian noise contribution with rate r_noise.
    Section IV C models afterpulses through eqs. (36)-(37); the paper notes that afterpulse correlations are spread over times much longer than the time-bin duration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequency-Resolved Simulations of Highly Entangled Biphoton States: Beyond the Single-Pair Approximation. II. Application to Entanglement-based Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JW5RJHCE

@misc{pith2026241200958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequency-Resolved Simulations of Highly Entangled Biphoton States: Beyond the Single-Pair Approximation. II. Application to Entanglement-based Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JW5RJHCE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00958}
}
read the original abstract

We present time- and frequency-resolved simulations of quantum key distribution~(QKD) systems employing highly entangled biphoton quantum states. Our simulations are based on expansions of the covariance matrix and photon detection probabilities of biphoton states in terms of increasing orders of the joint spectral amplitude that were introduced in the first part of this series. Employing these expansions allows us to efficiently evaluate the impact of multi-pair events on the performance of the QKD systems while systematically taking into account effects from the photon spectra and many relevant imperfections of the setup. The results are shown to be in agreement with corresponding measurements of the key rates and quantum bit error rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Setup of the QKD system implementing the time-bin encoded BBM92 protocol. A laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. JSD reconstructed from measurements of the pump pulse spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Visualization of the kernels of the operators iterated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measurements of the type-0 SPDC spectrum (top) and the transmission functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated normalized coincidence detection probability between Alice and Bob (AB) as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured (error bars) and simulated (error bands) Type-0 time basis QBER over different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Type-II phase basis QBER when changing the temperature (i.e. phase) of Bob’s interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ordinary (110 MHz) and interleaved (220 MHz) time-bin structure. Chromatic dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Type-II time basis QBER when varying the distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of the sifted key rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Simulating lossy and partially distinguishable quantum optical circuits: theory, algorithms and applications to experiment validation and state preparation

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors introduce a blocked loop Hafnian and finite-difference sieve that compute coarse-grained photon-number distributions of Gaussian states in exponential, not combinatorial, time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Type-II System: Asymmetric JSA Using the approximate factorization of the JSA in terms of α(ω+) and Φ( ω−) allows us to reconstruct the JSA from independent measurements of the pump pulse and photon- pair spectra. Pumping the SPDC process with cw-light of frequency ω0, correspond- ing to α(ω+) = δ(ω0 − ω+), yields the marginal distributions Ψ s(ωs) ∝ |Φ(2...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This is most conveniently real- ized by utilizing highly entangled states generated by a type-0/I process with a sufficiently large aspect ratio of the JSA

    Type-0 System: Wavelength-Division Demultiplexing For many applications, it is beneficial or even necessary to split signal and idler photons according to their wavelength rather than their polarization. This is most conveniently real- ized by utilizing highly entangled states generated by a type-0/I process with a sufficiently large aspect ratio of the J...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Quantum cryptography without bell’s theo- rem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996). 32

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Tittel, J

    W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Quantum cryptography using entangled photons in energy-time bell states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4737 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    W. P. Grice and I. A. Walmsley, Spectral information and distinguishability in type-ii down- conversion with a broadband pump, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1627 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    C. K. Law, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, Continuous frequency entanglement: Effective finite hilbert space and entropy control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5304 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Yang, M. Liscidini, and J. E. Sipe, Spontaneous parametric down-conversion in waveguides: A backward heisenberg picture approach, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033808 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    L. G. Helt, Z. Yang, M. Liscidini, and J. E. Sipe, Spontaneous four-wave mixing in microring resonators, Opt. Lett. 35, 3006 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Christ, K

    A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silberhorn, Probing multimode squeezing with correlation functions, New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Euler, E

    S. Euler, E. Fitzke, O. Nikiforov, D. Hofmann, T. Dolejsky, and T. Walther, Spectral char- acterization of spdc-based single-photon sources for quantum key distribution, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230, 1073 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ma and W

    X. Ma and W. Rhodes, Multimode squeeze operators and squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 41, 4625 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Olivares, Quantum optics in the phase space, Eur

    S. Olivares, Quantum optics in the phase space, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 203, 3–24 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 21, 1440001 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Takeoka, R.-B

    M. Takeoka, R.-B. Jin, and M. Sasaki, Full analysis of multi-photon pair effects in spontaneous parametric down conversion based photonic quantum information processing, New Journal of Physics 17, 043030 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Fitzke, F

    E. Fitzke, F. Niederschuh, and T. Walther, Simulating the photon statistics of multimode gaussian states by automatic differentiation of generating functions, APL Photonics 8, 026106 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    W. Mauerer, On Colours, Keys, and Correlations: Multimode Parametric Downconversion in the Photon Number Basis, doctoralthesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨ at Erlangen-N¨ urnberg (F AU) (2009). 33

    2009

  12. [20]

    Lamata and J

    L. Lamata and J. Le´ on, Dealing with entanglement of continuous variables: Schmidt de- composition with discrete sets of orthogonal functions, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7, 224 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau III, Numerical Linear Algebra(SIAM, Philadelphia, 1997) dOI: 10.1137/1.978089 8719574

    1997 doi

  14. [22]

    T. E. Keller and M. H. Rubin, Theory of two-photon entanglement for spontaneous parametric down-conversion driven by a narrow pump pulse, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1534 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Y. M. Mikhailova, P. A. Volkov, and M. V. Fedorov, Biphoton wave packets in parametric down-conversion: Spectral and temporal structure and degree of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 78, 062327 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    C. Lee, Z. Zhang, G. R. Steinbrecher, H. Zhou, J. Mower, T. Zhong, L. Wang, X. Hu, R. D. Horansky, V. B. Verma, A. E. Lita, R. P. Mirin, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, G. W. Wornell, F. N. C. Wong, J. H. Shapiro, and D. Englund, Entanglement-based quantum com- munication s...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Liu and A

    H. Liu and A. S. Helmy, Joint measurement of time–frequency entanglement via sum frequency generation, npj Quantum Information 6, 66 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    S. P. Phehlukwayo, M. L. Umuhire, Y. Ismail, S. Joshi, and F. Petruccione, Influence of coincidence detection of a biphoton state through free-space atmospheric turbulence using a partially spatially coherent pump, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033732 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Dorfman, S

    K. Dorfman, S. Asban, B. Gu, and S. Mukamel, Hong-ou-mandel interferometry and spec- troscopy using entangled photons, Communications Physics 4, 49 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Kleinpaß, E

    P. Kleinpaß, E. Fitzke, and T. Walther, Frequency-resolved simulations of highly entangled biphoton states:bbeyond the single-pair approximation. i. theory, preprint (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fitzke, L

    E. Fitzke, L. Bialowons, T. Dolejsky, M. Tippmann, O. Nikiforov, T. Walther, F. Wissel, and M. Gunkel, Scalable network for simultaneous pairwise quantum key distribution via entanglement-based time-bin coding, PRX Quantum 3, 020341 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Dolejsky, E

    T. Dolejsky, E. Fitzke, L. Bialowons, M. Tippmann, O. Nikiforov, and T. Walther, Flexible reconfigurable entanglement-based quantum key distribution network, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 232, 3553 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    O. F. Thomas, W. McCutcheon, and D. P. S. McCutcheon, A general framework for multimode gaussian quantum optics and photo-detection: Application to hong-ou-mandel interference 34 with filtered heralded single photon sources, APL Photonics 6, 040801 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    J. K. Nauth, Full time-dependent counting statistics of highly entangled biphoton states, Phys. Rev. A 106, 053716 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Pozrikidis, An Introduction to Grids, Graphs, and Networks(Oxford University Press, New York, 2014)

    C. Pozrikidis, An Introduction to Grids, Graphs, and Networks(Oxford University Press, New York, 2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Brendel, N

    J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Pulsed energy-time entangled twin-photon source for quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2594 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    J. D. Franson, Bell inequality for position and time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205 (1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Fitzke, R

    E. Fitzke, R. Krebs, T. Haase, M. Mengler, G. Alber, and T. Walther, Time-dependent povm reconstruction for single-photon avalanche photo diodes using adaptive regularization, New Journal of Physics 24, 023025 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Quesada and J

    N. Quesada and J. E. Sipe, Effects of time ordering in quantum nonlinear optics, Phys. Rev. A 90, 063840 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Z.-Y. J. Ou, Multi-Photon Quantum Interference, 1st ed. (Springer Science & Business Media,

  31. [39]

    Chang, C

    D. Chang, C. Langrock, Y.-W. Lin, C. R. Phillips, C. V. Bennett, and M. M. Fejer, Complex- transfer-function analysis of optical-frequency converters, Opt. Lett. 39, 5106 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Helmfrid and G

    S. Helmfrid and G. Arvidsson, Influence of randomly varying domain lengths and nonuniform effective index on second-harmonic generation in quasi-phase-matching waveguides, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 8, 797 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    A. C. Gray, S. A. Berry, L. G. Carpenter, J. C. Gates, P. G. R. Smith, and C. B. E. Gawith, Investigation of ppln waveguide uniformity via second harmonic generation spectra, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 32, 63 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    S. M. Barnett, L. S. Phillips, and D. T. Pegg, Imperfect photodetection as projection onto mixed states, Optics Communications 158, 45 (1998). 35

    1998

  35. [43]

    Santandrea, M

    M. Santandrea, M. Stefszky, and C. Silberhorn, General framework for the analysis of imper- fections in nonlinear systems, Opt. Lett. 44, 5398 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Gayer, Z

    O. Gayer, Z. Sacks, E. Galun, and A. Arie, Temperature and wavelength dependent refractive index equations for mgo-doped congruent and stoichiometric linbo 3, Applied Physics B 91, 343 (2008)

    2008

  37. [46]

    W. R. Leo, Techniques for Nuclear and Particle Physics Experiments: A How-to Approach (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1994)

    1994

  38. [47]

    Andrianov, A

    A. Andrianov, A. Szabo, A. Sergeev, A. Kim, V. Chvykov, and M. Kalashnikov, Computa- tionally efficient method for fourier transform of highly chirped pulses for laser and parametric amplifier modeling, Opt. Express 24, 25974 (2016). 36

    2016

  39. [2007]

    dOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-25554-5

    doi

Pith tools

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