Spectral and temporal properties of type-II parametric down-conversion: The impact of losses during state generation

Christine Silberhorn; Denis A. Kopylov; Michael Stefszky; Polina R. Sharapova; Torsten Meier

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Spectral and temporal properties of type-II parametric down-conversion: The impact of losses during state generation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that the gap between signal and idler $g^{(2)}$ values, caused by internal losses during type-II SPDC, can be used to measure those losses even when external losses are unknown.

desk verdict Solid lossy-SPDC theory with a useful g(2)-asymmetry finding and an honest but unquantified calibration method; worth refereeing with a request for sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08917 v1 pith:FIE7UQDZ submitted 2025-01-15 quant-ph physics.optics

Denis A. Kopylov , Michael Stefszky , Torsten Meier , Christine Silberhorn , Polina R. Sharapova This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.optics

keywords spontaneousparametricdown-conversionwaveguideinternallossessecond-ordercorrelationfunctionGaussianstatesLangevinequationtype-IIphasematchingHong-Ou-Mandelinterferencequantumsourcecharacterization

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 tries to establish that internal losses during waveguide-based spontaneous parametric down-conversion leave a measurable fingerprint in second-order photon correlations. Even when the signal and idler channels lose photons at the same rate, the normalized correlation functions $g_s^{(2)}$ and $g_i^{(2)}$ respond differently to loss, because the signal field experiences temporal walk-off relative to the pump while the idler does not. Since frequency-independent external losses leave $g^{(2)}$ unchanged, the gap between the two measured values isolates the internal loss. The paper shows how to turn this into a practical characterization method for nonlinear waveguides using isolines of $g_s^{(2)}$, $g_i^{(2)}$, and the photon-number ratio.

What carries the argument

The computation is carried by the spatial Langevin and master equations for the second-order correlation matrices $D(z)$ and $C(z)$, which contain all information about the multimode Gaussian state under Markovian losses; fidelities of these Gaussian states with vacuum give the click and coincidence probabilities needed for $g^{(2)}$. The loss-determination method itself is an isoline-intersection procedure: for a known waveguide dispersion, $g_s^{(2)}\left(\bar\alpha,r\right)$, $g_i^{(2)}\left(\bar\alpha,r\right)$, and the relative photon number $R_N$ are computed over the plane of mean loss $\bar\alpha$ and loss asymmetry $r$, and the measured values pick out an intersection that estimates the losses. The Mercer-Wolf expansion, a diagonalization of the correlation matrix into broadband modes, provides the mode counts $\mu_a$, $\mu_b$, and $\mu_{ab}$ used to interpret the $g^{(2)}$ values.

What would settle it

Compare the isoline prediction against an independent loss measurement, such as a cut-back transmission calibration: measure $g_s^{(2)}$ and $g_i^{(2)}$ on the same waveguide and check whether the intersection in the $(\bar\alpha, r)$ plane reproduces the known loss. If the inferred losses disagree systematically, or if the two $g^{(2)}$ values remain equal under known equal internal loss, the central claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under pump-idler group-velocity matching in type-II SPDC, the idler travels with the pump while the signal lags behind, so photons generated early in the waveguide are more likely to be lost before the end. This makes the signal's spectral and temporal structure, and hence its measured $g^{(2)}$, progressively more sensitive to internal loss than the idler's, even when the loss coefficients are equal. External frequency-independent losses cancel out of $g^{(2)}$, so a measured difference between $g_s^{(2)}$ and $g_i^{(2)}$ indicates internal loss and, for a waveguide with known dispersion, the intersection of the theoretical isolines in the mean-loss and loss-asymmetry plane determines those loss parameters. The paper demonstrates the effect in simulations for a 1 cm waveguide with 0.5 ps pump pulses and uses it to propose an experimental method of internal-loss determination.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the waveguide's dispersion and group velocities are known exactly enough from a linear model, that losses during propagation are frequency-independent and equal for signal and idler, and that the pump is not scattered; if any of these fail, the theoretical $g^{(2)}$ curves shift and the inferred losses are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Internal loss can be estimated from $g_s^{(2)}$ and $g_i^{(2)}$ without calibrating transmission or detection efficiency, because those external losses do not change either correlation function.
Equal $g_s^{(2)}$ and $g_i^{(2)}$ do not certify the absence of internal loss, so they should not be used as a lossless-source check.
Higher Hong-Ou-Mandel dip visibility can accompany higher internal loss, meaning visibility alone is not a reliable proxy for biphoton indistinguishability in lossy waveguides.
Strong internal losses effectively shorten the waveguide seen by the photons: signal spectral oscillations wash out, spectra broaden, and the effective number of occupied modes grows.

Reading between the lines

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

The asymmetry mechanism should appear in any phase-matching scheme where the two daughter fields have different group velocities; the authors only analyse pump-idler group-velocity matching, but the same walk-off argument makes $g^{(2)}$-based loss metering more widely applicable.
A practical extension would be to measure $g^{(2)}$ at several spectral filters or time delays, which could separate frequency-dependent losses from the flat-loss model considered in the paper.
The $g^{(2)}$ gap could act as a continuous in-situ health monitor for integrated quantum sources, flagging degradation of internal loss during an experiment without adding absolute-efficiency calibration.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely useful part of this paper is the demonstration that equal internal losses in type-II SPDC do not just attenuate the fields—they change the mode structure and the normalized g(2) of signal and idler in different ways, and they can make the HOM dip more visible. That is a non-obvious, physically explained result, and it is correctly derived from the Gaussian/Langevin framework the group has been developing. The math in sections II and III is standard and consistent; the JSI, HOM click probabilities, and g(2) expressions all follow from the correlation matrices, and the spectral broadening and temporal skew are plausibly explained by the effective shortening of the nonlinear medium. Appendix B’s argument that external losses drop out of g(2) is correct and is the right basis for the loss-characterization idea.

The new applied claim is the Sec III C proposal: from measured g_s^(2), g_i^(2), and optionally RN, one can read off the mean loss alpha-bar and asymmetry r from isolines like Fig. 4. That is a neat idea and could be useful for integrated SPDC sources. But it is still a calibration in an idealized model. The isolines are computed with linear dispersion (no GVD/chirp), frequency-independent Markovian losses with alpha_p=0, and a single spatial mode. The authors explicitly list these limitations in the last paragraph of Sec III C, but they do not quantify them. The three examples s1-s3 are inversions of the same model that generated the isolines, so they cannot reveal model misspecification. The stress-test note is right: if pump loss is nonzero, the effective z-dependence of the interaction changes and the isolines shift in a way that could mimic a different alpha_s/alpha_i; the method as stated has no handle on that. So the claim should be read as “this works if your waveguide matches the assumed model,” not as a validated experimental determination. That is a real but proportionate limitation—it does not undermine the core physics results.

The paper would benefit from a sensitivity analysis, even a rough one, over pump loss, GVD, and frequency-dependent absorption, and from some convergence details on the frequency grid. No code or data are included, which is normal for a theory paper but would help for reproducibility. The citation pattern is fine; the self-reference to [18] is a genuine prior formalism, not an attempt to bury criticism.

Who is this for? Groups working on integrated SPDC characterization and on theory of lossy nonlinear waveguides. It deserves a serious referee: the physics is coherent, the derivations check out, and the applied idea is worth testing. A referee should ask for the sensitivity analysis before publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Gaussian-state formalism, based on the spatial Langevin and master equations, to model pulsed type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in lossy waveguides. It computes the joint spectral intensity, Mercer-Wolf mode numbers, normalized second-order correlation functions g(2), and Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference patterns as functions of internal propagation losses. For a frequency-degenerate type-II source operated under pump-idler group-velocity matching, the authors find that g(2)_s and g(2)_i respond differently to internal losses even when the signal and idler loss coefficients are equal, and they propose this asymmetry as the basis of a method for experimentally determining internal waveguide losses. The paper also reports that increasing losses can increase HOM dip visibility while narrowing the dip.

Significance. The proposed loss-determination method is potentially useful because g(2) is invariant under external frequency-independent losses, offering a way to access internal loss in integrated SPDC sources without needing absolute calibration of transmission and detection efficiencies. The theoretical framework is self-consistent, goes beyond the two-photon approximation by using Gaussian states, and provides several falsifiable qualitative predictions (e.g., g(2)_s ≠ g(2)_i under equal losses, HOM visibility increasing with loss). The central caveat is that the applied claim of 'experimental determination' is presently supported only by idealized numerical simulations, with no sensitivity analysis and no experimental validation. The manuscript is carefully written, but the practical usefulness of the method hinges on the robustness of the theoretical calibration curves, which is not yet established.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III C, Fig. 4] The inversion method relies on theoretical isolines generated under a restrictive set of assumptions: the linear dispersion relation of Eq. (33) with no group-velocity dispersion or chirp, Markovian frequency-independent losses with αp = 0, and a single spatial mode. The closing paragraph of Sec. III C acknowledges that higher-order effects can change g(2), but no quantitative sensitivity analysis is given. In particular, finite pump loss αp modifies the effective interaction profile along the waveguide and can shift the (ᾱ, r) isolines in the same direction as a change in the signal/idler loss ratio, so the two-parameter inversion in Fig. 4(d) would return biased estimates. Since the abstract and Sec. IV claim the method can be used for experimental determination of internal losses, the paper should either weaken that claim or provide, at least for the specific waveguide example, an analysis of how the inferred ᾱ and r respond to realistic deviations from the ideal model (e.g., αp comparable to αs, inclusion of dispersion, frequency-dependent losses, multi-spatial-mode effects).
[Secs. II A and III] The numerical results are presented without discretization or convergence details. The frequency-grid size N, the frequency step, the integration step for the master equations, and any convergence checks are not reported. Because the proposed method treats the theoretical isolines of Fig. 4 as exact calibration curves, the numerical convergence of those isolines is directly load-bearing: a too-coarse grid or an insufficiently converged integration could shift the isolines and invalidate the illustrative inversions s1-s3. The authors should report these numerical parameters and provide a brief convergence test (e.g., showing that g(2)_s and g(2)_i change by less than a stated tolerance when N or the step size is varied).

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (11)] In the definition of I_a(t), the second equality contains ξ_b(ω_m) in the sum; since both fields are the signal field, this should be ξ_a(ω_m). The subsequent text says 'for the idler field, replace a by b', confirming this is a typographical error.
[Fig. 2 and Sec. III A] The text in Sec. III A refers to 'Fig. 2(e)' when discussing the signal and idler spectra, but in the figure caption the spectra are labeled as panel (d). Please correct the cross-reference.
[Sec. II C] The statement that 'the Mercer-Wolf expansion is nothing more than a diagonalization of the matrix D with the use of a unitary matrix V' is slightly imprecise for type-II PDC; since D is block diagonal, one should specify that V = Va ⊕ Vb with Va and Vb diagonalizing the signal and idler blocks separately, as is done in the subsequent sentence.
[Sec. III C, around Eq. (34)] The sentence introducing the synthetic examples uses inconsistent quotation styling for the 'measured' values (e.g., 'g(2)_s = 1.6 and g(2)_i = 1.86' with and without quotes). Please unify the notation for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the g(2) asymmetry and loss-determination method are computed from the lossy SPDC master equation, not assumed; the cited prior formalism [18] is an independent general framework.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the central claim. The master equation (Eqs. (6)-(7)) is taken from the authors' prior work [18], but it is a general open-system formalism derived from the spatial Langevin equation (Eq. (4)) and does not assume any asymmetry in g(2); the asymmetry between g_s^(2) and g_i^(2) under equal losses emerges from numerical integration with the chosen dispersion (Eq. (33)) and group-velocity matching, not from an input. The g(2) values are computed either directly from click probabilities (Eq. (30)) or from the mode numbers via the externally cited relation g(2)=1+1/mu (Eq. (32), Refs [13,40]); neither route inserts the target result. External-loss insensitivity is proven in Appendix B by a beamsplitter transformation in which sqrt(T) factors cancel in Eq. (29). The proposed loss-determination method (Sec. III C) is a model-inversion calibration: theoretical isolines g_s^(2)(alpha_bar,r) and g_i^(2)(alpha_bar,r) are generated from the lossy SPDC model, and measured values are intersected to read off alpha_bar and r. This is an inverse use of the model, not a prediction that is forced by the data used to construct it; the synthetic examples s1-s3 are demonstrations of the inversion. The acknowledged idealizations (linear dispersion, frequency-independent Markovian losses, single spatial mode, alpha_p=0) mean the method needs experimental sensitivity analysis before quantitative use, but that is a correctness and robustness limitation, not circularity.

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

The central results rest on the standard Gaussian-state/Langevin framework, the first-order dispersion model, and the particular manually chosen waveguide parameters. No new entities are postulated. The free parameters are physical inputs (loss, refractive indices, group velocities, pulse, length) plus numerical choices (grid, coupling strength) that are not all specified.

free parameters (7)

Loss coefficient alpha (dB/cm) = 0, 1, 5, 10, 30 dB/cm (scanned); alpha_s = alpha_i
The main control parameter of the simulations; in Sec III equal losses are assumed. In the proposed method, alpha_bar and r become the unknown quantities to be estimated from measured g(2).
Refractive indices np, ns, ni = 1.9, 1.9, 1.8
Manually defined dispersion for the model waveguide, not taken from a fabricated device.
Group velocities vp_g, vs_g, vi_g = 0.9c/np, 0.95 vp_g, vp_g
Chosen to realize pump-idler group-velocity matching; the resulting signal walk-off drives the predicted asymmetry.
Pump pulse width and wavelength = 0.5 ps FWHM; 755 nm central wavelength
Chosen pulse parameters; no specific laser source identified.
Waveguide length L = 1 cm
Length of the simulated nonlinear waveguide.
Coupling strength Gamma = not stated; output N = 2.1e-4 photons per pulse
The spontaneous-regime coupling strength is not given quantitatively; only the resulting photon number is reported.
Frequency grid size N = not specified
The discrete frequency space (omega_0,...,omega_N) is used but the number of bins and convergence checks are not reported.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Losses are Markovian, spatially delta-correlated, frequency-independent baths for signal and idler
Introduced in Sec II A before Eq (4) as two separate, non-interacting environments with Langevin noise operators and loss coefficients alpha_a, alpha_b; no frequency dependence or memory.
domain assumption First-order dispersion approximation, no group-velocity dispersion or chirp
Eq (33) and Sec III text state that long pulses allow limiting to first-order refractive index expansion for pump, signal, and idler.
domain assumption Weak spontaneous gain, pump undepleted and unscattered
Sec III: Gamma L << 1, <n> << 1, alpha_p = 0; all simulations are in the low-gain regime.
standard math Gaussian-state fidelity formulas for click-detection probabilities (Eq 28)
Taken from Refs [34,35] and used in Sec II D to compute vacuum fidelities for the HOM and g(2) click probabilities.
standard math Wick decomposition for fourth-order moments, Eq (13)
Taken from Ref [25] and used in Sec II B to express JSI in terms of second-order correlation matrices.
standard math Mercer-Wolf diagonalization and mode-number formula Eqs (14)-(15)
From Refs [26-28]; used in Sec II C to define effective numbers of occupied modes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral and temporal properties of type-II parametric down-conversion: The impact of losses during state generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIE7UQDZ

@misc{pith2026250108917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral and temporal properties of type-II parametric down-conversion: The impact of losses during state generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIE7UQDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08917}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we theoretically study spectral and temporal properties of pulsed spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) generated in lossy waveguides. Our theoretical approach is based on the formalism of Gaussian states and the Langevin equation, which is elaborated for weak parametric down-conversion and photon-number-unresolved click detection. Using the example of frequency-degenerate type-II SPDC generated under pump-idler group-velocity-matching condition, we show how the joint-spectral intensity, mode structure, normalized second-order correlation function, and Hong-Ou-Mandel interference pattern depend on internal losses of the SPDC process. In addition, we propose a new method for the experimental determination of internal losses of nonlinear waveguides which is based on the measurement of the normalized second-order correlation functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08917 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Total number of photons for the signal and idler fields as a function of the loss coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a, b) The absolute and normalized HOM interference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a, b, c) The dependencies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[18]

Christ, K

A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silberhorn, New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

work page 2011
[1]

100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

Department of Physics, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

work page
[2]

100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

Institute for Photonic Quantum Systems (PhoQS), Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

work page
[3]

Integrated Quantum Optics, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany (Dated: January 16, 2025) In this paper, we theoretically study spectral and temporal properties of pulsed spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) generated in lossy waveguides. Our theoretical approach is based on the formalism of Gaussian states and the...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

Linear transformation for HOM The scheme of the HOM interferometer is shown in Fig. 1(a,b). At the output of the waveguide, the signal and idler fields have orthogonal polarizations (Fig. 1(a)). Thus, a polarizing beam-splitter is used for the spatial separation of the signal and idler beams. To let the fields interfere at a beamsplitter, a half-wave-plat...

work page
[5]

Photon-click detectors For the HOM interferometer, we use two frequency- non-resolving photon-click detectors (on-off detectors), placed in both the signal and idler channels (Fig. 1(b)). This type of detector does not distinguish the number of detected photons and their frequencies and is commonly used in HOM experiments [33]. Consider a state ˆρ which c...

work page
[6]

Pelucchi, G

E. Pelucchi, G. Fagas, I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, E. Figueroa, Q. Gong, H. Hannes, J. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, N. Matsuda, J.-W. Pan, F. Schreck, F. Sciarrino, C. Sil- berhorn, J. Wang, and K. D. J¨ ons, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 194 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

M. N. Satyanarayan, A. Deepthy, and H. L. Bhat, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences 24, 103 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 50 references

[8]

Poberaj, H

G. Poberaj, H. Hu, W. Sohler, and P. G¨ unter, Laser and Photonics Reviews 6, 488 (2012)

2012
[9]

E. J. Stanton, J. Chiles, N. Nader, G. Moody, N. Volet, L. Chang, J. E. Bowers, S. Woo Nam, and R. P. Mirin, Optics Express 28, 9521 (2020)

2020
[10]

G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear fiber optics , fifth edition ed. (Elsevier, Academic Press, 2013)

2013
[11]

Mishra, M

J. Mishra, M. Jankowski, A. Y. Hwang, H. S. Stokowski, T. P. McKenna, C. Langrock, E. Ng, D. Heydari, H. Mabuchi, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, and M. M. Fejer, Opt. Express 30, 32752 (2022)

2022
[12]

Melati, A

D. Melati, A. Melloni, and F. Morichetti, Advances in Optics and Photonics 6, 156 (2014)

2014
[13]

Hammer, S

M. Hammer, S. Babel, H. Farheen, L. Padberg, J. C. Scheytt, C. Silberhorn, and J. F¨ orstner, Opt. Express 32, 22878 (2024)

2024
[14]

Placke, J

M. Placke, J. Schlegel, F. Mann, P. Della Casa, A. Thies, M. Weyers, G. Tr¨ ankle, and S. Ramelow, Laser and Pho- tonics Reviews 18, 10.1002/lpor.202301293 (2024)

2024 doi
[15]

Schuhmann, L

J. Schuhmann, L. Lazzari, M. Morassi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, G. Beaudoin, M. Amanti, F. Boeuf, F. Raineri, F. Baboux, and S. Ducci, PRX Quantum 5, 040321 (2024)

2024
[16]

C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Physical Review Letters 59, 2044 (1987)

1987
[17]

Avenhaus, A

M. Avenhaus, A. Eckstein, P. J. Mosley, and C. Silber- horn, Opt. Lett. 34, 2873 (2009)

2009
[19]

Zielnicki, K

K. Zielnicki, K. Garay-Palmett, D. Cruz-Delgado, H. Cruz-Ramirez, M. F. O’Boyle, B. Fang, V. O. Lorenz, A. B. U’Ren, and P. G. Kwiat, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 1141–1160 (2018)

2018
[20]

Graffitti, J

F. Graffitti, J. Kelly-Massicotte, A. Fedrizzi, and A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Phys. Rev. A98, 053811 (2018)

2018
[21]

C. J. Xin, J. Mishra, C. Chen, D. Zhu, A. Shams-Ansari, C. Langrock, N. Sinclair, F. N. C. Wong, M. M. Fejer, and M. Lonˇ car, Optics Letters47, 2830 (2022)

2022
[22]

N. A. Lange, T. Schapeler, J. P. H¨ opker, M. Protte, and T. J. Bartley, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023701 (2023)

2023
[23]

D. A. Kopylov, T. Meier, and P. R. Sharapova, Theory of multimode squeezed light generation in lossy media (2024), arXiv:2403.05259 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 621 (2012)

2012
[25]

Huttner, S

B. Huttner, S. Serulnik, and Y. Ben-Aryeh, Physical Re- view A 42, 5594 (1990)

1990
[26]

D. B. Horoshko, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013708 (2022)

2022
[27]

Vogel and D.-G

W. Vogel and D.-G. Welsch, Quantum Optics (Wiley- VCH, Berlin, 2006)

2006
[28]

Christ, B

A. Christ, B. Brecht, W. Mauerer, and C. Silberhorn, New Journal of Physics 15, 053038 (2013)

2013
[29]

P. R. Sharapova, G. Frascella, M. Riabinin, A. M. P´ erez, O. V. Tikhonova, S. Lemieux, R. W. Boyd, G. Leuchs, and M. V. Chekhova, Physical Review Re- search 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013371 (2020)

2020 doi
[30]

D. S. Phillips, M. Walschaers, J. J. Renema, I. A. Walm- sley, N. Treps, and J. Sperling, Physical Review A 99, 10.1103/physreva.99.023836 (2019)

2019 doi
[31]

E. Wolf, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 343 (1982)

1982
[32]

Mandel and E

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995)

1995
[33]

Fabre and N

C. Fabre and N. Treps, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035005 (2020)

2020
[35]

I. V. Dyakonov, P. R. Sharapova, T. S. Iskhakov, and G. Leuchs, Laser Physics Letters 12, 065202 (2015)

2015
[36]

W. P. Grice and I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review A 56, 1627–1634 (1997)

1997
[37]

A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Hong-Ou-Mandel interference (2017), arXiv:1711.00080 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[38]

Babel, L

S. Babel, L. Bollmers, M. Massaro, K. H. Luo, M. Stef- szky, F. Pegoraro, P. Held, H. Herrmann, C. Eigner, B. Brecht, L. Padberg, and C. Silberhorn, Opt. Express 31, 23140 (2023)

2023
[39]

Spedalieri, C

G. Spedalieri, C. Weedbrook, and S. Pirandola, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 025304 (2012)

2012
[40]

Banchi, S

L. Banchi, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, Physi- cal Review Letters 115, 10.1103/physrevlett.115.260501 (2015)

2015 doi
[41]

Quesada, J

N. Quesada, J. M. Arrazola, and N. Killoran, Physical Review A 98, 10.1103/physreva.98.062322 (2018)

2018 doi
[42]

R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

1963
[43]

Boitier, A

F. Boitier, A. Godard, N. Dubreuil, P. Delaye, C. Fabre, and E. Rosencher, Physical Review A 87, 10.1103/phys- reva.87.013844 (2013)

2013 doi
[44]

D. A. Kopylov, A. V. Rasputnyi, T. V. Murzina, and M. V. Chekhova, Laser Physics Letters 17, 075401 (2020)

2020
[45]

T. S. Iskhakov, A. M. P´ erez, K. Y. Spasibko, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, Optics Letters 37, 1919 (2012)

2012
[46]

D. A. Antonosyan, A. S. Solntsev, and A. A. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043845 (2014)

2014
[47]

D. N. Vavulin and A. A. Sukhorukov, Optics Communi- cations 390, 117 (2017)

2017
[48]

Gr¨ afe, D

M. Gr¨ afe, D. A. Antonosyan, A. S. Solntsev, A. A. Sukho- rukov, and A. Szameit, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 118, 54001 (2017)

2017
[49]

L. G. Helt, M. J. Steel, and J. E. Sipe, New Journal of Physics 17, 013055 (2015)

2015
[50]

A. N. Poddubny, I. V. Iorsh, and A. A. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123901 (2016)

2016
[51]

Banic, L

M. Banic, L. Zatti, M. Liscidini, and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. A 106, 043707 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

Christ, K

A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silberhorn, New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

work page 2011

[2] [1]

100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

Department of Physics, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

work page

[3] [2]

100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

Institute for Photonic Quantum Systems (PhoQS), Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany

work page

[4] [3]

Integrated Quantum Optics, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany (Dated: January 16, 2025) In this paper, we theoretically study spectral and temporal properties of pulsed spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) generated in lossy waveguides. Our theoretical approach is based on the formalism of Gaussian states and the...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[5] [4]

Linear transformation for HOM The scheme of the HOM interferometer is shown in Fig. 1(a,b). At the output of the waveguide, the signal and idler fields have orthogonal polarizations (Fig. 1(a)). Thus, a polarizing beam-splitter is used for the spatial separation of the signal and idler beams. To let the fields interfere at a beamsplitter, a half-wave-plat...

work page

[6] [5]

Photon-click detectors For the HOM interferometer, we use two frequency- non-resolving photon-click detectors (on-off detectors), placed in both the signal and idler channels (Fig. 1(b)). This type of detector does not distinguish the number of detected photons and their frequencies and is commonly used in HOM experiments [33]. Consider a state ˆρ which c...

work page

[7] [6]

Pelucchi, G

E. Pelucchi, G. Fagas, I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, E. Figueroa, Q. Gong, H. Hannes, J. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, N. Matsuda, J.-W. Pan, F. Schreck, F. Sciarrino, C. Sil- berhorn, J. Wang, and K. D. J¨ ons, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 194 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [7]

M. N. Satyanarayan, A. Deepthy, and H. L. Bhat, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences 24, 103 (1999)

work page 1999