Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Hierarchical Verification of Non-Gaussian Coherence in Bosonic Quantum States

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 A hierarchy of thresholds certifies when a Fock-superposition coherence is genuinely non-Gaussian, and an optical |0>+|2> state clears the first rung.

desk verdict Careful experiment and a useful hierarchy, but the headline certification rests on unproven numerical thresholds with a margin too small to ignore. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14032 v2 pith:6NXXTXIG submitted 2025-01-23 quant-ph

Beate E. Asenbeck , Lukáš Lachman , Ambroise Boyer , Priyanka Giri , Alban Urvoy , Radim Filip , Julien Laurat This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-GaussiancoherenceFock-statesuperpositionswitnesshierarchicalcertificationbosonicquantumstatesheraldedopticalhomodynetomographyresourcetheories
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 builds a hierarchy of thresholds for deciding when the coherence between two Fock states (photon-number states) of a bosonic mode cannot be produced by Gaussian operations alone. Three kinds of criteria are constructed: absolute thresholds, which compare a phase-scanned coherence contrast against the best any free state can do; relative thresholds, which add measured Fock-population probabilities as extra conditions; and qubit-specific thresholds, which handle unbalanced superpositions. Tested on heralded optical states, the $|0\rangle+|2\rangle$ state exceeds the first-rank absolute non-Gaussian threshold and the qubit-specific threshold near its minimum, while the $|0\rangle-|1\rangle$ state needs the relative criteria to be certified. The hierarchy matters because global non-Gaussianity measures such as Wigner negativity or stellar rank do not say whether a state has the particular coherence structure that error correction or sensing requires.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the hierarchy of free-state sets $F^G_l$: at rank $l$, any superposition of at most $l$ Fock levels is free, and Gaussian dynamics $S(\xi)D(\alpha)$ may act on it. The carried measure is the interferometric coherence contrast $C_{n_1,n_2}(\rho)$, defined through the phase-scanned projectors $X_{n_1,n_2}(\phi)$ on the equator of the corresponding Bloch sphere, plus its qubit generalization $G^\theta_{n_1,n_2}(\rho)$, which adds a population-imbalance term for arbitrary splitting angles. Thresholds are computed as maxima of these measures over the free sets, using an analytical parametrization of displaced-squeezed Fock overlaps via Hermite polynomials and numerical optimization over the squeezing, displacement, phases, initial Fock index, and free-state coefficients. This turns non-Gaussian coherence into a ladder of application-tailored witnesses rather than a single global resource count.

What would settle it

Exhibit a concrete free state of rank $l=1$, of the form $S(\xi)D(\alpha)\sum c_f|f\rangle$ with the sum spanning one Fock level, whose coherence $C_{0,2}$ equals or exceeds the value the paper reports as $T^{L,G}_{0,1}$ while the experimental state's $C_{0,2}=0.72$ stays below it; then the absolute criterion collapses. The same examination applies to the qubit threshold $T^{L,G}_{Q,2}$ at $\theta=0.4\pi/2$, by finding a free state whose $G^\theta$ reaches the reported threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that non-Gaussian coherence can be certified as a hierarchy indexed by the Fock-space distance $l=n_2-n_1$ of the targeted superposition. The free states at rank $l$ are Gaussian squeezed-displaced versions of arbitrary superpositions spanning at most $l$ adjacent Fock levels, and the threshold $T^{L,G}_{k,l}$ is the maximum of the coherence contrast $C_{k,l}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}(\max_\phi \mathrm{Tr}[X_{k,l}(\phi)\rho]-\min_\phi\mathrm{Tr}[X_{k,l}(\phi)\rho])$ over that free set. The experimental $|0\rangle+|2\rangle$ state, with measured $C_{0,2}=0.72$, passes the first-rank absolute non-Gaussian threshold, and both tested qubit states pass the qubit-specific threshold near $\theta=0.4\,\pi/2$; the $|0\rangle-|1\rangle$ state, with $C_{0,1}=0.66$, does not pass the absolute non-classical or non-Gaussian thresholds and is certified only through the relative criteria.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical maximizations used to set every threshold actually find the global maximum over the free-state manifold; if any optimization misses the true maximum, the thresholds are too low and the criteria could certify a state that Gaussian operations can produce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any state whose measured coherence $C_{k,l}$ or $G^\theta_{k,l}$ exceeds the corresponding threshold is certified to require non-Gaussian resources for that coherence, not merely to have a negative Wigner function.
  • The relative criteria let experimentalists certify states that fail the absolute test by conditioning on measured Fock probabilities, lowering the bar without weakening the definition of free states.
  • The qubit-specific threshold supplies a minimal pass/fail requirement for a qubit encoded in an unbalanced two-Fock-level superposition, directly usable in trapped-ion, circuit, and photonic qubit platforms.
  • The same threshold machinery extends to other free-state sets and to other pairs of Fock levels, so the hierarchy is not restricted to the $|0\rangle$-$|1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$-$|2\rangle$ cases demonstrated here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the highest rank a state passes defines a discrete coherence rank, which could serve as an application-oriented resource measure complementing stellar rank.
  • Because the thresholds come from numerical maximization, a natural follow-up is to certify global optimality for the lowest ranks, for instance by interval methods or by deriving closed-form bounds for the $l=1$ case.
  • The same hierarchy could be applied directly to coherent-state superpositions and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states, as the conclusion anticipates, with the thresholds then compared against stellar-rank witnesses on identical density matrices.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hierarchical family of witnesses for certifying non-Gaussian coherence in Fock-basis superpositions, with free-state sets of increasing power. Three types of criteria are introduced: absolute coherence criteria, relative criteria conditioned on measured Fock probabilities, and qubit-specific criteria for unbalanced superpositions. The framework is tested on heralded photonic states approximately proportional to |0>+|1> and |0>+|2>, reconstructed by homodyne tomography with bootstrap uncertainties. The central experimental claims are that the |0>+|2> state surpasses the first-rank absolute non-Gaussian threshold (C0,2 = 0.72) and that two qubit states surpass the qubit-specific non-Gaussian threshold near its minimum. The paper includes derivations in Appendices A and B, a loss model in Appendix C, and experimental details in Appendices D and E.

Significance. If the thresholds are rigorous, this work provides a useful application-oriented alternative to global non-Gaussianity measures such as Wigner negativity and stellar rank, and the demonstration on high-purity optical states is a valuable experimental contribution. The paper reports full density matrices with bootstrap error bars, which is a strength for reproducibility. The companion theory paper [44] supplies additional derivations. The main open question is whether the numerically computed thresholds are true maxima over the free-state sets, which is essential for the certification claim to be rigorous.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (9), (13)-(17)] The thresholds T^{L,G}_{k,l} (Eq. B9), the qubit thresholds T^{L,G}_{Q,l} (Eq. B13), and the relative-criterion functions F_n (Eqs. B14-B17) are obtained by numerical maximization over the Gaussian parameters (ξ, α, φα, φξ), the index m, and the free-state coefficients, but the paper does not state that the search is global or provide a certificate of global optimality. A numerical maximizer generally returns a lower bound on the true supremum, and if the true maximum is missed, the thresholds are too low and the criteria become too lenient. This is load-bearing: the reported pass C0,2 = 0.72 for the |0>+|2> state exceeds the rank-l=1 threshold by a small margin, and the pure squeezed vacuum already attains C0,2 = 1/√2 ≈ 0.707, so a few-percent upward correction of the threshold would invalidate the headline certification. I request a rigorous upper bound on the free-state maxima (for example via interval methods, branch-and-bound, or an analytical result from the companion paper [44]), or an explicit statement that the thresholds are numerical estimates with the corresponding implications for the strength of the certification.
  2. [Main text Eq. (5) and Appendix B Eq. (12)] The qubit-coherence operator and the target state are defined inconsistently between the main text and the appendix. In Eq. (5) the operator is S(φ,θ) = sinθ X_{n1,n2}(φ) + cosθ(|n1⟩⟨n1|-|n2⟩⟨n2|) and the target state is written as (1/√2)(cosθ|n1⟩+e^{iφ} sinθ|n2⟩), for which the expectation value of S is 1/2 cosθ, not 1. In Eq. (B12) the observable is Gθ_{k,l}(ρ) = cosθ C_{k,l}(ρ) + sinθ(⟨k+l|ρ|k+l⟩-⟨k|ρ|k⟩), and for the stated target state cos(θ/2-π/4)|k⟩+sin(θ/2-π/4)|k+l⟩ the value is cos2θ, again not 1 except at isolated angles. Please reconcile these definitions, correct the target-state parameterization (e.g., cos(θ/2)|0⟩+e^{iφ}sin(θ/2)|1⟩ for the main-text operator), and state explicitly which observable was used to compute the experimental curves and thresholds in Fig. 5.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'confirmes' in the conclusion should be 'confirms', 'introduce' in the conclusion should be 'introduces', 'Rigourous' in the Principle section should be 'Rigorous', and 'arxXiv' in reference [28] should be 'arXiv'.
  2. [Appendix B, text after Eq. (9)] The sentence 'To derive the maximum in Eq. (13)' appears to refer to Eq. (9) or Eq. (11), since Eq. (13) defines the qubit threshold; please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Fig. 5] Please provide the numerical values of the thresholds and the experimental Gθ values at the relevant angles, along with the bootstrap uncertainties, since the graphical presentation in the zoomed inset does not allow a quantitative assessment of the claimed margin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thresholds are derived from independent free-state optimization and the experimental coherences are compared, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The absolute thresholds T^{L,G}_{k,l} (Appendix B, Eq. 9) and qubit thresholds T^{L,G}_{Q,l} (Eq. 13) are defined as maxima of the coherence measure over Gaussian operations applied to explicitly specified free-state sets. These free sets (Fock superpositions of bounded length) are fixed independently of the experimental data, and the experimental coherence values Cexp are obtained by homodyne tomography and compared to the precomputed thresholds. No parameter entering the threshold is fitted to the measured density matrix. In the relative criteria, the weights g_i are optimized per experimental state, but the free-state maximum is recomputed for the same witness, which is a valid adaptive-witness procedure rather than circular reasoning; the Legendre-transform reformulation (Eq. 15) is algebraic and does not import the target result. The citations to the companion paper [44] and to [43] are not load-bearing, because the relevant derivations and inequalities appear in the present appendix, and the cited reformulation is a straightforward convexification. The only substantive concern is whether the numerical maximization over (xi, alpha, phases, m) in Appendix B certifies a global maximum; if not, thresholds could be too low, making the criteria too lenient. That is a numerical-certification and correctness risk, not a circularity, and there is no evidence the thresholds were chosen to make the experimental claims pass.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework contains no fitted physical constants; the thresholds are numerically optimized, not fitted to the experimental data. The free parameters listed are witness-construction choices made per experimental state, which is a legitimate verification practice but should be acknowledged as data-dependent. The key axiomatic load is the global-optimality assumption for the threshold searches, which is not explicitly stated or certified in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Relative-criterion witness weights (lambda_n, lambda_e) = Optimized per experimental state
    In Eqs. (15) and (17), the weights g_c, g_n, g_e (equivalently lambda_n and lambda_e) are chosen to minimize the right-hand side for each measured density matrix. This is a valid witness construction, but it is data-dependent and should be acknowledged as such.
  • Qubit-criterion balance angle theta = Scanned over theta; threshold evaluated at its minimum near theta = 0.4 x pi/2
    The qubit coherence measure G^theta depends on a chosen theta, and the certification of the experimental states is reported at the theta value where the threshold is lowest. The measurement angle is a witness-construction choice that affects the pass/fail result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hilbert space truncated to Fock states |n> with n <= N_max; data reconstructed up to |4>.
    Used throughout the threshold computation (e.g., Fig. 2 sets N_max=4) and the experimental tomography. It is justified by the low populations of high-Fock states in the measured density matrices.
  • domain assumption Gaussian free states are defined as S(xi)D(alpha) applied to superpositions of length l-1; classical free states exclude squeezing.
    This resource-theoretic choice defines the hierarchy (Eq. 2 and surrounding text). It is the paper's own definition of the free set, and the 'classical' label is non-standard.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical optimization over (xi, alpha, phases, m, and free-state coefficients) reaches the global maximum of the coherence measure over the free-state set.
    Thresholds T^{L,G}_{k,l} and T^L_{Q,l} (Appendix B, Eqs. (13) and (7)) rely on this, and no global-optimality certificate is provided. If false, the thresholds are too lenient.
  • standard math The triangular-inequality bound C_{k,l}(rho) <= sum p_m C_{k,l}(|psi_m><psi_m|) (Appendix B, Eq. (10)) is correct, so the threshold maximum occurs for a pure free state.
    The paper sketches the proof of this bound, which converts the optimization over mixtures into an optimization over pure states. This step is necessary for the numerical threshold computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Verification of Non-Gaussian Coherence in Bosonic Quantum States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NXXTXIG

@misc{pith2026250114032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Verification of Non-Gaussian Coherence in Bosonic Quantum States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NXXTXIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14032}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Gaussianity, a distinctive characteristic of bosonic quantum states, is pivotal in advancing quantum networks, fault-tolerant quantum computing, and high-precision metrology. Verifying the quantum nature of a state, particularly its non-Gaussian features, is essential for ensuring the reliability and performance of these technologies. However, the specific properties required for each application demand tailored validation thresholds. Here, we introduce a hierarchical framework comprising absolute, relative, and qubit-specific thresholds to assess the non-Gaussianity of local coherences. We illustrate this framework using heralded optical non-Gaussian states with the highest purities available in optical platforms. This comprehensive framework presents the first detailed evaluation of number state coherences and can be extended to a wide range of bosonic states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Non-Gaussian coherence creation. A Wigner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hierarchy of non-Gaussian coherence criteria. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental data and absolute non-classical and non-Gaussian coherence threshold. (a) and (b) display the Wigner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Multi-dimensional relative thresholds. (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Qubit non-classical (blue) and non-Gaussian (orange) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Lachman, B

    L. Lachman, B. E. Asenbeck, A. Boyer, P. Giri, A. Ur- voy, J. Laurat, and R. Filip, Hierarchies of quantum non- Gaussian coherences for bosonic systems: A theoretical study, Phys. Rev. A 111, 063704 (2025). 7 Appendix A: F ormal aspects of hierarchical properties We consider the Hilbert space HN spanned by the Fock states |n⟩ with n ≤ N , and a formally o...

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Lachman and R

    L. Lachman and R. Filip, Quantum non-Gaussianity of light and atoms, Prog. Quantum Electron. 83, 100395 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    Niset, J

    J. Niset, J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, and N. Cerf, No-Go Theorem for Gaussian Quantum Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 120501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Ferrini, F. Grosshans, and D. Markham, Classical simulation of Gaussian quantum circuits with non-Gaussian input states, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    B. Q. Baragiola, G. Pantaleoni, R. N. Alexander, A. Karanjai, and N. C. Menicucci, All-Gaussian Universality and Fault Tolerance with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 200502 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    Garc ´ ıa-´Alvarez, C

    L. Garc ´ ıa-´Alvarez, C. Calcluth, A. Ferraro, and G. Fer- rini, Efficient simulatability of continuous-variable cir- cuits with large Wigner negativity, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043322 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Rojkov, M

    I. Rojkov, M. Simoni, E. Zapusek, F. Reiter, and J. P. Home, Stabilization of cat-state manifolds using nonlin- ear reservoir engineering, arXiv:2407.18087 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Preparation, Gates, Memory, and Readout of a Trapped-Ion Quantum Bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 566, 513–517 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Magro, J

    V. Magro, J. Vaneecloo, S. Garcia, and A. Ourjoumtsev, Deterministic freely propagating photonic qubits with negative Wigner functions, Nat. Photonics 17, 688–693 (2023). 6

    2023

  4. [11]

    W. Wang, L. Hu, Y. Xu, K. Liu, Y. Ma, S.-B. Zheng, R. Vijay, Y. P. Song, L.-M. Duan, and L. Sun, Converting Quasiclassical States into Arbitrary Fock State Superpo- sitions in a Superconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 223604 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf et al. , Quantum error cor- rection of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature 584, 368–372 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    R´ eglade, A

    U. R´ eglade, A. Bocquet, R. Gautier, J. Cohen, A. Marquet, E. Albertinale, N. Pankratova, M. Hall´ en, F. Rautschke, L.-A. Sellem et al., Quantum control of a cat qubit with bit-flip times exceeding ten seconds, Nature 629, 778–783 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Y. Chu, P. Kharel, T. Yoon, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Creation and control of multi-phonon Fock states in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator, Nature 563, 666–670 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Minzioni et al

    P. Minzioni et al. , Roadmap on all-optical processing, J. Opt. 21, 063001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating Optical Schr¨ odinger Kittens for Quantum Information Processing, Science 312, 83–86 (2006)

    2006

  10. [17]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Le Jeannic, J. Ruaudel, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, Y.- C. Jeong et al. , Optical Synthesis of Large-Amplitude Squeezed Coherent-State Superpositions with Minimal Resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 023602 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Kawasaki, K

    A. Kawasaki, K. Takase, T. Nomura, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Yabuno, F. China, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, J. Yoshikawaet al., Generation of highly pure single-photon state at telecommunication wavelength, Opt. Express30, 24831 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Cotte, H

    V. Cotte, H. Simon, B. Pointard, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Experimental generation of coherent-state superpositions with a quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043170 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Takase, A

    K. Takase, A. Kawasaki, B. K. Jeong, M. Endo, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, K. Watanabe, T. Umeki, S. Miki et al. , Generation of Schr¨ odinger cat states with Wigner negativity using a continuous-wave low-loss waveguide optical parametric amplifier, Opt. Ex- press 30...

    2022

  14. [21]

    A. I. Lvovsky, P. Grangier, A. Ourjoumtsev, V. Pa- rigi, M. Sasaki, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Production and applications of non-Gaussian quantum states of light, arXiv:2006.16985 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M. G. Genoni, M. L. Palma, T. Tufarelli, S. Olivares, M. S. Kim, and M. G. A. Paris, Detecting quantum non- Gaussianity via the Wigner function, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062104 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    L. H. Zaw, Certifiable Lower Bounds of Wigner Negativ- ity Volume and Non-Gaussian Entanglement with Condi- tional Displacement Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050201 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Quantifying non- Gaussianity for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  18. [25]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Stellar Representation of Non-Gaussian Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063605 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Zhuang, P

    Q. Zhuang, P. W. Shor, and J. H. Shapiro, Resource the- ory of non-Gaussian operations, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052317 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New Class of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes for a Bosonic Mode, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arxXiv:quant- ph/0612146 (2006)

    J. Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arxXiv:quant- ph/0612146 (2006)

    2006

  22. [29]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  23. [30]

    K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Quantum-enhanced sens- ing of a single-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 572, 86– 90 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Horodecki and J

    M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, Quantumness in the context of resource theories, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, 1345019 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Zapletal, T

    P. Zapletal, T. Darras, H. Le Jeannic, A. Cavaill` es, G. Guccione, J. Laurat, and R. Filip, Experimental Fock-state bunching capability of non-ideal single-photon states, Optica 8, 743 (2021)

    2021

  27. [34]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Le Jeannic, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Experimental quantum state engineering with time-separated heraldings from a continuous-wave light source: A temporal-mode analysis, Phys. Rev. A 93, 013838 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Srinivas, S

    R. Srinivas, S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. T. Sutherland, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, A. C. Wilson et al. , High-fidelity laser-free universal control of trapped ion qubits, Nature 597, 209– 213 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Fl¨ uhmann, and J

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, and J. P. Home, Direct Characteristic- Function Tomography of Quantum States of the Trapped-Ion Motional Oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043602 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    Darras, B

    T. Darras, B. E. Asenbeck, G. Guccione, A. Cavaill` es, H. Le Jeannic, J. Laurat, A quantum-bit encoding con- verter, Nat. Photonics 17, 165–170 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    [39– 43]

    See Supplemental Material, which includes the Ref. [39– 43]

  32. [39]

    Le Jeannic, V

    H. Le Jeannic, V. B. Verma, A. Cavaill` es, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, K. Huang, O. Morin, S. W. Nam, and J. Laurat, High-efficiency WSi superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors for quantum state engineering in the near infrared, Optics Letters 41, 5341 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Schmied, Quantum state tomography of a single qubit: comparison of methods, J

    R. Schmied, Quantum state tomography of a single qubit: comparison of methods, J. Mod. Opt. 63, 1744 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    Kr´ al, Displaced and Squeezed Fock States, J

    P. Kr´ al, Displaced and Squeezed Fock States, J. Mod. Opt. 37, 889–917 (1990)

    1990

  35. [42]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, Efficient construction of witnesses of the stel- lar rank of nonclassical states of light, Opt

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Efficient construction of witnesses of the stel- lar rank of nonclassical states of light, Opt. Express 30, 30630 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Filip, and L

    R. Filip, and L. Miˇ sta, Detecting Quantum States with a Positive Wigner Function beyond Mixtures of Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 200401 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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