Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Mode Distinguishability in Multi-photon Interference

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 single closed-form coincidence probability for multi-photon HOM interference now accounts for polarization mismatch, spectral overlap, beam-splitter asymmetry, and detector efficiencies.

desk verdict Useful multi-photon HOM formulas for ideal detectors, but the detector-efficiency extension is unphysical and needs a fix before the broad claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14915 v1 pith:LKTYHVIP submitted 2025-01-24 quant-ph

Noah Crum , Md Mehdi Hassan , Adrien Green , George Siopsis This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Hong-Ou-Mandelinterferencemulti-photonpolarizationmismatchspectro-temporaloverlapcoincidenceprobabilitybeam-splitterasymmetrydetectorefficiencyquantumnetworks
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 derives a closed-form expression for the coincidence probability when $m$ photons enter one port of a beam splitter and $n$ photons enter the other, generalizing the two-photon HOM dip to arbitrary photon numbers while simultaneously including polarization mismatch, spectro-temporal profile overlap, beam-splitter asymmetry, and detector efficiencies. Its central result, Eq. (9), writes that probability as $\Delta_A \Delta_B$ minus mode-overlap terms, where $\Delta_A$ and $\Delta_B$ are detector click probabilities and the overlap enters through a finite sum over $(\cos\Phi\cos\Theta)^{2j}$. The same machinery is then applied to coherent states, yielding an expression in terms of modified Bessel functions, and to applications such as entanglement swapping, measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, quantum optical classification, and fusion-based photonic quantum computing, where mode mismatch degrades fidelity. If correct, the model offers a single predictive framework for how distinguishable photons behave in practical multi-photon interference experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mode-overlap sum $P = \sum_{j=0}^{\min(m,n)} \binom{m}{j}\binom{n}{j}(\cos\Phi\cos\Theta)^{2j}$, together with the beam-splitter transformation of creation operators and the detector click probabilities $\Delta_A$, $\Delta_B$ defined in Appendix A. The factors $\cos\Phi$ and $\cos\Theta$ measure polarization and spectral overlap separately, so the interference term is controlled by the combined indistinguishability in both degrees of freedom. The mechanism is that after the beam splitter all $m+n$ photons can emerge from one output with probability $T^m R^n P$ or $T^n R^m P$, and subtracting those coincidence-blocking events from the independent click probabilities gives the coincidence rate.

What would settle it

Take $m=n=1$, a 50/50 beam splitter, perfect polarization and spectral matching ($\Phi=\Theta=0$), and detector efficiencies $\eta_A=\eta_B=0.5$; Eq. (9) then gives $P^{\mathrm{Co}}_{1,1} = -3/16$, a negative coincidence probability. A tabletop HOM experiment at these parameters would immediately show that the Appendix A detector-efficiency model needs revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives and claims that multi-photon HOM interference is described by the exact formula $P^{\mathrm{Co}}_{m,n} = \Delta_A\Delta_B - (T^m R^n \Delta_A + T^n R^m \Delta_B)\sum_{j=0}^{\min(m,n)} \binom{m}{j}\binom{n}{j}[\cos\Phi\cos\Theta]^{2j}$, where $T$ and $R$ are the beam-splitter transmissivity and reflectivity, $\cos\Phi = |\hat{\epsilon}_A\cdot\hat{\epsilon}_B^*|$, $\cos\Theta = |\int d\omega\,\phi_A^*(\omega)\phi_B(\omega)|$, and $\Delta_A$, $\Delta_B$ are detector-efficiency factors. It further claims that this formula reproduces the standard single-photon dip, shows how visibility degrades as photon number, polarization mismatch, or spectral mismatch increases, and extends to coherent states through a Poisson-weighted sum that closes in terms of modified Bessel functions. The same framework is applied to networking tasks, yielding, for example, the entanglement-swapping fidelity $\frac{\cos^2\Phi}{2}(1+\cos^2\Theta_{BC})$ for separable spectra and the fused cluster-state fidelity $\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos^2\Theta_{AB})$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each detector's chance of clicking depends only on how many photons entered the two input ports before the beam splitter, through the formula $\Delta = 1 - (1-\eta_A)^m(1-\eta_B)^n$, rather than on how many photons actually reach that detector after the split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any photon-number input, the coincidence probability and HOM visibility are fixed by the beam-splitter parameters, the detector efficiencies, and the single overlap parameter $\cos\Phi\cos\Theta$; no further spectral detail survives once the overlap integral is evaluated.
  • Interference visibility shrinks as $m$ and $n$ grow and is degraded by polarization mismatch, with equal photon numbers generally giving higher visibility than mismatched photon numbers at low mismatch.
  • Spectral profile shape matters beyond bandwidth: sinc-shaped profiles, with side lobes, are especially sensitive to spectral mismatch, so the maximum visibility depends on the ratio of input bandwidths as well as on central-frequency separation.
  • For phase-randomized coherent states the coincidence probability contains modified Bessel functions, and the maximum HOM visibility is 0.5, decreasing with mean photon number and polarization mismatch.
  • In networking applications, spectral and polarization mismatch reduce entanglement-swapping fidelity to $\frac{\cos^2\Phi}{2}(1+\cos^2\Theta_{BC})$, raise the QBER in MDI-QKD through an error term $\sin^2(\Theta/2)$, and lower fused cluster-state fidelity to $\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos^2\Theta_{AB})$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The structure of Eq. (9) suggests a directly testable collapse: with $\chi=\cos\Phi\cos\Theta$, the interference term in every $P^{\mathrm{Co}}_{m,n}$ is a polynomial in $\chi^2$, so experiments that scan polarization and spectral mismatch independently should find that coincidence data fall on a single curve in $\chi$; the paper does not state this collapse prediction explicitly.
  • The coherent-state result could be inverted as a calibration tool: measuring the coincidence rate versus mean photon number at fixed beam-splitter settings should let one extract detector efficiencies and the overlap product $\cos\Phi\cos\Theta$ in a single run, avoiding separate detector-calibration measurements; the paper does not carry out this inversion.
  • Because the same overlap sum controls entanglement-swapping fidelity, MDI-QKD error, and fusion success, the framework implies a single mode-matching budget: for a target fidelity or quantum-bit-error rate, one can translate acceptable polarization and spectral mismatch into a required product $\cos\Phi\cos\Theta$, giving network designers one number to engineer; deriving that budget is an extensi
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical model for multi-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel interference that aims to include, in a single closed-form expression, the effects of polarization mismatch, spectro-temporal overlap, beam-splitter asymmetry, input photon numbers, and detector efficiencies. The central result is Eq. (9), giving the coincidence probability P^Co_{m,n} for m and n input photons, with Eq. (18) extending the formalism to phase-randomized coherent states. The authors apply the model to entanglement swapping, MDI-QKD, quantum sensing, quantum optical classification, and photonic quantum computing, and they study the effects of amplitude-damping, depolarizing, and spectral-broadening channels on HOM visibility.

Significance. For ideal detectors, the derivation is internally consistent and reduces correctly to known limits: Eq. (9) with Δ=1 reproduces the standard two-photon HOM result, and Eq. (20) reproduces the known coherent-state coincidence probability for a 50:50 beam splitter. The paper is useful in packaging several sources of distinguishability into one formula and in drawing connections to a wide set of quantum networking protocols; there is no parameter fitting and no circularity in the ideal-detector derivation. However, the claimed inclusion of realistic detector efficiencies is not valid as written, and several numerical inputs are not reproducible. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's stated goal of modeling realistic imperfections, so the manuscript requires major revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (5), (9), and Appendix A (A4)] The detector-efficiency model used to define Δ_A and Δ_B is not the physical click probability at the beam-splitter outputs. Eq. (A4) defines Δ as the probability of at least one click when all m+n input photons are incident on that detector, but in the actual setup the beam splitter partitions the photons between A and B; when all m+n photons exit port A (probability P_det(m+n,0)), detector B receives zero photons and cannot contribute to a coincidence. Eq. (5) instead subtracts Δ_A P_det(m+n,0) from Δ_AΔ_B, effectively assigning the all-at-A event a contribution Δ_A(Δ_B−1), which is negative for Δ_B<1. This is structurally wrong and produces unphysical probabilities: for m=n=1, T=R=1/2, P=1 (orthogonal photons), and η_A=η_B=0.2, Eq. (9) gives 0.36^2 − 2·0.25·0.36·1 = −0.0504, whereas the correct threshold-detector coincidence probability for distinguishable photons is 2TR η_A η_B = 0.02. The ideal-detector limit Δ=1 is correct, but the claimed generality to non-ideal detectors in Eqs. (5), (9), (18), and in Fig. 15 is invalid as written.
  2. [Eq. (18) and Appendix B (B8)] The coherent-state coincidence formula inherits the flawed Δ_A and Δ_B from Eq. (A4), so the non-ideal-detector terms in Eq. (18)/(B8) do not describe a physical detection scheme. The coefficients A, B, C, D in Eq. (19) are built from products such as μ_A R(1−η'_A), which have no clear interpretation as detected-photon means after the beam splitter; the correct expression would need to sum over the output photon-number distribution and weight each partition k, m+n−k by the per-port click factors [1−(1−η_A)^k][1−(1−η_B)^{m+n−k}]. Until this is corrected, the coherent-state results with finite efficiency, including the visibilities in Figs. 13 and 15, cannot be relied upon.
  3. [Section II.C and Figures 7–11] The quantum-channel analysis is not connected to the main formula. The chapter defines channel maps in Appendix D but does not state how the channel-modified density matrices are inserted into Eq. (9), which was derived for pure Fock input states. Figures 7–11 report visibilities as functions of amplitude-damping, depolarization, and spectral-broadening parameters without displaying the corresponding modified coincidence-probability formulas, so the results are not reproducible from the manuscript. This is a significant gap for the paper's claim to model realistic channel imperfections.
  4. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C4) and (C5)] The Lorentzian and sech spectral envelopes are not normalized as claimed. For the Lorentzian ϕ(ω)=(γ/2π)^{1/2}/((ω−ω0)^2+(γ/2)^2), one finds ∫|ϕ(ω)|^2 dω = 2/γ^2, not 1; for the sech envelope ϕ(ω)=(1/2π)^{1/2}/cosh((ω−ω0)/σ), one finds ∫|ϕ(ω)|^2 dω = σ/π, not 1. Since Eq. (8) defines cosΘ using normalized wavefunctions and Tables I–II and Figures 1–6 use these profiles, the numerical results involving Lorentzian and sech shapes are not reproducible as written.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.A] In the sentence introducing the Bell operators, 'defied' should be 'defined'.
  2. [Tables I and II] The entries such as '1.00 — 1.00 0.89 — 0.12' are ambiguous; please state explicitly which number is the maximum visibility and which is the FWHM ratio, and add clear column and row headers.
  3. [Fig. 14 caption] The word 'transitivity' should be 'transmissivity' when referring to the beam-splitter parameter T.
  4. [Eq. (17) and Section III] The summation over photon-number Fock probabilities in Eq. (17) is only valid for phase-randomized coherent states, as in Eq. (16); please state this explicitly at the start of the coherent-state section so that the formula is not misread as applying to fixed-phase coherent states.
  5. [Appendix B] The statement in Appendix B that the detector is 'ambivalent to polarization direction' is in tension with Appendix A's polarization-dependent η_H and η_V; clarify that Eq. (B2) is for ideal detectors and that polarization dependence is inserted later.
  6. [Appendix D, spectral broadening] The map E_φ(ρ)=∫dω g(ω)ρg(ω)^† is not trace-preserving as written; specify the normalization condition on g(ω) and define its action on frequency modes precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (9) is an analytic multi-photon calculation; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (9), is derived in the paper from the input Fock states (Eqs. (1)-(4)), the beam-splitter transformation (Eq. (3)), and a direct projection calculation in Appendix B (Eqs. (B1)-(B3)). The overlap factors cos Φ and cos Θ are defined independently by Eq. (8) as polarization and spectral inner products, not as fitted parameters. No parameter is fitted to coincidence data, and no assumption contains the target result by construction; the coherent-state formula (18) follows by summing Eq. (9) over the Poisson distribution (17), and the ideal-detector limit (20) is a specialization rather than an input. The detector-efficiency functions (A4) are an explicit modeling assumption; whether they are physically accurate (they can produce negative probabilities in some regimes) is a correctness concern, not a circularity, because the coincidence formula does not reduce to that assumption by definition. Refs. [26] and [34] include some of the present authors, but they are cited as background on input-intensity HOM studies and as an example MDI-QKD implementation, not as the justification for the derivation or the uniqueness of the model. The applications sections use the derived formula in standard fidelity and visibility expressions (e.g., Eqs. (43), (61), (72)); these are independent applications, not circular reproductions of the inputs. No circular step was found.

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

The model introduces no new entities or fitted constants. It rests on a factorization assumption for spectral and polarization modes, and on a detector-efficiency approximation that is not physically correct, which is the main threat to the claimed generality.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Input photons are in a pure state with a single spectral function φ(ω) and a single polarization vector ε, with no correlation between spectral and polarization degrees of freedom.
    Used in Eq. (1)-(2) and throughout Section II; excludes sources with spectral-polarization entanglement even though the later JSA section partially relaxes it.
  • ad hoc to paper The detector click probability at each output is given by Δ(ε_A, ε_B, m, n) = 1 - (1-η_A)^m (1-η_B)^n, as if all m+n input photons were incident on that detector.
    This is the flawed assumption behind Eq. (5) and the coherent-state expression (18); it neglects the beam splitter partition and produces unphysical probabilities.
  • domain assumption The channel on a photon state factors as a tensor product of independent amplitude-damping, depolarizing, and spectral-broadening maps on the number, polarization, and spectral degrees of freedom.
    Assumed in Eq. (12)-(13) and Appendix D; real noise processes can couple these degrees of freedom.
  • standard math Phase-randomized weak coherent states are represented as Poisson mixtures of Fock states.
    Standard for QKD; used in Eq. (16).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mode Distinguishability in Multi-photon Interference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKTYHVIP

@misc{pith2026250114915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mode Distinguishability in Multi-photon Interference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKTYHVIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14915}
}
read the original abstract

The Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect is a quintessential process in various quantum information technologies and quantum optics applications. In this work, we investigate multi-photon interference, developing a model for the simultaneous characterization of polarization and spectro-temporal mode mismatch on the coincidence probabilities including the effects of realistic imperfections of devices used in HOM experiments. We also study the coincidence probability for coherent states as a function of source intensity, as well as spectro-temporal and polarization mismatch of the incident beams. We apply our model to the case of multi-photon interference from independent sources and analyze the consequences of mode mismatch in various instances that occur in quantum networking including entanglement swapping, quantum key distribution, quantum sensing, quantum optical classification, and photonic quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14915 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The simulated coincidence probability for each spectral shape under consideration for several values of input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The simulated HOM visibility as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The simulated coincidence probability for spectrally-matched Gaussian photons for various spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The simulated coincidence probability for photons with allowed mismatch in spectral width for Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The contour plots depicts the simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Photon number distribution of a 4-photon state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Simulated coincidence probabilities for input of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Contour plot showing simulated HOM visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Contour plot showing simulated HOM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The contour plot depicts the simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The contour plot depicts the simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The simulated coherent HOM visibility for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The PEF, PMF, and JSI for two independent SPDC sources. Source BC has a more narrowly defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Post BSM fidelity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Post BSM fidelity with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Measurement setup for MDI-QKD. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.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. Quantum optical shallow networks

    quant-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer fed with a mixed single-photon state is proposed as a shallow neural network with constant photon cost per inference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, and F. N. C. Wong, Clock synchronization with dispersion cancellation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117902 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum tele- portation, Nature 390, 575 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-not gate, Nature 426, 264 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.130503 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.130503 2012

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Se- cure quantum key distribution with realistic devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    A. E. Ulanov, I. A. Fedorov, D. Sychev, P. Grangier, and A. I. Lvovsky, Loss-tolerant state engineering for quantum-enhanced metrology via the reverse hong–ou– mandel effect, Nature Communications 7, 11925 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Crespi, R

    A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv˜ ao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mat- aloni, and F. Sciarrino, Integrated multimode interferom- eters with arbitrary designs for photonic boson sampling, Nature Photonics 7, 545 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Bromberg, Y

    Y. Bromberg, Y. Lahini, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silber- berg, Quantum and classical correlations in waveguide lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 253904 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Mattle, H

    K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, Dense coding in experimental quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4656 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, and R. Loudon, Non-classical interference between independent sources, Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics7, S171 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    T. B. Pittman and J. D. Franson, Violation of bell’s in- equality with photons from independent sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 240401 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    R. B. Patel, A. J. Bennett, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Two-photon interference of the emission from electrically tunable remote quantum dots, Nature Photonics 4, 632 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Vural, S

    H. Vural, S. L. Portalupi, J. Maisch, S. Kern, J. H. Weber, M. Jetter, J. Wrachtrup, R. L¨ ow, I. Ger- hardt, and P. Michler, Two-photon interference in an atom&#x2013;quantum dot hybrid system, Optica 5, 367 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Gerber, D

    S. Gerber, D. Rotter, M. Hennrich, R. Blatt, F. Rohde, C. Schuck, M. Almendros, R. Gehr, F. Dubin, and J. Es- chner, Quantum interference from remotely trapped ions, New Journal of Physics 11, 013032 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Toyoda, R

    K. Toyoda, R. Hiji, A. Noguchi, and S. Urabe, Hong– ou–mandel interference of two phonons in trapped ions, 20 Nature 527, 74 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Hanson, O

    R. Hanson, O. Gywat, and D. D. Awschalom, Room- temperature manipulation and decoherence of a single spin in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 74, 161203 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky- rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    R.-B. Jin, M. Takeoka, U. Takagi, R. Shimizu, and M. Sasaki, Highly efficient entanglement swapping and teleportation at telecom wavelength, Scientific Reports 5, 9333 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Roncallo, A

    S. Roncallo, A. R. Morgillo, C. Macchiavello, L. Maccone, and S. Lloyd, Quantum optical classifier with superexpo- nential speedup (2024), arXiv:2404.15266 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Bahgat, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, G. Campbell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, C. Chung, F. Danesh, T. Dauer, M. Davis, E. Dudley, P. Er-Xuan, J. Fargas, A. Farsi, C. Fenrich, J. Frazer, M. Fukami, Y. Ganesan, G. Gibson...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wang, F.-X

    C. Wang, F.-X. Wang, H. Chen, S. Wang, W. Chen, Z.- Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Realistic device imperfections affect the performance of hong-ou- mandel interference with weak coherent states, Journal of Lightwave Technology 35, 4996 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Moschandreou, J

    E. Moschandreou, J. I. Garcia, B. J. Rollick, B. Qi, R. Pooser, and G. Siopsis, Experimental study of hong–ou–mandel interference using independent phase randomized weak coherent states, Journal of Lightwave Technology 36, 3752 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Pradana and L

    A. Pradana and L. Y. Chew, Quantum interference of multi-photon at beam splitter with application in measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion, New Journal of Physics 21, 053027 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Rubenok, J

    A. Rubenok, J. A. Slater, P. Chan, I. Lucio-Martinez, and W. Tittel, Real-world two-photon interference and proof-of-principle quantum key distribution immune to detector attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130501 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Liu, T.-Y

    Y. Liu, T.-Y. Chen, L.-J. Wang, H. Liang, G.-L. Shentu, J. Wang, K. Cui, H.-L. Yin, N.-L. Liu, L. Li, X. Ma, J. S. Pelc, M. M. Fejer, C.-Z. Peng, Q. Zhang, and J.- W. Pan, Experimental measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130502 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Z. Tang, Z. Liao, F. Xu, B. Qi, L. Qian, and H.-K. Lo, Experimental demonstration of polarization encoding measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190503 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Tang, H.-L

    Y.-L. Tang, H.-L. Yin, Q. Zhao, H. Liu, X.-X. Sun, M.-Q. Huang, W.-J. Zhang, S.-J. Chen, L. Zhang, L.- X. You, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, X. Jiang, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution over un- trustful metropolit...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Z. Tang, K. Wei, O. Bedroya, L. Qian, and H.- K. Lo, Experimental measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution with imperfect sources, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042308 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    L. C. Comandar, M. Lucamarini, B. Fr¨ ohlich, J. F. Dynes, A. W. Sharpe, S. W.-B. Tam, Z. L. Yuan, R. V. Penty, and A. J. Shields, Quantum key distribution with- out detector vulnerabilities using optically seeded lasers, Nature Photonics 10, 312 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    K. Reaz, M. M. Hassan, A. Green, N. Crum, and G. Siop- sis, Experimental decoy-state asymmetric measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution over a tur- bulent high-loss channel, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042603 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Z. L. Yuan, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. B. Ward, and A. J. Shields, Interference of short op- tical pulses from independent gain-switched laser diodes for quantum secure communications, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2, 064006 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    T. F. da Silva, G. C. do Amaral, D. Vitoreti, G. P. T. ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Spectral characterization of weak coherent state sources based on two-photon interference, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, 545 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    M. J. Bayerbach, S. E. D’Aurelio, P. van Loock, and S. Barz, Bell-state measurement exceeding 50% success probability with linear optics, Science Advances 9, eadf4080 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adf4080

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Wang, Three-intensity decoy-state method for device-independent quantum key distribution with basis- dependent errors, Phys

    X.-B. Wang, Three-intensity decoy-state method for device-independent quantum key distribution with basis- dependent errors, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012320 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    R. I. Woodward, Y. S. Lo, M. Pittaluga, M. Min- der, T. K. Para ¨ ıso, M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, 21 and A. J. Shields, Gigahertz measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution using directly modulated lasers, npj Quantum Information 7, 58 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ferreira da Silva, D

    T. Ferreira da Silva, D. Vitoreti, G. B. Xavier, G. C. do Amaral, G. P. Tempor˜ ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Proof-of-principle demonstration of measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution using polarization qubits, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052303 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    P. Chan, J. A. Slater, I. Lucio-Martinez, A. Rubenok, and W. Tittel, Modeling a measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution system, Opt. Express 22, 12716 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    F. Xu, M. Curty, B. Qi, and H.-K. Lo, Practical aspects of measurement-device-independent quantum key distri- bution, New Journal of Physics 15, 113007 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1104149

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb ´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation, Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. M. Birchall, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Sparrow, and M. D. Vidrighin, Creation of en- tangled photonic states using linear optics (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rimock, K

    N. Rimock, K. Cohen, and Y. Oz, Generalized type ii fusion of cluster states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15666 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    C. M. Natarajan, M. G. Tanner, and R. H. Hadfield, Su- perconducting nanowire single-photon detectors: physics and applications, Superconductor Science and Technol- ogy 25, 063001 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Marsili, V

    F. Marsili, V. B. Verma, J. A. Stern, S. Harrington, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, I. Vayshenker, B. Baek, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency, Nature Photonics 7, 210 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    V. B. Verma, B. Korzh, F. Bussi` eres, R. D. Horansky, A. E. Lita, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, H. Zbinden, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, High-efficiency wsi superconduct- ing nanowire single-photon detectors operating at 2.5 k, Applied Physics Letters 105, 122601 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Sahin, A

    D. Sahin, A. Gaggero, T. B. Hoang, G. Frucci, F. Matti- oli, R. Leoni, J. Beetz, M. Lermer, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, and A. Fiore, Integrated autocorrelator based on super- conducting nanowires, Optics Express 21, 11162 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    A. J. Kerman, E. A. Dauler, J. K. W. Yang, K. M. Rosfjord, V. Anant, K. K. Berggren, G. N. Gol’tsman, and B. M. Voronov, Constriction-limited detection efficiency of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Applied Physics Letters 90, 101110 (2007), https://pubs.aip.o...

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    J. P. Sprengers, A. Gaggero, D. Sahin, S. Ja- hanmirinejad, G. Frucci, F. Mattioli, R. Leoni, J. Beetz, M. Lermer, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, R. San- jines, and A. Fiore, Waveguide superconducting single-photon detectors for integrated quantum photonic circuits, Applied Physics Le...

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    It is given by: ϕ(w) = 1 σ √ 2π 1/2 exp − (ω − ω0)2 4σ2 , (C2) where ω0 is the central frequency and σ is the spectral width (standard deviation)

    Gaussian Spectral Envelope The Gaussian spectral envelope is widely used due to its mathematical simplicity and its natural occurrence in many physical processes, such as parametric down- conversion and certain types of laser emission. It is given by: ϕ(w) = 1 σ √ 2π 1/2 exp −...

  46. [54]

    It is given by: ϕ(ω) = T 2π 1/2 sin (T (ω − ω0)/2) (ω − ω0)/2 , (C3) where T is the time duration of the photon and ω0 is the central frequency

    Sinc Spectral Envelope The sinc function arises naturally in scenarios involving rectangular time apertures and is common in time-bin encoding and pulsed quantum systems. It is given by: ϕ(ω) = T 2π 1/2 sin (T (ω − ω0)/2) (ω − ω0)/2 , (C3) where T is the time duration of the p...

  47. [55]

    It is given by: ϕ(ω) = γ 2π 1/2 1 (ω − ω0)2 + (γ/2)2 , (C4) where γ is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and ω0 is the central frequency

    Lorentzian Spectral Envelope Common in resonant systems and spontaneous emis- sion processes, the Lorentzian spectral profile arises from sources such as single-photon emitters based on quantum dots or certain atomic transitions. It is given by: ϕ(ω) = γ 2π 1/2 1 (ω − ω0)2 + (...

  48. [56]

    It is given by: ϕ(ω) = 1 2π 1/2 1 cosh((ω − ω0)/σ) , (C5) where σ determines the width of the spectral profile and ω0 is the central frequency

    Sech Hyperbolic Spectral Envelope The hyperbolic secant spectral profile arises in specific coherent light-matter interactions, such as those involv- ing solitons in nonlinear optical fibers. It is given by: ϕ(ω) = 1 2π 1/2 1 cosh((ω − ω0)/σ) , (C5) where σ determines the widt...

  49. [57]

    For a photon number state, this process can be parameterized by γ, representing the probability of a photon being lost

    Amplitude Damping Channel The amplitude damping channel models the loss of en- ergy from a quantum system. For a photon number state, this process can be parameterized by γ, representing the probability of a photon being lost. The channel acts on the photon number state as fol...

  50. [58]

    Depolarizing Channel The depolarizing channel introduces random noise that depolarizes the quantum state. The Kraus operators for the depolarizing channel are K0 = p 1 − pI, K1 = r p 3 X, K2 = r p 3 Y, K3 = r p 3 Z, (D3) where p is the depolarizing probability and X, Y, Zare t...

  51. [59]

    For Gaussian spectral broad- ening, this process can be parameterized by a broadening factor ξ

    Gaussian Spectral Broadening Channel Spectral broadening accounts for changes in the spec- tral profile of the photon. For Gaussian spectral broad- ening, this process can be parameterized by a broadening factor ξ. The channel’s effect on the spectral component of the state ca...

  52. [60]

    Combined Action of Quantum Channels When considering the combined effect of amplitude damping, depolarizing, and spectral broadening channels on an input pure m-photon state with polarization and a continuum of spectral modes, the overall channel can be expressed as: E(ρ) = Em...

Pith tools

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