Incoherent behavior of partially distinguishable photons

Emilio Annoni; Stephen C. Wein

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Incoherent behavior of partially distinguishable photons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A partially distinguishable state behaves like a stochastic error process exactly when its generalized indistinguishabilities are invariant under cycle structure; n-photon description then collapses to Bell-number partition weights.

desk verdict The orbit-invariance characterization is a real result, but the abstract overstates it as a classical/stochastic mixture when the proven statement is a quasi-probability representation, with negative weights in their own example. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05047 v2 pith:CNDNKINQ submitted 2025-02-07 quant-ph

Emilio Annoni , Stephen C. Wein This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V8005A1815A15

keywords photondistinguishabilitypartialBosonSamplingpartitionstatesincoherentnoisepermutationtwirlinggeneralizedindistinguishabilitiesgenuinen-photonindistinguishability

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

Photon distinguishability—unwanted differences in the internal degrees of freedom of photons—is one of the main imperfections in photonic quantum computing. This paper identifies exactly when that imperfection can be treated as a stochastic error process rather than as coherent interference. The criterion is basis-independent: an $n$-photon state behaves incoherently precisely when its generalized indistinguishabilities $M_\sigma=\langle\hat P_\sigma\rangle$ depend only on the cycle structure of the mode permutation $\sigma$. In that regime the state is photocounting-equivalent to a mixture (in general a quasi-probability mixture, as the paper's Example D.2 shows) of partition states, shrinking the description from $n!$ parameters to the Bell number $B_n$. This matters because it turns distinguishability into a tractable, measurable noise model supporting twirling, error mitigation, and exact sampling algorithms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of generalized indistinguishabilities $M_\sigma=\langle\hat P_\sigma\rangle$, expectation values of the mode-permutation operators on the $n$-photon input state; by Theorem II.2 these $n!$ numbers determine every photocounting outcome of every linear interferometer. The central identity is the response of a partition state $|\psi^{(\Lambda)}\rangle$: $M_\sigma=1$ when the cycle partition $(\sigma)$ is refined by $(\Lambda)$, and $M_\sigma=0$ otherwise. Orbit invariance, $M_\sigma=M_\tau$ whenever $(\sigma)=(\tau)$, is precisely the condition that makes the $B_n\times B_n$ matrix $R_{(\sigma)(\Lambda)}$ invertible via Möbius inversion on the partition lattice, producing the unique partition weights $p(\Lambda)$.

What would settle it

Prepare a three-photon state with a nontrivial collective phase, such as the triad state of Example D.1 with $\phi$ not an integer multiple of $\pi$, and measure its $M_\sigma$ using the generalized cyclic interferometers of Appendix A: Theorem III.5 predicts orbit invariance fails and hence no partition weights $p(\Lambda)$ can reproduce the photocounting statistics. If a nonnegative partition distribution were found that exactly reproduced those statistics, the necessity direction of the theorem would be falsified; and for the orbit-invariant state of Example D.2, demanding $p(\Lambda)\ge 0$ would falsify the 'classical mixture' wording, since the paper's own weights give $p_{\{1,2,3\}}=-1/8$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem III.5: a partially distinguishable $n$-photon state belongs to the incoherent class $\mathcal{I}$—meaning it is photocounting-equivalent to an affine combination of partition states—if and only if $M_\sigma=M_\tau$ for every pair of permutations with the same cycle structure. This orbit-invariance condition is basis-independent and reduces the state's relevant description from $n!$ generalized indistinguishabilities to $B_n$ partition weights $p(\Lambda)$. The weights are unique when they exist (Theorem III.7), can be recovered by Möbius inversion, and are in general signed: Example D.2 exhibits a valid orbit-invariant state whose full-partition weight is $-1/8$. On top of this, the paper proves that random permutation twirling projects any state into $\mathcal{I}$ (Theorem IV.3), that partition weights enable a time-delay-based error mitigation protocol (Theorem IV.1), and that twirling does not increase the average $L^2$ distance to the ideal indistinguishable distribution (Theorem IV.5).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a representation by partition states with possibly negative weights still counts as 'incoherent distinguishability' or a classical error process; if one requires genuine positive probabilities, orbit invariance is necessary but not sufficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For states in $\mathcal{I}$, a full description requires only the $B_n$ partition weights $p(\Lambda)$ rather than $n!$ values of $M_\sigma$; all photocounting predictions follow from those weights.
Random permutation twirling brings any state into $\mathcal{I}$ and lowers the average $L^2$ distance to the ideal indistinguishable distribution, so noise can be tailored without sacrificing the hardness assumptions behind Boson Sampling.
Partition weights support probabilistic error cancellation by time-delay partitioning, and the correction can be truncated to polynomially many experiments for partial mitigation.
A partition state's output is a classical convolution of independent sub-permanents, yielding an exact sampling algorithm whose cost for the Orthogonal Bad Bits model is $O\bigl(n(1+x)^n\bigr)$.
Genuine $n$-photon indistinguishability has a natural definition as the weight of the fully indistinguishable partition; this differs from the symmetric-subspace measure, and the two diverge, for example exponentially in the OBB model as $x\to 0$.

Reading between the lines

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

Because partition weights can be negative, the paper's 'incoherent' boundary is really an equivalence-class boundary for photocounting observables, not a proof that the physical noise is a positive convex mixture; quasi-probability negativity may carry an additional simulation cost beyond what the positive cases incur.
Implicit in the construction, though not stated as a consequence, is a certification tool: measure $M_\sigma$ for one representative per cycle structure with the generalized cyclic interferometers, and use the spread across representatives as a witness of coherent distinguishability that the partition method cannot mitigate.
The same orbit-invariance criterion should transfer to partially distinguishable fermions, as the paper notes; if so, distinguishable-fermion sampling becomes classically simulable exactly when the fermion state is orbit-invariant, giving a testable separation between hard and easy fermionic regimes.

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 one thing to know: this paper proves a useful equivalence. A partially distinguishable n-photon state is photocounting-equivalent to an affine combination of partition states if and only if its generalized indistinguishabilities M_sigma depend only on cycle structure. That is new, basis-independent, and collapses the effective parameter count from n! to the Bell number B_n for that class. The formal core holds up.

What deserves credit: the proof of Theorem III.5 via Möbius inversion over the partition lattice is solid, and the lower-triangular structure makes the inversion transparent. The generalized cyclic interferometers that measure each M_sigma are a genuine extension of Pont et al., not a trivial variation. The permutation twirling channel is a clean analogue of Pauli twirling, and the comparison between GIpart and GIsym — including the OBB example and the singly distinguishable state — exposes a real ambiguity in the literature. The paper also correctly situates itself against Shchesnovich and Tichy rather than pretending to replace them.

The soft spots are mostly in the framing, not the mathematics. The abstract says the condition enables a state to be expressed as a "classical mixture" of partition states, and the introduction talks about "stochastic error processes." But Definition III.1 only asks for real coefficients p(Lambda), and Example D.2 gives p_{1,2,3} = -1/8. So Theorem III.5 establishes a quasi-probability representation, not a classical mixture. The paper actually half-acknowledges this by calling p(Lambda) a quasi-probability distribution and drawing the positivity boundary in Figure 4, but the abstract and Theorem III.5 as advertised go beyond what is proven. Positivity needs to be stated as a separate condition, and the "classical/stochastic" language should be reserved for the case p(Lambda) >= 0.

Second, the hardness claim is weaker than advertised. Theorem IV.5 is an average L2 closeness inequality, not a complexity-theoretic witness. It says twirling moves the distribution closer to the ideal on average, which is evidence, but it does not prove that the twirled state retains Boson Sampling hardness. The paper should soften that claim.

Third, Theorem IV.1's error mitigation assumes all M_sigma are nonzero; that is stated, but it means the mitigation guarantee does not cover the regime where coherent errors zero out some indistinguishabilities. Minor, but worth flagging.

Who this is for: quantum photonics theorists and experimentalists who model distinguishability in Boson Sampling or linear optical circuits. It deserves a serious referee: the central characterization is likely correct, the appendices are detailed, and the overclaims are correctable without changing the core. I would accept it for peer review with a request to fix the abstract and to decouple the quasi-probability theorem from the positivity boundary.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a basis-independent framework for multi-photon distinguishability based on generalized indistinguishabilities M_σ = ⟨P_σ⟩, the expectation values of mode permutation operators. It proves (Theorem II.2) that these n! parameters are necessary and sufficient to determine all photocounting statistics of an n-photon state in any linear interferometer. The main result (Theorem III.5) characterizes the class I of states that admit a partition representation ρ ∼ Σ_Λ p(Λ)|ψ(Λ)⟩⟨ψ(Λ)| by the condition that M_σ depends only on the cycle structure of σ, reducing the description from n! parameters to the Bell number B_n. The paper further introduces permutation twirling to enforce this condition, a partition-based error mitigation protocol, an algorithm for sampling from partition states, and a discussion of genuine n-photon indistinguishability, contrasting the partition-based definition with the symmetric-subspace definition.

Significance. If the advertised interpretation were correct, this would be a significant advance: a necessary and sufficient, basis-independent criterion for distinguishability to behave as a discrete stochastic error process, with direct implications for Boson Sampling simulation, noise tailoring, and error mitigation. The formal orbit-invariance criterion and the Möbius-inversion construction are elegant and appear internally consistent, with proofs relegated to appendices and a concrete experimental scheme for measuring the indistinguishability parameters. The paper also provides a sampling algorithm and quantitative examples. The main weakness is that the central advertised claim is not supported: Example D.2 shows that orbit-invariant states can have negative partition weights, so the representation is a quasi-probability (affine) decomposition, not a classical mixture. The hardness and mitigation claims are also stated more strongly than the theorems justify. The framework remains valuable as a quasi-probability description and as a stepping stone, but the abstract and several key statements must be revised.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Definition III.1; Lemma III.3; Example D.2] The central advertised claim, that distinguishability 'behaves as a stochastic error process' and that any state in the incoherent class is 'uniquely expressed as a classical mixture of partition states,' is not established. Definition III.1 requires only the existence of some real coefficients p(Λ) satisfying ρ ∼ Σ p(Λ)|ψ(Λ)⟩⟨ψ(Λ)|, with no positivity constraint. Lemma III.3 constructs p(Λ) by Möbius inversion (Eq. B6) without enforcing p(Λ) ≥ 0, and Example D.2 explicitly gives p_{1,2,3} = −1/8. Thus Theorem III.5 characterizes affine/quasi-probability representability, not classical mixtures or a stochastic error process in the usual sense. The abstract and Sec. I must be restated to say 'affine combination' or 'quasi-probability distribution,' or Theorem III.5 must be supplemented with a separate positivity condition, which the paper does not provide.
[Theorem IV.1] The error mitigation theorem assumes M_σ ≠ 0 for all σ, but this condition is not mentioned in the abstract, the introduction, or the conclusions, which state without qualification that the framework 'demonstrate[s] the existence of an error mitigation strategy.' The assumption is restrictive: for any partition state with distinguishable cells, M_σ = 0 for every permutation that exchanges photons between different cells, so the theorem does not cover the basic building blocks of the partition representation itself. The authors should state this assumption prominently in the main text and discuss whether and how it can be relaxed.
[Section IV.C; Theorem IV.5] The claim that permutation twirling 'does not compromise computational hardness' is not proven by the arguments given. The first observation, that I contains the ideal indistinguishable state and therefore no efficient classical algorithm can simulate all states in I, is true but does not imply that the twirled image of a hard state is hard. Theorem IV.5 only establishes that, on average over Haar-random unitaries, the L2 distance to the ideal distribution decreases after twirling; this is a statement about average distance, not about computational complexity. The text in Sec. IV.C and the conclusions should be softened to 'does not increase the average L2 distance to the ideal distribution' and should clearly separate the trivial statement that I includes states that are hard to simulate from any claim that twirling preserves hardness.
[Theorem III.7; Section V] Theorem III.7 states an equivalence in terms of 'probability distributions p(Λ),' but as shown by Example D.2 the coefficients p(Λ) can be negative, so they are quasi-probability distributions, not probabilities. The proof of Theorem III.7 itself uses the word 'quasi)probability' in one place, and Section V explicitly treats positivity as an additional assumption for the sampling algorithm. The terminology should be made consistent throughout: 'quasi-probability distribution' when p(Λ) is allowed to be negative, with 'probability distribution' reserved for the case p(Λ) ≥ 0.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (16), proof of Theorem IV.3] The notation in Eq. (16) is confusing: the symbol σ^ν is defined as conjugation νσν^{-1} earlier in the proof, but the last expression writes M_{στ} without clearly indicating that τ is the conjugating element. Please use a consistent notation such as M_{σ^ν} or explicitly state 'where τ = νσν^{-1}'.
[Example D.2] The example jumps from the definition of |ψ⟩ directly to the values of M_σ and the partition distribution. It would be helpful to show explicitly that the state is orbit-invariant and that the quoted M_σ values satisfy the linear system (Eq. 14), so the reader can verify the negative weight without reconstructing the full calculation.
[Algorithm 1] The pseudocode line 's ← [0]' is ambiguous; it should state that s is the zero vector of length m (the number of output modes), and the subsequent 's += s_i' should specify that this is componentwise addition of outcome counts.
[Eq. (17), Section V] The notation ∥Λ∥ for max_i(|Λ_i|) is nonstandard and should be defined in the text before it is used. Also, the bound Σ_i |Λ_i| 2^{|Λ_i|} ≤ n 2^{∥Λ∥} is correct but deserves a one-line justification.
[Definition IV.4] The statement that the strict partition projection is 'impossible to implement with random permutations' and the speculation about whether it is physical are presented as fact in the main text. Consider moving this to the outlook section or framing it as an open question, since no proof of impossibility is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem III.5 is an independent algebraic characterization built on external Möbius inversion, with only a quasi-probability versus 'classical mixture' wording caveat.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem III.5, is an equivalence between two independently defined objects: the orbit-invariance condition on the generalized indistinguishabilities Mσ (defined via permutation observables) and membership in the class I (defined via the existence of a partition representation in Definition III.1). Neither condition is defined in terms of the other. Necessity follows from Eq. (13) for partition states and linearity of the representation; sufficiency is obtained by Möbius inversion of the lower-triangular matrix R (Lemma III.4, cited to Rota), an external combinatorial result, not by assuming the desired conclusion. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction: the partition distribution p(Λ) is recovered by exact inversion of the measured Mσ. The framework builds on Shchesnovich's parameterization [21] and the cyclic interferometers of Pont et al. [32], neither of which is by the present authors; the one self-citation (Wein in Ref. [14]) appears only as a platform citation in the introduction and is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly acknowledges the quasi-probability nature of the representation (Definition III.1 and Example D.2, where p_full = -1/8), so the abstract's phrase 'classical mixture' overstates the formal theorem. That is an interpretive and correctness caveat, not a circular reduction: the derivation chain does not return to its own inputs. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for the algebraic core, so the appropriate circularity finding is none.

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

The central claim rests on the prior Shchesnovich parameterization, standard assumptions about ideal photocounting and internal-state-blind interferometers, Mobius inversion, and imported random-matrix/complexity results. No free parameters are introduced by the paper, and no new physical entities are postulated; the partition states and twirling map are mathematical constructions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Shchesnovich's parameterization: photocounting probabilities p(s|ρ) are linear functions of the generalized indistinguishabilities M_σ=⟨P_σ⟩ (Lemma A.1 from Ref. [21]).
This is the starting point of the paper; it is cited from prior literature and not proven here. It is used in Eq. (7) and Theorem II.2.
domain assumption The interferometer acts identically on all internal degrees of freedom (scattering matrix U independent of α) and ideal photodetectors resolve but do not register internal states.
Stated in Section II and Figure 1; required for the mode-permutation operators to carry all photocounting-relevant information. If detectors resolved internal states, M_σ would not be a complete quorum.
standard math The zeta matrix R_ab=1 if a⪰b over a finite poset is invertible (Mobius inversion).
Invoked in Lemma III.4 and Proposition B.3 to invert Eq. (14); standard result due to Rota.
domain assumption Random matrix statistics of path coefficients q_σ from Refs. [8,40]: zero mean and variance depending only on the number of fixed points of σ.
Used in Appendix E for Theorem IV.5; imported without proof from the cited simulability literature.
domain assumption Aaronson-Arkhipov Boson Sampling hardness conjectures hold.
Used in Section IV C to argue that the set I cannot be entirely classically simulable because it contains the ideal state; the argument is conditional on these conjectures.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incoherent behavior of partially distinguishable photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNDNKINQ

@misc{pith2026250205047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incoherent behavior of partially distinguishable photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNDNKINQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05047}
}

read the original abstract

Photon distinguishability is a key factor limiting quantum interference in photonic devices, directly impacting the performance of protocols such as Boson Sampling and photonic quantum computing. We present a basis-independent framework for analyzing multi-photon interference, identifying a necessary and sufficient condition under which distinguishability behaves as a stochastic error process. This condition enables any multi-photon state to be uniquely expressed as a classical mixture of partition states -- discrete configurations representing different patterns of photon distinguishability. We introduce an experimentally implementable operation, analogous to Pauli twirling, that enforces this condition without compromising computational hardness. The resulting probability distribution over partition states defines the system's incoherent distinguishability spectrum, which we show can be fully characterized through a specific set of experiments. Building on this structure, we also demonstrate the existence of an error mitigation strategy. This framework clarifies key challenges in defining genuine multi-photon indistinguishability, links previous perspectives on partial distinguishability, and provides a rigorous foundation for robust photonic protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05047 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An illustration of photocounting-relevant coherence. Elements of the density matrix of a three-photon state ⟨•••| ρ |•••⟩ with a two-dimensional internal state {|•⟩, |•⟩}. The black stamps depict the photocountingrelevant coherence, while the hatched area depicts the photocounting-irrelevant coherence—the share of the state whose effect cannot be detected by the photodetection observables. The diagram highlights … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A graphical representation of the decomposition of photon interference into paths through an interferometer. The three-photon outcome s = [1, 1, 1] arising from a 3 × 3 interferometer is described by the coherent interference of all the 3! = 6 permutations path that could have led to its realization. The probability amplitude Xσ, indexed by the permutation σ that describes a path, is given by the scattering matrix… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An illustration of partition states All 15 possible discrete distinguishability configurations of four photons in four modes. In the diagram, photons of the same color are fully indistinguishable (⟨•|•⟩ = 1), while photons of different colors are fully distinguishable (⟨•|•⟩ = 0). When focusing on a single eigenstate of this decomposition, it becomes evident that its behavior upon permutation, and thus the value … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of the regimes of partial distinguishability drawn from partition arguments. The existence of a partition representation marks a first boundary between arbitrary distinguishability behavior (red area) and general incoherent distinguishability (green area…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of an error mitigation strategy for distinguishability errors with time-delay partitioning. Applying discrete time delays to the input photons modifies the distinguishability spectrum produced by the original n-photon state (green area), providing acces…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The interferometers C(1243) (a) and C(12)(34) (b). For both setups the input 4-photon state is fed in the mode 0,2,4,6 and the sought outcome is a coincidence in the output modes 0,2,4,6. The image has been generated using the Python package Perceval [56] P. Senellart,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

A unified framework for anomalous boson bunching
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Anomalous boson bunching is unified by defining total indistinguishability of postselected output states; the same permanent inequality yields new cases where added distinguishability enhances single-mode, multimode, ...
Statistical-noise-enhanced multi-photon interference
quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In a symmetric three-photon Fourier interferometer, engineered super-Poissonian light with g(2)≈1.9 and g(3)≈3.6 maximizes visibility at ≈0.61, surpassing the magnitude of the single-photon value.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Walmsley, Light in quantum computing and simula- tion: Perspective, Optica Quantum1, 35 (2023)

I. Walmsley, Light in quantum computing and simula- tion: Perspective, Optica Quantum1, 35 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

genuinen- photon indistinguishability

This effect is even more evident if we analyze GI for a partition state with a single distinguishable particle (Λ) ={1}{2,3, ..n}: Example VI.5(Singly distinguishable GI). GIpart = 0, GIsym = (n−1)! n! = 1 n . It is thus clear that the two definitions generally quan- tify very different properties. The ambiguity highlighted in Ex. VI.5 reflects a tension ...

work page 2024
[3]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters86, 5188 (2001)

work page 2001
[4]

Knill, R

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

2001
[5]

Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent, Theoretical Computer Science8, 189 (1979)

L. Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent, Theoretical Computer Science8, 189 (1979)

work page 1979
[6]

Scheel, Permanents in linear optical networks (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406127

S. Scheel, Permanents in linear optical networks (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406127

arXiv 2004
[7]

V. Shchesnovich, Sufficient bound on the mode mis- match of single photons for scalability of the boson sam- pling computer, Physical Review A89, 022333 (2014), arXiv:1311.6796 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[8]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, inProceedings of the Forty- Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, San Jose California USA, 2011) pp. 333–342

work page 2011

Show all 59 references

[9]

Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, J

R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, J. J. Renema, and V. Shchesnovich, Simulating boson sampling in lossy architectures, Quan- tum3, 169 (2019), arXiv:1712.10037 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[10]

J. J. Renema, A. Menssen, W. R. Clements, G. Triginer, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Efficient algo- rithm for boson sampling with partially distinguishable photons, Physical Review Letters120, 220502 (2018), arXiv:1707.02793 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[11]

Tillmann, B

M. Tillmann, B. Daki´ c, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Sza- meit, and P. Walther, Experimental Boson Sampling, Na- ture Photonics7, 540 (2013), arXiv:1212.2240 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[12]

Renema, V

J. Renema, V. Shchesnovich, and R. Garcia-Patron, Classical simulability of noisy boson sampling (2019), arXiv:1809.01953 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[13]

H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y.-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, C. Schneider, J. J. Renema, S. H¨ ofling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Boson Sampling with 20 Input Photons and a 60-Mode Interfer- ometer in a 1 0 14 -Dimensional Hilbert Space, Physical R...

2019
[14]

J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walms- ley, Boson Sampling on a Photonic Chip, Science339, 798 (2013), arXiv:1212.2...

2013 arXiv
[15]

Aaronson and L

S. Aaronson and L. Chen, Complexity-theoretic founda- tions of quantum supremacy experiments, inProceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference, CCC ’17 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, DEU, 2017) pp. 1–67

2017
[16]

Maring, A

N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, E. Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Valdivia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sinnott, D. A. Fioret...

2024 doi
[17]

Hanschke, K

L. Hanschke, K. A. Fischer, S. Appel, D. Lukin, J. Wierzbowski, S. Sun, R. Trivedi, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. J. Fin- ley, and K. M¨ uller, Quantum dot single-photon sources with ultra-low multi-photon probability, npj Quantum Information4, 43 (2018)

2018
[18]

Somaschi, V

N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Ant´ on, J. Demory, C. G´ omez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lema ´ ıtre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Near-optimal single- photon...

2016
[19]

M. C. Tichy, H.-T. Lim, Y.-S. Ra, F. Mintert, Y.-H. Kim, and A. Buchleitner, Four-Photon (In)Distinguishability Transition, Physical Review A83, 062111 (2011), arXiv:1009.4998 [quant-ph]

2011 arXiv
[20]

Mills and R

J. Mills and R. Mezher, Mitigating photon loss in linear optical quantum circuits: Classical postpro- cessing methods outperforming postselection (2024), arXiv:2405.02278 [quant-ph]

2024
[21]

V. S. Shchesnovich, Partial indistinguishability theory for multi-photon experiments in multiport devices, Physical Review A91, 013844 (2015), arXiv:1410.1506 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[22]

A. J. Menssen, A. E. Jones, B. J. Metcalf, M. C. Tichy, S. Barz, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Dis- tinguishability and many-particle interference, Physical Review Letters118, 153603 (2017), arXiv:1609.09804 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Spivak, M

D. Spivak, M. Y. Niu, B. C. Sanders, and H. De Guise, Generalized interference of fermions and bosons, Physical Review Research4, 023013 (2022)

2022
[24]

or general [52] quantifier ofn-body behavior, or even making an explicit incoherent noise assumption [32, 44] and thus were aiming at the notion of GI part. Both definitions of GI reduce to different averages over the generalized indistinguishabilities and, whenever a state ha...
[25]

M. C. Tichy, Sampling of partially distinguishable bosons and the relation to the multidimensional permanent, Physical Review A91, 022316 (2015), arXiv:1410.7687 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[26]

V. S. Shchesnovich and M. E. O. Bezerra, Collec- tive phases of identical particles interfering on lin- 13 ear multiports, Physical Review A98, 033805 (2018), arXiv:1707.03893 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Azuma, K

K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, All-photonic quan- tum repeaters, Nature Communications6, 6787 (2015)

2015
[28]

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 Communications14, 912 (2023)

2023
[29]

Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

2023
[30]

Greenbaum and Z

D. Greenbaum and Z. Dutton, Modeling coherent errors in quantum error correction, Quantum Science and Tech- nology3, 015007 (2018)

2018
[31]

Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

C. Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

2021
[32]

A. Jain, P. Iyer, S. D. Bartlett, and J. Emerson, Im- proved quantum error correction with randomized com- piling, Physical Review Research5, 033049 (2023)

2023
[33]

Tillmann, S.-H

M. Tillmann, S.-H. Tan, S. E. Stoeckl, B. C. Sanders, H. De Guise, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Generalized Multiphoton Quantum Interfer- ence, Physical Review X5, 041015 (2015)

2015
[34]

M. Pont, R. Albiero, S. E. Thomas, N. Spagnolo, F. Cec- carelli, G. Corrielli, A. Brieussel, N. Somaschi, H. Huet, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Belabas, F. Sciar- rino, R. Osellame, P. Senellart, and A. Crespi, Quantify- ing n-photon indistinguishability with a cy...

2022 arXiv
[35]

Sperling and I

J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Quasiprobability repre- sentation of quantum coherence, Physical Review A97, 062327 (2018), arXiv:1803.04747 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[36]

H. J. Ryser,Combinatorial Mathematics /by Herbert John Ryser, Carus Mathematical Monographs No. 14 (Mathematical Ass. of America, New York, 1963)

1963
[37]

G. C. Rota, On the foundations of combinatorial theory I. Theory of M¨ obius Functions, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrschein- lichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete2, 340 (1964)

1964
[38]

A. M. Minke, A. Buchleitner, and C. Dittel, Character- izing four-body indistinguishability via symmetries, New Journal of Physics23, 073028 (2021)

2021
[39]

Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum Error Mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023), arXiv:2210.00921 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[40]

J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scal- able quantum computation via randomized compiling, Physical Review A94, 052325 (2016), arXiv:1512.01098 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[41]

Taballione, M

C. Taballione, M. C. Anguita, M. de Goede, P. Vender- bosch, B. Kassenberg, H. Snijders, N. Kannan, W. L. Vleeshouwers, D. Smith, J. P. Epping, R. van der Meer, P. W. H. Pinkse, H. van den Vlekkert, and J. J. Ren- ema, 20-Mode Universal Quantum Photonic Processor, Quantum7, 10...

2023
[42]

S. N. van den Hoven, E. Kanis, and J. J. Renema, Effi- cient classical algorithm for simulating boson sampling with inhomogeneous partial distinguishability (2024), arXiv:2406.17682 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Clifford and R

P. Clifford and R. Clifford, The Classical Complex- ity of Boson Sampling, inProceedings of the 2018 An- nual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), Proceedings (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2018) pp. 146–155

2018
[44]

Clifford and R

P. Clifford and R. Clifford, Faster classical boson sam- pling, Physica Scripta99, 065121 (2024)

2024
[45]

Sparrow,Quantum Interference in Universal Linear Optical Devices for Quantum Computation and Simula- tion, Ph.D

C. Sparrow,Quantum Interference in Universal Linear Optical Devices for Quantum Computation and Simula- tion, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2017)

2017
[46]

D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv˜ ao, N. Viggianiello, F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Witnessing genuine multi- photon indistinguishability, Physical Review Letters122, 063602 (2019), arXiv:1804.01334 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[47]

Giordani, D

T. Giordani, D. J. Brod, C. Esposito, N. Viggianiello, M. Romano, F. Flamini, G. Carvacho, N. Spagnolo, E. F. Galv˜ ao, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental quantification of genuine four-photon indistinguishability, New Journal of Physics22, 043001 (2020), arXiv:1907.01325 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[48]

Yurke, S

B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Physical Review A33, 4033 (1986)

1986
[49]

S.-H. Tan, Y. Y. Gao, H. de Guise, and B. C. Sanders, SU(3) Quantum Interferometry with single-photon in- put pulses, Physical Review Letters110, 113603 (2013), arXiv:1208.5677 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[50]

Khalid, D

A. Khalid, D. Spivak, B. C. Sanders, and H. de Guise, Permutational symmetries for coincidence rates in multi-mode multi-photonic interferometry, Physical Re- view A97, 063802 (2018), arXiv:1709.06615 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[51]

M. C. Tichy, M. Tiersch, F. de Melo, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Zero-Transmission Law for Multiport Beam Splitters, Physical Review Letters104, 220405 (2010), arXiv:1002.5038 [quant-ph]

2010 arXiv
[52]

Rodari, L

G. Rodari, L. Novo, R. Albiero, A. Suprano, C. T. Tavares, E. Caruccio, F. Hoch, T. Giordani, G. Carva- cho, M. Gardina, N. Di Giano, S. Di Giorgio, G. Corrielli, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, E. F. Galv˜ ao, and F. Sciarrino, Semi-Device-Independent Characteriza- t...

2025
[53]

de Guise, S.-H

H. de Guise, S.-H. Tan, I. P. Poulin, and B. C. Sanders, Coincidence Landscapes for Three-Channel Linear Op- tical Networks, Physical Review A89, 063819 (2014), arXiv:1402.2391 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[54]

Karczewski, R

M. Karczewski, R. Pisarczyk, and P. Kurzy´ nski, Genuine multipartite indistinguishability and its detection via the generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, Physical Review A 99, 042102 (2019)

2019
[55]

Giordani, F

T. Giordani, F. Flamini, M. Pompili, N. Viggian- iello, N. Spagnolo, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, N. Wiebe, M. Walschaers, A. Buchleitner, and F. Sciarrino, Ex- perimental statistical signature of many-body quan- tum interference, Nature Photonics12, 173 (2018), arXiv:2103.16418 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[56]

Marshall, Distillation of Indistinguishable Pho- tons, Physical Review Letters129, 213601 (2022), arXiv:2203.15197 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

J. Marshall, Distillation of Indistinguishable Pho- tons, Physical Review Letters129, 213601 (2022), arXiv:2203.15197 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[57]

F. H. B. Somhorst, B. K. Sau¨ er, S. N. van den Hoven, and J. J. Renema, Photon distillation schemes with reduced resource costs based on multiphoton Fourier interference (2024), arXiv:2404.14262 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Heurtel, A

N. Heurtel, A. Fyrillas, G. D. Gliniasty, R. Le Bihan, S. Malherbe, M. Pailhas, E. Bertasi, B. Bourdoncle, P.- E. Emeriau, R. Mezher, L. Music, N. Belabas, B. Valiron, 14 ϕ1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a) ϕ1 ϕ2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (b) Figure 6. The interferome...

2023
[59]

Rota, The Number of Partitions of a Set, The American Mathematical Monthly71, 498 (1964)

G.-C. Rota, The Number of Partitions of a Set, The American Mathematical Monthly71, 498 (1964). Appendix A: Equivalence criterion from Shchesnovich’s indistinguishabilities As originally derived in V. Shchesnovich’s article [21] and shown in Section II of the main text (Eq. (7...

1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Walmsley, Light in quantum computing and simula- tion: Perspective, Optica Quantum1, 35 (2023)

I. Walmsley, Light in quantum computing and simula- tion: Perspective, Optica Quantum1, 35 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

genuinen- photon indistinguishability

This effect is even more evident if we analyze GI for a partition state with a single distinguishable particle (Λ) ={1}{2,3, ..n}: Example VI.5(Singly distinguishable GI). GIpart = 0, GIsym = (n−1)! n! = 1 n . It is thus clear that the two definitions generally quan- tify very different properties. The ambiguity highlighted in Ex. VI.5 reflects a tension ...

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters86, 5188 (2001)

work page 2001

[4] [4]

Knill, R

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

2001

[5] [5]

Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent, Theoretical Computer Science8, 189 (1979)

L. Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent, Theoretical Computer Science8, 189 (1979)

work page 1979

[6] [6]

Scheel, Permanents in linear optical networks (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406127

S. Scheel, Permanents in linear optical networks (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406127

arXiv 2004

[7] [7]

V. Shchesnovich, Sufficient bound on the mode mis- match of single photons for scalability of the boson sam- pling computer, Physical Review A89, 022333 (2014), arXiv:1311.6796 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, inProceedings of the Forty- Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, San Jose California USA, 2011) pp. 333–342

work page 2011