Quantum speedup from nonclassical polarization

Jan Sperling; Laura Ares; Tim A{\ss}brock

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Quantum speedup from nonclassical polarization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Polarization nonclassicality is a genuine dynamical resource: cross-Kerr evolution is provably faster than any evolution restricted to angular-momentum coherent states, with a speedup ratio growing as the square root of the photon number.

desk verdict Solid, explicitly derived speed-limit comparison for cross-Kerr nonclassicality; the Q(N)~sqrt(N) ratio is real, but the parity claim is backwards and the 'overall faster' conclusion overshoots the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.23124 v3 pith:257VJNKA submitted 2026-03-24 quant-ph

Tim A{ss}brock , Jan Sperling , Laura Ares This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581R3081V80 PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a42.50.Dv

keywords quantumspeedlimitpolarizationnonclassicalityangularmomentumcoherentstatescross-KerreffectcoherenceresourcetheoryStokesoperatorsspeedup

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 seeks to turn polarization nonclassicality into a quantitative dynamical resource. It does this by defining a classical benchmark: dynamics that never leave the manifold of angular-momentum coherent states, where no quantum coherence is ever generated. For this restricted dynamics, it computes a classically restricted quantum speed limit, QSL_cl. The paper then proves that for the cross-Kerr interaction the unrestricted quantum speed limit is strictly larger than QSL_cl for every photon number N > 1, so nonclassical polarization states evolve faster than any classical polarization evolution, with a speedup ratio that grows as O(√N) and favors even photon numbers. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a parameter-free, experimentally accessible route to certify quantum advantage in nonlinear photonic processing.

What carries the argument

Angular-momentum coherent states (AMCSs) serve as the classical reference: they are SU(2) coherent states on the two-mode polarization Hilbert space and minimize angular-momentum and Stokes uncertainties. The paper restricts the Schrödinger equation to this manifold by projecting it onto tangent vectors, yielding classical equations of motion of Lie-Poisson form on the Stokes vector. The classical quantum speed limit QSL_cl is computed from the trace-norm rate of the restricted evolution, and the certification criterion is QSL > QSL_cl.

What would settle it

Decisive test: compute QSL_cl allowing convex mixtures of AMCSs as 'classical' states. If that generalized classical bound reaches or exceeds the unrestricted QSL, or if an N-photon cross-Kerr experiment shows a time-to-orthogonalize ratio at odds with Q(N), the claimed speedup is not a universal nonclassical resource effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the cross-Kerr Hamiltonian, the paper derives exact closed expressions for both speed limits. The classically restricted limit is QSL_cl = ε sqrt(N(N−1))/2, obtained by maximizing a Stokes-vector expression over the angular-momentum-coherent-state parameters; the unrestricted limit is QSL = ε (N² − (N mod 2))/4, read off the Hamiltonian's energy spectrum. Their ratio Q(N) = (N² − (N mod 2))/(2√{N(N−1)}) exceeds 1 for every N > 1, scales as O(√N), is independent of the coupling strength ε, and shows a parity effect in favor of even photon numbers. The authors present this as a certification that cross-Kerr evolution genuinely exploits polarization nonclassicality to change states faster t

Load-bearing premise

The whole certification rests on identifying 'classical evolution' with the projected Schrödinger dynamics on the angular-momentum-coherent-state manifold, and on assuming that the supremum over pure AMCS states also bounds the speed of any convex mixture of such states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any cross-Kerr-based gate or state-transfer protocol on N photons has a speed ceiling set by the classical limit, and nonclassical input states are required to beat it.
The speedup ratio being independent of the coupling strength means the advantage is a structural property of the cross-Kerr nonlinearity, not a matter of tuning ε.
The O(√N) growth means the dynamical advantage becomes more pronounced for larger photon numbers, and even N offers a small additional gain.
The framework transfers directly to spin systems, since AMCSs are SU(2) coherent states and the same classical manifold appears there.
The Hilbert-Schmidt distance showing near-orthogonality between quantum and classical trajectories for strong coupling supports the interpretation that the speedup comes from coherence generated along the way.

Reading between the lines

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

The same QSL-comparison method could be used to search for nonclassical speedups in other nonlinear photonic Hamiltonians, such as self-Kerr or parametric processes, where both speed limits might be evaluated in closed form.
Since the certification compares pure-state suprema, a natural stress test is to allow convex mixtures of AMCSs as the classical state set; if that generalized bound rises, Q(N) could shrink, though the large-N scaling may survive.
An experiment could directly probe the instantaneous speed along a cross-Kerr trajectory by measuring the trace-norm rate of change of the Stokes operators, providing a measurable counterpart to the ratio Q(N).
The parity effect suggests that even-photon-number inputs, such as bright twin-beam states, are preferable for time-sensitive quantum processing—an optimization hint that goes beyond the paper's stated theorems.

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

Short version: this is a competent application of the AMCS projection idea from Sperling & Walmsley to the question of whether polarization nonclassicality shows up as a speed-limit gap. The new result that matters is Eq. (24): for cross-Kerr, QSL/QSL_cl = (N^2 - (N mod 2))/(2 sqrt(N(N-1))) > 1 for N>1, scaling as sqrt(N). That is a clean, parameter-free statement, and the derivation is straightforward: restricted Lie-Poisson dynamics, explicit QSL_cl, direct comparison with the eigenvalue span. No fitted parameters, no hand-waving. I checked the algebra on the formula and the monotonic/sqrt behavior; it holds. The paper also gives a nice Lie-Poisson reformulation (Eq. 12) and a concrete example of the nonclassical trajectory deviating from the AMCS manifold. The self-citations to [32,33] are appropriate: the projection is from [33] and the equivalence from [32]; the new speed-limit result is not assumed there.

Soft spots, in order of importance.

First, the abstract's "parity effect in favour of even photon numbers" is backwards for the ratio Q(N). Using Eq. (24), odd N gives a larger ratio than even N for every N>=3 (e.g., Q(4)=2.31, Q(5)=2.68; asymptotically both tend to N/2 but the odd sequence sits above). What is true is that the unrestricted QSL, Eq. (23), is larger for even N because of the single maximum vs degenerate maxima. But the speedup ratio, which is the paper's headline, is larger for odd N. The Figure 3 caption and the discussion around it do not clearly say which parity wins; the abstract and text should be corrected.

Second, the conclusion overreaches. The gap QSL > QSL_cl certifies that there exists some N-photon state with instantaneous speed exceeding the fastest classical AMCS trajectory. It does not show that the physical cross-Kerr evolution of a typical initial state attains that speed, nor that it reaches a target in less time than the best classical evolution. The state that saturates QSL is an equal superposition of extremal Fock states, which is not what Eq. (16) generates from an AMCS. So "instantaneous speedups accumulate to overall faster quantum processes, saving time" is not derived. Figures 1-2 show deviation, not time-to-target. This is fixable: either soften the conclusion to "certification of a speed-limit gap" or add an explicit time-optimal calculation for a given initial state and target.

Third, a more minor note: the typo at "Q(N)>0 holds true" should be Q(N)>1, and the manuscript would benefit from a code/notebook for the figures.

The core argument is internally consistent: the restricted dynamics is a legitimate classical reference if you accept the coherence definition from [33], and the comparison is meaningful within that resource-theoretic framing. Calling it a "genuine dynamical resource" is a bit strong given the second point, but the technical result stands.

Who is this for? People working on quantum speed limits, photonic resource theories, or nonclassical polarization. It is a solid subfield contribution, not a breakthrough. I would send it to peer review; it needs a careful referee on the parity claim and the time-saving language, but the derivations are worth checking.

My recommendation: engage with it as a conditional accept after the overstatements are fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a resource-theoretic framework for quantifying nonclassical speedups in polarization (SU(2)) systems. Angular-momentum coherent states (AMCSs) are taken as the classical reference; the Schrödinger equation is projected onto the AMCS manifold via Eq. (4), yielding restricted equations of motion of Lie-Poisson form and a 'classical' speed limit QSL_cl. For the cross-Kerr Hamiltonian, the authors compute QSL_cl = ε√(N(N−1))/2 and the unrestricted QSL = ε(N² − (N mod 2))/4, and define their ratio Q(N). They show Q(N) > 1 for all N > 1 and Q(N) ~ O(√N), and interpret this as a persistent nonclassical speedup of cross-Kerr processes.

Significance. If the QSL-gap criterion is accepted as a certificate of nonclassical dynamical advantage, the framework is a clean and useful addition to the quantum-speed-limit literature. The derivation is explicit and parameter-free: Eq. (8) reduces to a Lie-Poisson form, Eqs. (22)–(24) follow from direct calculation, and the speed-limit ratio is independent of the coupling strength. The paper also ships falsifiable quantities (Q(N), QSL_cl) that can be checked numerically. However, two advertised conclusions go beyond what the mathematics proves: the 'parity effect in favour of even photon numbers' is contradicted by Eq. (24), and the claim that instantaneous speedups accumulate into actual time savings is not supported by the supremum-over-states comparison. These issues are fixable without changing the core formalism.

major comments (3)

[Sec. V, final sentence; also Abstract] The conclusion asserts that 'instantaneous speedups accumulate to overall faster quantum processes, saving time to reach a processing goal compared to a purely classical evolution.' This is not a consequence of Eq. (24). That equation compares two supremized instantaneous speeds: QSL is the maximum over all N-photon states of ‖∂_tρ‖₁, while QSL_cl is the maximum over pure AMCS states under the projected dynamics. The ratio Q(N)>1 proves the existence of a nonclassical state whose instantaneous von Neumann speed exceeds the fastest classical AMCS speed, but it does not show that an AMCS evolved under Eq. (16) attains this speed, nor that the cross-Kerr trajectory reaches any chosen target faster than the classical trajectory. The saturating state is an equal superposition of the minimum- and maximum-energy Fock states, which is not generated from an AMCS by Eq. (16). Figures 1–2 show stat
[Sec. IV B, Eq. (24), Fig. 3, Abstract] The claimed 'parity effect in favour of even photon numbers' is opposite to what Eq. (24) gives. From the formula, Q(2)=√2≈1.41 < Q(3)=4/√6≈1.63, Q(4)=4/√3≈2.31 < Q(5)=12/√20≈2.68, and this pattern continues: adjacent odd N have larger Q(N) than the preceding even N. Asymptotically Q(N)=N/2+1/4+O(1/N) for both parities, so there is no even-N advantage in the plotted quantity. The parity-dependent numerator term is more than compensated by the denominator. If the intended statement is only that the numerator of the unrestricted QSL has a parity-dependent correction, it should be stated that way; as written, an advertised result of the abstract is false.
[Sec. III B and Sec. II A] The definition of 'classical speed limit' is incomplete for the class of states introduced in Sec. II A. There, classical states are defined inclusively as convex mixtures of reference AMCSs, but QSL_cl in Eq. (14) is computed as a supremum over pure AMCS states only. The convexity remark before Eq. (5) applies to the unrestricted QSL, not to the restricted speed functional: the projected equations (8) are nonlinear in the AMCS parameters, and no argument is given that the speed of a classical mixture under the corresponding Liouville lift is bounded by the maximum pure-AMCS speed. Without such an argument—or an explicit reduction of the classical reference set to pure AMCSs—QSL_cl may not be a universal bound on coherence-free evolutions. Please add the missing proof or amend the definition of the classical benchmark.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV B] The sentence 'The amount to which Q(N)>0 holds true certifies the speed gained...' should read 'Q(N)>1', since the certified speedup requires the ratio to exceed unity, not merely be positive.
[Eq. (6)] The displayed expression 'QSL = Emax − Emin /ℏ' is missing parentheses; it should be (Emax − Emin)/ℏ.
[Fig. 1 caption] There is a duplicated word: 'we only only show the r_x-r_y plane.'
[Sec. I] The names 'Mandelstamm-Tamm' and 'Margolos-Levitin' are misspelled; the standard spellings are Mandelstam–Tamm and Margolus–Levitin.
[Sec. II C] The definition of classical evolution via Eq. (4) is taken from Ref. [33] with little discussion. Since the entire resource-theoretic interpretation rests on this projection being the correct 'no-coherence' benchmark, a sentence explaining why the tangent-space projection forbids coherence (and not just restricts to the AMCS manifold) would help readers outside the authors' prior work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the speed-limit gap is derived from explicit formulas; self-cited references supply definitions and motivation but do not assume the target ratio.

full rationale

The central result Q(N)>1 is obtained by closed-form evaluation of two independently defined quantities: QSL = (Emax−Emin)/ℏ (Eq. 6, standard and not fitted) and QSLcl via the AMCS-restricted equations (Eqs. 13–14). Both quantities are computed for the cross-Kerr Hamiltonian (Eqs. 21–23), and the ratio in Eq. (24) follows algebraically; no parameter is fitted to the quantity being 'predicted.' The self-citations to Refs. [32] and [33] supply a definition of classical evolution and a motivational equivalence, but neither reference is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a prior derivation of the speedup ratio. The remaining caveat is interpretive rather than circular: Sec. V's claim that instantaneous speedup 'accumulate[s] to overall faster quantum processes, saving time' goes beyond what the speed-limit gap proves (the gap is a bound, not an actual trajectory time), and the saturated state for QSL is not generated by Eq. (16). But an unsupported inference is not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on the chosen definition of classicality (AMCS plus projected dynamics) rather than on fitted parameters or new physical entities. No free parameters are fitted; ε and N are physical/quantum numbers of the model. The main fragility is the domain assumption that AMCS are the correct classical reference and that the pure-state supremum is the right bound for all classically allowed evolutions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption AMCS are the classical reference states for polarization.
Sec. II B/II C: AMCS minimize angular-momentum uncertainties and are used as the free/resource-free states in the coherence definition; if a different reference family is chosen, QSL_cl and the speedup certification change.
domain assumption Classical evolution is defined by the projected Schrödinger equation (4).
Eq. (4) from Ref. [33] imposes that the state stays on the coherent-state manifold for all t; all subsequent restricted EOM and QSL_cl depend on this projection as the benchmark for 'no coherence generated'.
domain assumption Convex mixtures of AMCS are the full set of classical states, and the pure-state supremum bounds mixed-state speeds.
Sec. II A defines coherence via convex mixtures; Sec. III B computes QSL_cl as a supremum over pure AMCS; the bound for mixtures is asserted implicitly but not proven.
standard math The trace-norm QSL equals (Emax − Emin)/ℏ for closed systems.
Eqs. (5)–(6); standard result, see Refs. [17,18].
domain assumption The cross-Kerr Hamiltonian with fixed total photon number N and ℏ=1 captures the relevant dynamics; free evolution is omitted because it maps AMCS to AMCS.
Sec. IV; this restricts the setting to a fixed-N, two-mode polarization subspace; the universal Q(N) result holds only for this Hamiltonian.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum speedup from nonclassical polarization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/257VJNKA

@misc{pith2026260323124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum speedup from nonclassical polarization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/257VJNKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23124}
}

abstract

We develop a framework for identifying nonclassical speedups in systems with polarization, likewise spin degrees of freedom. By confining the dynamics to the manifold of angular momentum coherent states, which act as the classical reference in this case, we compute the speed limit that bounds the rate of change of the state achievable without generating quantum coherence. A comparison with the unrestricted quantum speed limit enables the quantitative identification of speedups arising from polarization nonclassicality. We apply this framework to the cross-Kerr interaction, demonstrating a persistent speedup scaling as $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$ with the photon number $N$, with a parity effect in favour of even photon numbers. The results establish polarization nonclassicality as a genuine dynamical resource, linking quantum coherence to quantum-enhanced evolution speeds in nonlinear photonic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23124 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Plot of the quantum speedup via the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[33]

Sperling and I

J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Classical evolution in quantum systems,Physica Scripta95, 065101 (2020)

2020
[32]

L. Ares, N. Prasannan, E. Agudelo, A. Luis, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, and J. Sperling, Photonic entanglement and polarization nonclassicality: Two manifestations, one nature (2024), arXiv:2407.07477 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024
[1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press,
[2]

Fabre and N

C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum optics,Reviews of Modern Physics92, 10.1103/revmod- phys.92.035005 (2020)

doi:10.1103/revmod- 2020
[3]

Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose–einstein condensates,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

C. Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose–einstein condensates,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

2012
[4]

A. Celi, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum optics and frontiers of physics: the third quan- tum revolution,Physica Scripta92, 013003 (2016)

2016
[5]

J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Pho- tonic quantum technologies,Nature Photonics3, 687– 695 (2009)

2009
[6]

J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies,Nature Pho- tonics14, 273–284 (2020)

2020

Show all 65 references

[7]

Noh and D

C. Noh and D. G. Angelakis, Quantum simulations and many-body physics with light,Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016401 (2016)

2016
[8]

Y. Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence,Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-38074-8 (2023)

2023 doi
[9]

Preskill, The physics of quantum information (2022)

J. Preskill, The physics of quantum information (2022)

2022
[10]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum lim- its to dynamical evolution,Physical Review A67, 052109 (2003)

2003
[11]

Benyoucef, Recent advances in photonic quan- tum technologies,Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2400628 (2025)

M. Benyoucef, Recent advances in photonic quan- tum technologies,Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2400628 (2025)

2025
[12]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem,Physical Review Letters67, 661–663 (1991)

1991
[13]

P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484–1509 (1997)

1997
[14]

L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605043 [quant- ph]

1996 arXiv
[15]

L. I. Mandelstam and I. E. Tamm, The uncertainty re- lation between energy and time in non-relativistic quan- tum mechanics,Journal of Physics (USSR)9, 249–254 (1945)

1945
[16]

Anandan and Y

J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, Geometry of quantum evo- lution,Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 1697–1700 (1990)

1990
[17]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum speed limits: from heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical50, 453001 (2017)

2017
[18]

Yasmin and J

F. Yasmin and J. Sperling, Entanglement-assisted quan- tum speedup: Beating local quantum speed limits,Phys- ical Review A110, 10.1103/physreva.110.012424 (2024)

2024 doi
[19]

J. M. Epstein and K. B. Whaley, Quantum speed limits for quantum-information-processing tasks,Physical Re- view A95, 10.1103/physreva.95.042314 (2017)

2017 doi
[20]

D. P. Pires, E. R. deAzevedo, D. O. Soares-Pinto, F. Brito, and J. G. Filgueiras, Experimental investigation of geometric quantum speed limits in an open quantum system,Communications Physics7, 10.1038/s42005-024- 01634-5 (2024)

2024 doi
[21]

Yadin, S

B. Yadin, S. Imai, and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum speed limit for states and observables of perturbed open systems, Physical Review Letters132, 230404 (2024)

2024
[22]

Shrimali, B

D. Shrimali, B. Panda, and A. K. Pati, Stronger speed limit for observables: Tighter bound for the capacity of entanglement, the modular hamiltonian, and the charg- ing of a quantum battery,Physical Review A110, 022425 (2024)

2024
[23]

Shrimali, S

D. Shrimali, S. Bhowmick, and A. K. Pati, Quantum speed limit on the production of quantumness of observ- ables,Physical Review A111, 022445 (2025)

2025
[24]

Nishiyama and Y

T. Nishiyama and Y. Hasegawa, Speed limits and ther- modynamic uncertainty relations for quantum systems with the non-hermitian hamiltonian,Physical Review A 111, 012214 (2025)

2025
[25]

D. Wei, H. Liu, Y. Li, F. Gao, S. Qin, and Q. Wen, Quantum speed limit for time-fractional open systems (2023). 7

2023
[26]

Hinrichs, M

B. Hinrichs, M. Lemm, and O. Siebert, On lieb–robinson bounds for a class of continuum fermions,Annales Henri Poincar´ e26, 41–80 (2024)

2024
[27]

Carabba, N

N. Carabba, N. H¨ ornedal, and A. d. Campo, Quantum speed limits on operator flows and correlation functions, Quantum6, 884 (2022)

2022
[28]

Luo, Quantumness speeds up quantum thermody- namics processes (2024), arXiv:2406.13349 [quant-ph]

M.-X. Luo, Quantumness speeds up quantum thermody- namics processes (2024), arXiv:2406.13349 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[29]

C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer,Physical Review D23, 1693–1708 (1981)

1981
[30]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit,Nature Physics7, 962–965 (2011)

2011
[31]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement,Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009)

2009
[34]

Luis and A

A. Luis and A. Rivas, Angular-momentum nonclassicality by breaking classical bounds on statistics,Phys. Rev. A 84, 042111 (2011)

2011
[35]

P. W. Atkins and J. C. Dobson, Angular momentum co- herent states,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences321, 321– 340 (1971)

1971
[36]

A. M. Perelomov, Generalized coherent states and some of their applications,Soviet Physics Uspekhi20, 703 (1977)

1977
[37]

R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, 2020)

2020
[38]

R. Khan, F. Massel, and T. T. Heikkil¨ a, Cross-kerr non- linearity in optomechanical systems,Phys. Rev. A91, 043822 (2015)

2015
[39]

Khorasani, Solution of cross-kerr interaction com- bined with parametric amplification,Scientific Reports 9, 10.1038/s41598-018-38377-7 (2019)

S. Khorasani, Solution of cross-kerr interaction com- bined with parametric amplification,Scientific Reports 9, 10.1038/s41598-018-38377-7 (2019)

2019 doi
[40]

X. L. He, Y. Lu, D. Q. Bao, H. Xue, W. B. Jiang, Z. Wang, A. F. Roudsari, P. Delsing, J. S. Tsai, and Z. R. Lin, Fast generation of schr¨ odinger cat states using a kerr-tunable superconducting resonator,Nature Com- munications14, 6358 (2023)

2023
[41]

Fushman and J

I. Fushman and J. Vuckovic, Analysis of a quantum non- demolition measurement scheme based on kerr nonlinear- ity in photonic crystal waveguides,Optics Express15, 5559 (2007)

2007
[42]

D. J. Brod, J. Combes, and J. Gea-Banacloche, Two photons co- and counterpropagating throughncross-kerr sites,Phys. Rev. A94, 023833 (2016)

2016
[43]

Luo, H.-R

M.-X. Luo, H.-R. Li, and H. Lai, Quantum computation based on photonic systems with two degrees of freedom assisted by the weak cross-kerr nonlinearity,Scientific Reports6, 29939 (2016)

2016
[44]

Nemoto and W

K. Nemoto and W. J. Munro, Nearly deterministic linear optical controlled-not gate,Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 250502 (2004)

2004
[45]

Opatrn´ y and D.-G

T. Opatrn´ y and D.-G. Welsch, Coupled cavities for en- hancing the cross-phase-modulation in electromagneti- cally induced transparency,Phys. Rev. A64, 023805 (2001)

2001
[46]

Fleischhauer, A

M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Elec- tromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coher- ent media,Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 633–673 (2005)

2005
[47]

K. M. Beck, M. Hosseini, Y. Duan, and V. Vuleti´ c, Large conditional single-photon cross-phase modulation,Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 9740– 9744 (2016)

2016
[48]

I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johans- son, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, Giant cross–kerr ef- fect for propagating microwaves induced by an artificial atom,Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 053601 (2013)

2013
[49]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence,Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

2014
[50]

Sperling and I

J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Quasiprobability repre- sentation of quantum coherence,Physical Review A97, 062327 (2018)

2018
[51]

Sperling and W

J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Quasiprobability distribu- tions for quantum-optical coherence and beyond,Physica Scripta95, 034007 (2020)

2020
[52]

Sperling, L

J. Sperling, L. Ares, and E. Agudelo, Quasiprobabilities from incomplete and overcomplete measurements (2025)

2025
[53]

Bohmann, E

M. Bohmann, E. Agudelo, and J. Sperling, Probing non- classicality with matrices of phase-space distributions, Quantum4, 343 (2020)

2020
[54]

K. C. Tan, S. Choi, and H. Jeong, Negativity of quasiprobability distributions as a measure of nonclas- sicality,Physical Review Letters124, 110404 (2020)

2020
[55]

Linowski and L

T. Linowski and L. Rudnicki, Relating the glauber- sudarshan, wigner, and husimi quasiprobability distri- butions operationally through the quantum-limited am- plifier and attenuator channels,Physical Review A109, 023715 (2024)

2024
[56]

Schwinger,ON ANGULAR MOMENTUM, Tech

J. Schwinger,ON ANGULAR MOMENTUM, Tech. Rep. (Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA (United States); Nu- clear Development Associates, Inc. (US), 1952)

1952
[57]

Deffner and E

S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Energy–time uncertainty rela- tion for driven quantum systems,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 335302 (2013)

2013
[58]

Deffner and E

S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Quantum speed limit for non-markovian dynamics,Physical Review Letters111, 010402 (2013)

2013
[59]

A. C. da Silva,Lectures on Symplectic Geometry, Lec- ture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1764 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001) pp. XII+220

2001
[60]

J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu,Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry: A Basic Exposition of Classical Mechan- ical Systems(Springer New York, 1999)

1999
[61]

J. E. Marsden, S. Pekarsky, and S. Shkoller, Discrete euler-poincar´ e and lie-poisson equations,Nonlinearity 12, 1647–1662 (1999)

1999
[62]

D. D. Holm, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Ratiu, The euler- poincare equations in geophysical fluid dynamics (1999)

1999
[63]

Khorasani, Solution of cross-kerr interaction combined with parametric amplification,Scientific Reports9, 1830 (2019)

S. Khorasani, Solution of cross-kerr interaction combined with parametric amplification,Scientific Reports9, 1830 (2019)

2019
[64]

Dajka, J

J. Dajka, J. Luczka, and P. H¨ anggi, Distance be- tween quantum states in the presence of initial qubit- environment correlations: A comparative study,Phys. Rev. A84, 032120 (2011)

2011
[2012]

10th Anniversary Edition

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

Sperling and I

J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Classical evolution in quantum systems,Physica Scripta95, 065101 (2020)

2020

[2] [32]

L. Ares, N. Prasannan, E. Agudelo, A. Luis, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, and J. Sperling, Photonic entanglement and polarization nonclassicality: Two manifestations, one nature (2024), arXiv:2407.07477 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press,

[4] [2]

Fabre and N

C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum optics,Reviews of Modern Physics92, 10.1103/revmod- phys.92.035005 (2020)

doi:10.1103/revmod- 2020

[5] [3]

Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose–einstein condensates,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

C. Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose–einstein condensates,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

2012

[6] [4]

A. Celi, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum optics and frontiers of physics: the third quan- tum revolution,Physica Scripta92, 013003 (2016)

2016

[7] [5]

J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Pho- tonic quantum technologies,Nature Photonics3, 687– 695 (2009)

2009

[8] [6]

J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies,Nature Pho- tonics14, 273–284 (2020)

2020