pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31405 · v1 · pith:CES2GHEKnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Programmable optical parametric amplifier synthesizer for cubic phase states and amplified Schrodinger cat states

Yusuf Turek , Ming-Yan Sun , Xiao-Xi Yao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 05:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords optical parametric amplifiercubic phase statesSchrödinger cat statesheralded photon detectionquantum state synthesiscat state amplificationcontinuous-variable quantum opticsphoton-number-resolving detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A programmable optical parametric amplifier with heralded photon-number-resolving detection generates cubic phase states from coherent inputs and amplifies Schrödinger cat states from small to large amplitudes at fidelity above 0.99.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a programmable OPA synthesizer that operates in both catalytic and non-catalytic configurations to produce two distinct outputs under heralded detection. When the signal input is a coherent state, the device yields cubic phase states across many photon-number pairs with fidelity exceeding 0.99. When the signal input is instead a small Schrödinger cat state, the same setup converts it into a larger squeezed cat state while preserving fidelity above 0.99. The approach requires only moderate OPA gain and low-order photon counting, offering an experimentally accessible route to non-Gaussian continuous-variable resources.

Core claim

With a coherent-state signal input, the protocol generates cubic phase states with fidelity exceeding 0.99 across a broad range of (m,n) configurations. Using a Schrödinger cat state as the signal input, the same framework amplifies the cat state: an input cat with amplitude α_in ≤1 is transformed into an output squeezed cat with α_out ≥2 while maintaining fidelity above 0.99. The catalytic configuration preserves the input parity and restores the idler state, whereas non-catalytic configurations enable parity-flipping amplification with higher success rates. The amplified output can serve as a seed for subsequent amplification rounds.

What carries the argument

The programmable optical parametric amplifier synthesizer under a heralded photon-number-resolving framework, operating in catalytic (m=n) and non-catalytic (m≠n) idler-photon configurations.

If this is right

  • Cubic phase states become available with fidelity above 0.99 for a wide set of photon-number pairs (m,n).
  • Schrödinger cat states can be amplified from input amplitude ≤1 to output amplitude ≥2 at fidelity above 0.99.
  • Catalytic operation restores the idler state and preserves parity; non-catalytic operation flips parity at higher success probability.
  • Each amplified cat can seed further rounds, enabling progressive growth of cat amplitude through repeated application.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the amplification chain works as described, repeated rounds could bootstrap from readily prepared small cats to states large enough for continuous-variable error correction.
  • The method's reliance on moderate gain and low-order detection suggests it could be tested first with existing photon-number-resolving detectors before scaling to higher photon numbers.
  • Combining this synthesizer with existing Gaussian operations might yield hybrid circuits for preparing more complex non-Gaussian states without increasing the required OPA gain.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes ideal moderate-gain OPA operation and perfect heralding via photon-number-resolving detection without losses, noise, or mode mismatch that would degrade the reported fidelities.

What would settle it

A laboratory test that measures output fidelity below 0.99 for cubic phase generation from a coherent input, or that fails to produce an output cat amplitude at least twice the input amplitude while keeping fidelity above 0.99, would falsify the central performance claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31405 by Ming-Yan Sun, Xiao-Xi Yao, Yusuf Turek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematics of our protocol. Idler mode with Fock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Wigner functions of the heralded signal |Ψ ′ ⟩coh,n,n for coherent state input with various configurations (m, n), with fixed α = 1 and g = 1.5. The emergence of negative regions indicates non-classicality. Most recently, Erkilic et al. [34] demonstrated a sig￾nificant advance to generate CPS using an OPA with heralded photon detection. In their scheme, the idler port is seeded with vacuum (m = 0), while a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Wigner functions of the optimized output states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wigner functions for non-catalytic configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wigner functions of the heralded output states for odd cat state (OCS) input for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wigner functions of the optimized output states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Optimal fidelity between the output state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Wigner functions of the heralded output states for even cat state (ECS) input for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Optimized fidelity between the heralded output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Wigner functions of the optimized output states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Optimized fidelity (left column) and amplification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Changes of the fidelity F, Wigner negativity N , and complexity C of the heralded cubic-phase-state outputs for configurations (0, 4), (2, 2), and (1, 1) as functions of the photon loss rateκt. output states characterized by the configurations (m, n ) which listed in Table I – Table IV. We choose the (0, 4), (1, 1) and (2, 2) configurations to analyze the robustness of our approximated CPSs against pure p… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Changes of the fidelity F, Wigner negativity N , and complexity C of the heralded amplified cat states for odd cat input under configurations (0, 2), (1, 1) and (1, 2) as func￾tions of the photon loss rateκt. The black curves represent the fidelity Fideal between the ideal squeezed cat state and its single-photon-loss counterpart for the same parameters. corresponding to these configurations provide excel… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a programmable optical parametric amplifier (OPA) synthesizer that, under a heralded photon-number-resolving framework, generates high-fidelity cubic phase states and amplifies Schrodinger cat states. By systematically exploring both the catalytic configuration, where the idler input and output contain the same number of photons ($m=n$), and non-catalytic configurations ($m\neq n$), we discover two qualitatively different functionalities. First, with a coherent-state signal input, our protocol generates cubic phase states with fidelity exceeding 0.99 across a broad range of $(m,n)$ configurations. Second, using a Schr\"odinger cat state as the signal input, the same framework amplifies the cat state: an input cat with amplitude $\alpha_{\mathrm{in}}\le 1$ is transformed into an output squeezed cat with $\alpha_{\mathrm{out}}\ge 2$ while maintaining fidelity above 0.99. The catalytic configuration preserves the input parity and restores the idler state, whereas non-catalytic configurations enable parity-flipping amplification with higher success rates. Moreover, the amplified output can serve as a seed for subsequent amplification rounds, offering a self-seeding pathway to progressively larger cat states. Our protocol requires only moderate-gain OPA operation and low-order photon-number-resolving detection, providing a flexible and experimentally accessible platform for cubic phase state preparation and amplified squeezed cat state generation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a programmable optical parametric amplifier (OPA) synthesizer operating under a heralded photon-number-resolving (PNR) detection framework. It claims two main functionalities: (i) generation of cubic phase states with fidelity >0.99 from coherent-state signal inputs across a range of catalytic (m=n) and non-catalytic (m≠n) configurations, and (ii) amplification of Schrödinger cat states, mapping input amplitude α_in ≤1 to output squeezed cats with α_out ≥2 while preserving fidelity >0.99. The catalytic case preserves parity and restores the idler, while non-catalytic cases enable parity-flipping with higher success probability; the output can seed further amplification rounds. The protocol is asserted to require only moderate-gain OPA and low-order PNR detection.

Significance. If the reported fidelities are reproducible under the stated ideal conditions and the underlying model is fully specified, the work would supply a concrete, experimentally accessible route to non-Gaussian state preparation that combines standard OPA physics with heralding. The self-seeding amplification pathway and the distinction between catalytic and non-catalytic regimes are potentially useful for scaling cat-state amplitudes without requiring high-gain or high-order detection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (numerical results): the central fidelity claims (>0.99 for both cubic-phase generation and cat amplification across (m,n) pairs) are presented without any displayed equations, Hamiltonian, simulation parameters, or error-budget analysis. The abstract supplies no verification that the fidelities survive even modest loss or mode mismatch, which directly undermines the load-bearing assertion that the protocol works with moderate-gain OPA and low-order PNR.
  2. [§4] §4 (assumptions and robustness): the protocol is stated to assume ideal moderate-gain OPA operation and perfect heralding with no losses, noise, or mode mismatch. No quantitative degradation curves, Monte-Carlo error analysis, or tolerance thresholds are supplied when these assumptions are relaxed; this omission is load-bearing because the reported fidelities are the primary evidence for both claimed functionalities.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: the abstract writes “Schrodinger” without the umlaut; consistent use of Schr"odinger throughout the manuscript would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on the presentation of our results. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (numerical results): the central fidelity claims (>0.99 for both cubic-phase generation and cat amplification across (m,n) pairs) are presented without any displayed equations, Hamiltonian, simulation parameters, or error-budget analysis. The abstract supplies no verification that the fidelities survive even modest loss or mode mismatch, which directly undermines the load-bearing assertion that the protocol works with moderate-gain OPA and low-order PNR.

    Authors: Section 2 of the manuscript already specifies the standard OPA Hamiltonian and the heralded PNR protocol. To address the concern, we will revise §3 to explicitly display the Hamiltonian, list all numerical parameters (gain values, photon-number pairs (m,n), Hilbert-space truncation), and add a short error-budget paragraph for the ideal case. The abstract focuses on the ideal performance; we will add a sentence clarifying that the reported fidelities are for the lossless, perfectly matched case and note the protocol's design for moderate gain and low-order detection as a route to experimental accessibility. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (assumptions and robustness): the protocol is stated to assume ideal moderate-gain OPA operation and perfect heralding with no losses, noise, or mode mismatch. No quantitative degradation curves, Monte-Carlo error analysis, or tolerance thresholds are supplied when these assumptions are relaxed; this omission is load-bearing because the reported fidelities are the primary evidence for both claimed functionalities.

    Authors: We agree that some quantitative indication of robustness would strengthen the claims. In the revised manuscript we will expand §4 with a new paragraph providing perturbative estimates of fidelity degradation under small loss and mode mismatch, together with indicative tolerance thresholds (e.g., loss levels at which fidelity remains above 0.95). Full Monte-Carlo simulations lie outside the present scope but the added estimates will clarify the practical margin. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: protocol derives from standard OPA quantum optics with independent numerical fidelity evaluation

full rationale

The paper introduces a programmable OPA-based protocol and reports fidelities >0.99 obtained by direct computation on the heralded output state for coherent and cat inputs across (m,n) configurations. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the model is not self-referential. The derivation chain rests on the standard two-mode squeeze operator and photon-number projection, which are external to the paper and not redefined in terms of the target fidelities. This is the normal case of a self-contained theoretical proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the protocol appears to rest on standard quantum optics assumptions whose details are not visible here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5782 in / 1223 out tokens · 39406 ms · 2026-07-01T05:28:53.231508+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Yoshida, D

    T. Yoshida, D. Okuno, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Umeki, S. Miki, F. China, M. Yabuno, H. Terai, and S. Takeda, PRX Quantum6, 010311 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Puri, PRX Quantum2, 020101 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Y. Zeng, F. Quijandría, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 190602 (2026)

    2026

  5. [5]

    L. T. Knoll, A. G. Magnoni, and M. A. Larotonda, En- tropy27(2025), 10.3390/e27070712

    work page doi:10.3390/e27070712 2025

  6. [6]

    J. Liu, M. Zhang, H. Chen, L. Wang, and H. Yuan, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2100080 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    S. D. Huver, C. F. Wildfeuer, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A78, 063828 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Y.-X

    X.-X. Zhang, Y.-X. Yang, and X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A88, 013838 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Sahota and N

    J. Sahota and N. Quesada, Phys. Rev. A91, 013808 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. P. Cooling, and J. A. Dunningham, Phys. Rev. A93, 033859 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 103602 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  13. [13]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    Zheng, O

    Y. Zheng, O. Hahn, P. Stadler, P. Holmvall, F. Qui- jandría, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, PRX Quantum2, 010327 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    S. U. Shringarpure and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A100, 043802 (2019)

    2019

  16. [17]

    X.-X. Yao, B. Zhang, and Y. Turek, Phys. Rev. A113, 033712 (2026)

    2026

  17. [18]

    Multiphoton heralding generates large-amplitude squeezed Schr\"odinger cat states and parity-selective Fock superpositions from squeezed vacuum via an OPA

    Y. Turek, M.-Y. Sun, and X.-X. Yao, “Multi- photon heralding generates large-amplitude squeezed schrödinger cat states and parity-selective fock super- positions from squeezed vacuum via an opa,” (2026), arXiv:2605.23617 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [19]

    Fukui, A

    K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. X8, 021054 (2018). 17

    2018

  19. [20]

    E. N. Bashmakova, S. B. Korolev, and T. Y. Golubeva, Phys. Rev. A112, 032434 (2025)

    2025

  20. [21]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Science312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  21. [22]

    Takahashi, K

    H. Takahashi, K. Wakui, S. Suzuki, M. Takeoka, K. Hayasaka, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 233605 (2008)

    2008

  22. [23]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  23. [24]

    A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Opt. Express 16, 3032 (2008)

    2008

  24. [25]

    Fukuda, G

    D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, T. Numata, K. Amemiya, A.Yoshizawa, H.Tsuchida, H.Fujino, H.Ishii, T.Itatani, S. Inoue, and T. Zama, Opt. Express19, 870 (2011)

    2011

  25. [26]

    W. H. P. Pernice, C. Schuck, O. Minaeva, M. Li, G. N. Goltsman, A. V. Sergienko, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Com- mun.3, 1325 (2012)

    2012

  26. [27]

    Zhang, J

    T. Zhang, J. Huang, X. Zhang, C. Ding, H. Yu, Y. Xiao, C. Lv, X. Liu, Z. Wang, L. You, X. Xie, and H. Li, Photon. Res.12, 1328 (2024)

    2024

  27. [28]

    Jornod, M

    N. Jornod, M. Jankowski, L. M. Krüger, V. J. Wittwer, N. Modsching, C. Langrock, C. R. Phillips, U. Keller, T. Südmeyer, and M. M. Fejer, inCLEO 2023(Optica Publishing Group, 2023) p. STu3L.3

    2023

  28. [29]

    Wakui, Y

    K. Wakui, Y. Tsujimoto, M. Fujiwara, I. Morohashi, T. Kishimoto, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Sasaki, and M. Takeoka, Opt. Express28, 22399 (2020)

    2020

  29. [30]

    R. A. Brewster, I. C. Nodurft, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A96, 042307 (2017)

    2017

  30. [31]

    Marek, H

    P. Marek, H. Jeong, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A78, 063811 (2008)

    2008

  31. [32]

    J. Park, J. Joo, A. Zavatta, M. Bellini, and H. Jeong, Opt. Express24, 1331 (2016)

    2016

  32. [33]

    FadrnÜ, M

    J. FadrnÃœ, M. Neset, M. Bielak, M. JeÅŸek, J. BÃ- lek, and J. Fiurášek, npj Quantum Information10, 89 (2024)

    2024

  33. [34]

    A unified optical platform for non-gaussian and fault-tolerant gottesman-kitaev- preskill states,

    O. Erkilic, A. Das, B. Shajilal, P. K. Lam, T. C. Ralph, and S. M. Assad, “A unified optical platform for non-gaussian and fault-tolerant gottesman-kitaev- preskill states,” (2025), arXiv:2512.02607 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    Gerrits, S

    T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T. S. Clement, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, A. L. Migdall, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. A82, 031802(R) (2010)

    2010

  35. [36]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  36. [37]

    Arzani, N

    F. Arzani, N. Treps, and G. Ferrini, Phys. Rev. A95, 052352 (2017)

    2017

  37. [38]

    Yukawa, K

    M. Yukawa, K. Miyata, H. Yonezawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A88, 053816 (2013)

    2013

  38. [39]

    Yanagimoto, T

    R. Yanagimoto, T. Onodera, E. Ng, L. G. Wright, P. L. McMahon, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  39. [40]

    Kashyap, D

    H. Kashyap, D. A. Kopylov, and P. R. Sharapova, Laser Physics Letters23, 045209 (2026)

    2026

  40. [41]

    Miwa, J.-i

    Y. Miwa, J.-i. Yoshikawa, N. Iwata, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 013601 (2014)

    2014

  41. [42]

    D. V. Sychev, A. E. Ulanov, A. A. Pushkina, M. W. Richards, I. A. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Nature Pho- tonics11, 379 (2017)

    2017

  42. [43]

    A. P. Lund, H. Jeong, T. C. Ralph, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A70, 020101(R) (2004)

    2004

  43. [44]

    Q. Xu, G. Zheng, Y.-X. Wang, P. Zoller, A. A. Clerk, and L. Jiang, npj Quantum Inf.9, 78 (2023)

    2023

  44. [45]

    Fiurášek, S

    J. Fiurášek, S. Grebien, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. A 111, 043704 (2025)

    2025

  45. [46]

    N. Wang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, F. Sun, Q. He, and Y. Gu, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B42, 939 (2025)

    2025

  46. [47]

    H. Song, G. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Yonezawa, and K. Fan, Phys. Rev. A105, 043713 (2022)

    2022

  47. [48]

    Takase, J.-i

    K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A103, 013710 (2021)

    2021

  48. [49]

    Eaton, R

    M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, New Journal of Physics21, 113034 (2019)

    2019

  49. [50]

    Yao and Y

    X.-X. Yao and Y. Turek, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025038 (2026)

    2026

  50. [51]

    Yao and Y

    X.-X. Yao and Y. Turek, npj Quantum Inf.12, 30 (2026)

    2026

  51. [52]

    Yukawa, K

    M. Yukawa, K. Miyata, T. Mizuta, H. Yonezawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, Opt. Express21, 5529 (2013)

    2013

  52. [53]

    Luo and S

    H. Luo and S. Mahmoodian, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 024046 (2026)

    2026

  53. [54]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. LeJeannic, J. Ruaudel, V.B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, Y.-C. Jeong, R. Filip, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 023602 (2015)

    2015

  54. [55]

    D. S. Schlegel, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. A106, 022431 (2022)

    2022

  55. [56]

    Kiryu, K

    S. Kiryu, K. Fukui, A. Okamoto, and A. Tomita, Phys. Rev. A112, 042615 (2025)

    2025

  56. [57]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. Życzkowski, J Opt B Quantum Semi- classical Opt6, 396 (2004)

    2004

  57. [58]

    S. Tang, F. Albarelli, Y. Zhang, S. Luo, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 045047 (2025)

    2025

  58. [59]

    Y. S. Teo, S. U. Shringarpure, S. Cho, and H. Jeong, Quantum Science and Technology10, 035003 (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    S. B. Korolev and T. Y. Golubeva, Phys. Rev. A113, 022413 (2026)

    2026

  60. [61]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  61. [62]

    Walschaers, B

    M. Walschaers, B. Sundar, N. Treps, L. D. Carr, and V. Parigi, Quantum Sci. Technol8, 035009 (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    Renault, P

    P. Renault, P. Yard, R. C. Pooser, M. Eaton, and H. A. Zaidi, Quantum9, 1796 (2025)

    2025

  63. [64]

    L. D. H. My, S. Qin, and H. K. Ng, Quantum9, 1810 (2025)

    2025