Model-based framework for automated quantification of error sources in quantum state tomography

Hiroki Takesue; Hsin-Pin Lo; Junpei Oba; Seiji Kajita; Takayuki Matsui; Takuya Ikuta; Toshimori Honjo; Yasuhiro Yamada; Yuya Yonezu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Model-based framework for automated quantification of error sources in quantum state tomography

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that a quantum state tomography density matrix can be reverse-engineered by fitting a parametrized physical error model, and shows on time-bin entangled photon pairs that this attributes 86% of the measured error and corr

desk verdict Useful, honest diagnostic package with genuine validation, but the 86% number is a fit residual and model completeness is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05538 v1 pith:DJEKWLBH submitted 2025-08-07 quant-ph physics.comp-phphysics.optics

Junpei Oba , Hsin-Pin Lo , Yasuhiro Yamada , Takayuki Matsui , Takuya Ikuta , Yuya Yonezu , Toshimori Honjo , Seiji Kajita

show 1 more author

Hiroki Takesue

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics MSC 81P5081P15 PACS 03.65.Wj03.65.Ud42.65.Lm

keywords quantumstatetomographyerrorsourcequantificationtime-binentanglementtracedistanceparameteroptimizationdensitymatrixmodel-basedphoton-pair

topics The Measurement Problem

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

Quantum state tomography packages all experimental imperfections into one density matrix; a fidelity number says how noisy the state is but not why. This paper argues that the density matrix itself can be decomposed by an automated loop: build a simulator of the known error sources with adjustable parameters, optimize those parameters until the simulated density matrix matches the measured one, and read the error budget off the fitted parameters. In the demonstration with time-bin entangled photon pairs, the trace distance between simulated and experimental density matrices drops from 0.177 to 0.024, which the authors take as explaining 86% of the error. The fitted model then ranks accidental coincidences and measurement-basis phase errors as the dominant fixable sources; experiments designed to reduce exactly those errors produced the predicted fidelity gain, reaching 97%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametrized error model embedded in the MBQEQ loop: a simulator of the QST readout that maps the ideal state plus error parameters through the linear reconstruction $\rho_{\mathrm{QST}} = \sum_\nu M_\nu s_\nu$, an evaluator using the trace distance as the cost function, and an optimizer (Powell's method) that fits 26 parameters. Two features carry the argument: the model is modular, so platform-specific error terms can be swapped in, and the optimization is deliberately two-stage, fitting the systematic parameters before the per-measurement statistical-fluctuation terms $\delta_\nu$ to prevent overfitting.

What would settle it

A decisive check is a model-mismatch experiment: intentionally introduce a known error source that the model does not include, such as a calibrated detector-efficiency mismatch or external noise, rerun MBQEQ, and compare the fitted parameters with the known injected values. If the residual trace distance stays near 0.024 while the fitted parameters shift to absorb the unmodeled error, the error attribution is not unique; if the residual rises materially, the completeness claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the errors mixed into a reconstructed density matrix are identifiable, not just measurable as a single fidelity. Model-based quantum error quantification (MBQEQ) starts from the ideal time-bin entangled state $|\Phi\rangle_{AB} = (|11\rangle_{AB}+|22\rangle_{AB})/\sqrt{2}$, applies a depolarizing channel for accidental coincidences, phase and intensity errors in the measurement bases, time-bin intensity asymmetry, statistical fluctuations, a relative phase, and a photon-pair frequency correlation, and simulates the linear-QST reconstruction from those noisy measurement probabilities. Powell's method minimizes the trace distance $D(\rho_{\mathrm{exp}},\rho_{\mathrm{s

Load-bearing premise

The optimized parameter values correspond to the real physical error sources; if unmodeled detector imperfections or external noise get absorbed into the fitted depolarization rate, phase errors, or statistical-fluctuation terms, the attributed error budget is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single QST run yields not just a fidelity but a ranked list of error sources with fitted magnitudes, so countermeasures can be prioritized by expected fidelity gain.
The ablation procedure turns the error budget into concrete actions: in the demonstration, reducing accidental coincidences and phase errors was predicted and experimentally shown to improve fidelity by about 7 percentage points.
Because the error model is modular, the same loop transfers to other quantum platforms by replacing the source and measurement terms.
The method needs no additional measurements beyond ordinary QST data and runs in about 30 minutes on a single laptop core.
If all implemented errors were removed in simulation, the expected fidelity exceeds 99%, indicating that the modeled error budget captures the dominant imperfections in this experiment.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test is identifiability under model mismatch: add an unmodeled detector-efficiency asymmetry or external noise to a simulated dataset and see whether the fitted parameters migrate; if they do, the attributed error budget is not unique.
Because the fitted depolarization parameter tracks independently estimated multi-pair rates, continuous MBQEQ fitting could serve as a real-time monitor of source brightness or drift in photon-pair experiments.
On qubit platforms, the same loop could estimate gate rotation errors and crosstalk by swapping in a gate-set simulator; a concrete extension would be injecting a known coherent error and checking whether the method recovers it, as the paper does for photon-pair experiments.
Combining MBQEQ with compressed-sensing or classical-shadow measurement strategies could retain the error decomposition while reducing the measurement overhead.

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

Worth a look if you work on QST diagnostics or time-bin sources. The core claim is conditional: MBQEQ fits a 26-parameter error model to a 16-element density matrix and reports that it explains 86% of the error. That number is the reduction in trace distance from 0.177 to 0.024 by fitting the same data, so it's a residual, not an independent measure of attribution quality. The authors are clear that remaining errors are left to detector imperfections and external noise (Sec. VI C), but that's exactly why the number is not a verified error budget.

What's actually good: the validation is above average. They inject accidental coincidences and phase errors and the optimizer recovers known inputs; eta is cross-checked against an independently estimated eta_exp from visibility; the error-reduction experiments give predicted fidelity gains that match experiment at the 1-2% level; and the 100-initialization stability check is a useful addition, even if rcorr is weakly identified. The modular simulator-optimizer loop is new as packaged for time-bin entanglement, even if the ingredients are familiar from Hamiltonian learning and gate set tomography. The math is straightforward linear-QST inversion plus a Gaussian wave-packet model; no red flags there.

Soft spots, in order: (1) Model completeness is the load-bearing assumption. With 26 free parameters against a 16-entry density matrix and a scalar trace-distance cost, unmodeled detector and external noise could be absorbed into eta, phase, and the 16 statistical-fluctuation parameters. The injected-error tests are all in-model; they don't include an out-of-family perturbation. (2) There's no identifiability or uncertainty analysis. Stability of the optimizer does not mean the parameters are the true error sizes. (3) The "all errors removed" extrapolation to 99% fidelity is optimistic given the residual. Minor: no code or data released, so replication requires reimplementation; the citation pattern is normal and relevant.

Who gets value: experimentalists building time-bin or similar photonic sources who want a quantitative error budget and a ranked list of countermeasures. As a referee, I'd send it out; the validation experiments justify referee time. I'd ask for uncertainty propagation, a model-comparison test against a simpler model, and an out-of-family validation before trusting the attributed budget. Still, this is a solid, honest paper that deserves a serious look.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MBQEQ, a model-based framework that automatically quantifies error sources in quantum state tomography by fitting a parametrized simulator to the experimental density matrix. The method is demonstrated on time-bin entangled photon pairs. The error model includes accidental coincidences (depolarizing parameter η), measurement-basis phase errors, intensity errors, time-bin intensity asymmetry, statistical fluctuations, a relative phase θ22, and photon-pair correlation rcorr. The optimizer minimizes the trace distance between simulated and experimental density matrices. On baseline data the trace distance drops from 0.177 to 0.024, which the authors interpret as explaining 86% of the errors. Validation experiments use intentionally injected accidental coincidences and phase errors, and error-reduction experiments confirm predicted fidelity gains, with the improved state reaching 97% fidelity.

Significance. If the fitted parameters faithfully represent physical error sizes, MBQEQ would be a useful diagnostic tool that turns a QST density matrix into a human-readable error budget and ranks countermeasures by expected fidelity gain. The paper has genuine strengths: the independent cross-check of η against η_exp derived from coincidence-count data, the intentional phase-error injection recovery, the stability analysis over 100 initializations, and the experimental confirmation that suppressing the two largest predicted errors improves fidelity. However, the central attribution claim is currently supported mainly by in-sample fit quality, and the validation experiments only exercise errors inside the modeled family. The paper is therefore a promising framework whose quantitative claims need additional validation before acceptance.

major comments (3)

[Sec. VI C, Fig. 6(a)] The claim that the trace-distance reduction from 0.177 to 0.024 indicates that the modeled errors explain 86% of the errors is an in-sample statement. The optimization uses 26 free parameters against a 16-element density matrix, so a large residual reduction is expected from fitting flexibility alone. To support the attribution, the paper should provide an out-of-sample check, such as predicting a held-out subset of the 16 measurement probabilities, a bootstrap or cross-validation procedure, or a model-selection criterion (e.g., AIC/BIC, effective number of parameters). Without such a check, the 86% figure is a measure of fit quality, not of physical error attribution.
[Sec. IV H and Sec. VI C, Eq. (14)] The model-completeness assumption is load-bearing. Because η, the phase-error parameters, and the 16 statistical-fluctuation parameters δν are all free, unmodeled detector imperfections and external noise—explicitly left out in Sec. VI C—can be absorbed by these parameters, biasing the error budget. The injected-error validations in Secs. VI A and VI B test only recovery of errors inside the model family: η is compared with η_exp derived from the same depolarizing/Werner model (Appendix C), and the phase-injection experiments use exactly the modeled phase parameters. The paper should include a model-mismatch test, e.g., generate synthetic QST data with an out-of-family error (detector efficiency asymmetry, non-depolarizing background, or unmodeled amplitude damping) and show that MBQEQ does not misattribute it to η, θ′, or δν.
[Sec. VI C, Fig. 7] The predicted fidelity improvements in Fig. 7 are computed by subtracting Δρ_err from the experimental ρ_exp, where Δρ_err is derived from the same fitted parameters that are being used to rank error sources. This makes the ranking self-referential with respect to the fit. The two experimentally confirmed countermeasures (η and phase errors) validate those two entries, but the other entries (rcorr, θ22, p, pA, pB, δν) remain unvalidated. The manuscript should either provide synthetic-data validation of the full ranking or explicitly state that only the two dominant sources have been confirmed by experiment.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV E] The two-step optimization is described as avoiding excessive fitting by δν, but the δν parameters are still within the same model and fitted to the same data. A sentence clarifying why the two-step procedure prevents overfitting beyond the parameter bounds would be helpful.
[Appendix E] The stability analysis shows that rcorr is not robust to initialization. The authors state that rcorr contributes little to the density matrix, but this should also be acknowledged in the main-text discussion of the fitted parameters, since Table III lists rcorr as a fitted value without uncertainty.
[General] The paper does not state whether the simulator and optimization code are available. Given the reproducibility emphasis in the field, a code/data availability statement would strengthen the manuscript.
[Fig. 3 and other density-matrix plots] The multiple-panel plots are dense and the axis labels are small. Adding row/column labels or explicit color bars in each panel would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The '86% explained' is an in-sample cost reduction and the η validation is model-consistent, but external error-reduced experiments provide independent support.

fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. VI C, Fig. 6(a)]
"Optimization of the parameters reduced the trace distance from 0.177 to 0.024, indicating that our modeled error sources explain 86% of the errors."

The optimizer's objective is exactly this trace distance, Eq. (15): D(ρexp, ρsim) = 1/2 Tr|ρexp − ρsim|. The parameters are chosen to minimize this quantity, so the drop from 0.177 to 0.024 is the in-sample cost reduction after fitting, not an out-of-sample or independent estimate. The '86% explained' is a deterministic transform of the minimized cost (1 − 0.024/0.177) and is therefore forced by construction: a sufficiently flexible model will always reduce the training objective. It does not by itself establish that the fitted parameters correspond to physical error sources.
self definitional [Appendix C; referenced in Sec. VI A, Table I]
"Assuming that the generated state is a Werner state with ϵ as a parameter, that is, ϵ |Φ⟩AB⟨Φ| + (1 − ϵ) I2/4, and noting that the visibility is related to ϵ via V ′ = ϵ, the model parameter ηexp estimated from the experiment is ηexp ≃ 1 − ϵ = 1 − V ′."

The MBQEQ simulator models accidental coincidences with the depolarizing channel E(ρ) = (1 − η)ρ + η I2/4 (Eq. 6). The 'experimental' estimate ηexp is derived in Appendix C by assuming the state is a Werner state, which is mathematically the same depolarizing model family. Thus agreement between fitted η and ηexp is consistency within the assumed model, not an independent confirmation that accidental coincidences are correctly identified. Any error that mimics depolarizing noise would be absorbed into both estimates.

full rationale

The paper's core method is a density-matrix fit: parameters of a modular error model are adjusted to minimize the trace distance to the experimental density matrix. This is a legitimate estimation procedure. The central validation is genuinely external: (i) intentionally injected accidental-coincidence and phase errors are recovered (Secs. VI A and VI B), and (ii) error-reduced experiments (Sec. VI C, Appendix G, Fig. 7) confirm the predicted fidelity gains with new experimental data. These give the central claim independent content, so the paper is not fundamentally circular. However, two validation steps are weaker than presented. First, the headline '86% of errors explained' is simply the relative reduction of the cost function after fitting; because the same trace distance is the optimization objective, the reduction is expected for a flexible model and cannot by itself prove the attribution. Second, the apparent experimental check of η against ηexp is derived using the same depolarizing/Werner-state model family that the simulator uses, so the agreement is a self-consistency check rather than an independent measurement. These issues raise the circularity score but do not override the strong external confirmation from the error-reduction experiments. Score 3 reflects partial circularity without the central claim reducing to a fit or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a 26-parameter phenomenological model fitted to one 16-element density matrix. The main external anchors are the independent eta_exp estimate, the injected-error recovery tests, and the error-reduction experiments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

rcorr = 1.3 (baseline); bound [1,3]
Ratio of long to short axes of Gaussian photon-pair correlation; fit to minimize trace distance, contributes little to density matrix (Appendix E).
theta_22 = 0.001 rad
Relative phase between |11> and |22> components; optimized.
p = 0.43
Time-bin intensity asymmetry parameter; optimized.
pA = 0.48
Intensity error in channel A measurement basis; optimized.
pB = 0.47
Intensity error in channel B measurement basis; optimized.
Phase-error sums = sums: -0.04, 0.20, 0.23, 0.46 rad
The four sum combinations of phase errors affect the reconstructed density matrix; individual phase errors are not identifiable. Fit to baseline data.
eta = 0.075 (baseline)
Depolarizing/accidental coincidence error strength; cross-checked with eta_exp from visibility but still fit to density matrix.
delta_1 ... delta_16 = range -0.43% to 0.19% (Table III)
Statistical fluctuation parameters for each of 16 measurement probabilities; fit in the second optimization step to absorb count noise. These can also absorb systematic model mismatch.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Linear QST inversion with ideal operators M_nu remains valid when measurement bases are imperfect, provided the probabilities s'_nu are computed with the actual states.
Used in Eq. (14) and Appendix A; if the interferometer states are not exactly as modeled, the reconstructed matrix is mis-attributed.
domain assumption Accidental coincidences from distinguishably generated multiple pairs act as a depolarizing channel E(rho) = (1 - eta) rho + eta I/4.
Appendix C justifies with a Poisson multi-pair model and single-count rate fits; this is a modeling assumption, not a theorem.
ad hoc to paper The two-photon correlation can be represented as a tilted 2D Gaussian in k-space, symmetrized and Fourier-transformed, with width ratio rcorr.
Appendix D; this is a chosen functional form, not derived from first principles, and rcorr is poorly constrained by the data.
domain assumption The trace distance is a sufficient cost function for recovering true error parameters; the optimizer's global minimum corresponds to the correct decomposition.
Sec. V; no identifiability analysis or alternative cost comparison.
domain assumption Only sums of phase errors over both channels affect the density matrix, so individual phase errors are interchangeable.
Sec. IV B; the four individual phase parameters reduce to four sums, a degeneracy not explicitly discussed in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-based framework for automated quantification of error sources in quantum state tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJEKWLBH

@misc{pith2026250805538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-based framework for automated quantification of error sources in quantum state tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJEKWLBH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05538}
}

read the original abstract

High-quality quantum state generation is essential for advanced quantum information processing, including quantum communication, quantum sensing, and quantum computing. In practice, various error sources degrade the quality of quantum states, and quantum state tomography (QST) is a standard diagnostic tool. However, in QST, multiple error sources gather in a single density matrix, making it difficult to identify individual error sources. To address this problem, we propose an automated method for quantifying error sources by combining simulation and parameter optimization to reproduce the experimental density matrix. We focus on the experimental generation of time-bin entangled photon pairs, for which we model the relevant error sources and simulate the density matrix with adjustable model parameters, thereby optimizing the parameters and minimizing the trace distance to the experimental data. Optimization of the parameters reduced the trace distance from 0.177 to 0.024, indicating that our modeled error sources explain 86% of the errors. Reducing the predicted error sources improves the state quality, consistent with our predictions and thus validating the proposed method. In addition, the modular structure of this framework makes it applicable to other quantum platforms, such as superconducting qubits, atoms, and solid-state spins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.05538 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Experimental setup for time-bin photon-pair generation. IM: intensity modulator. PC: polarization controller. EDFA: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Density matrices of (a) ideal state and (b) experimental result. The left (right) panel shows the real (imaginary) part. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a)-(d) Density matrices obtained from experiments with accidental coincidence errors. The pump power is increasingly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)-(d) Density matrices obtained from theoretical calculations with intentional phase errors. The intended phase errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Trace distances between experimental and simulated density matrices before and after MBQEQ. (b) Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Predicted (blue) and error-reduced experimental (orange) fidelities after removing the non-positive definite components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Eigenvalues of experimental and simulated density matrices and (b) residuals. Eigenstates of (c)-(f) experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Single count rates for the detectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Probability distribution of two-photon state prepared in simulation. The left panel shows the distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Box-and-whisker plots of the model parameters obtained from 100 independent optimizations with randomized initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a)-(c) Expected density matrices when the error source is removed. (d)-(f) Density matrices obtained from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

[1]

Gisin and R

N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. photonics 1, 165-171 (2007)

work page 2007
[2]

J. S. Sidhu et al., Advances in space quantum communications, IET Quant. Comm. 2, 182-217 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Luo et al., Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet, Light

W. Luo et al., Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet, Light. Sci. Appl. 12, 175 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[5]

Pirandola, B

S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photonics 12, 724-733 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Aslam, H

N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157-169 (2023)

2023
[7]

J. L. O’brien, Optical Quantum Computing, Science 318, 1567-1570 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press (2010)

2010

Show all 63 references

[9]

Nakamura, Y

Y. Nakamura, Y. Pashkin, and J. Tsai, Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box, Nature 398, 786-788 (1999)

1999
[10]

Yu et al., Coherent Temporal Oscillations of Macroscopic Quantum States in a Josephson Junction, Science296, 889-892 (2002)

Y. Yu et al., Coherent Temporal Oscillations of Macroscopic Quantum States in a Josephson Junction, Science296, 889-892 (2002)

2002
[11]

Barends, J

R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant et al., Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature 508, 500-503 (2014)

2014
[12]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920-926 (2024)

2024
[13]

Gidney and M

C. Gidney and M. Eker ˚ a, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum 5, 433 (2021)
[14]

H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023-1030 (2008)

2008
[15]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018
[16]

Zhang and Q

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6 043001 (2021)

2021
[17]

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4249 (1999)

1999
[18]

Caleffi, M

M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Distributed quantum computing: A survey, Comput. Netw. 254, 110672 (2024)

2024
[19]

C. H. Bennett et al., Purification of Noisy Entanglement and Faithful Teleportation via Noisy Channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996). 17

1996
[20]

J. W. Pan, C. Simon, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement purification for quantum communication, Nature 410, 1067-1070 (2001)

2001
[21]

D. F. V. James, Paul G. Kwiat, William J. Munro, and Andrew G. White, Measurement of qubits, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052312 (2001)

2001
[22]

Takesue and Y

H. Takesue and Y. Noguchi, Implementation of quantum state tomography for time-bin entangled photon pairs, Opt. Express 17, 10976-10989 (2009)

2009
[23]

I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455-2467 (1997)

1997
[24]

H. P. Lo, T. Ikuta, N. Matsuda, T. Honjo, W. J. Munro, and H. Takesue, Quantum Process Tomography of a Controlled- Phase Gate for Time-Bin Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 034013 (2020)

2020
[25]

Blume-Kohout, J

R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Sterk, and P. Maunz, Robust, self-consistent, closed-form tomography of quantum logic gates on a trapped ion qubit, arXiv:1310.4492 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[26]

Blume-Kohout, J

R. Blume-Kohout, J. Gamble, E. Nielsen et al., Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography, Nat. Commun. 8, 14485 (2017)

2017
[27]

Huang, R

HY. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050-1057 (2020)

2020
[28]

X. M. Hu, Y. Xie, A. S. Arora et al., Self-testing of a single quantum system from theory to experiment, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 103 (2023)

2023
[29]

S. T. Flammia and Y. K. Liu, Direct Fidelity Estimation from Few Pauli Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 230501 (2011)

2011
[30]

Kajita, T

S. Kajita, T. Kinjo, and T. Nishi, Autonomous molecular design by Monte-Carlo tree search and rapid evaluations using molecular dynamics simulations, Commun. Phys. 3, 77 (2020)

2020
[31]

Kikkawa, S

N. Kikkawa, S. Kajita, and K. Takechi, Self-Learning Molecular Design for High Lithium-Ion Conductive Ionic Liquids using Maze Game, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 4904 (2020)

2020
[32]

Oba and S

J. Oba and S. Kajita, Crystal morphing: Structural interpolation including crystal invariances, Phys. Rev. Materials 6, 023801 (2022)

2022
[33]

J. Lee, J. Oba, N. Ohba, and S. Kajita, Creation of crystal structure reproducing X-ray diffraction pattern without using database, npj Comput. Mater. 9, 135 (2023)

2023
[34]

M. P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Springer Science & Business Media (2013)

2013
[35]

Y. Sato, K. Yaji, K. Izui, T. Yamada, and S. Nishiwaki, Topology optimization of a no-moving-part valve incorporating Pareto frontier exploration, Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 56, 839-851 (2017)

2017
[36]

Y. Sato, H. Kobayashi, C. Yuhn, A. Kawamoto, T. Nomura, and N. Kikuchi, Topology optimization of locomoting soft bodies using material point method, Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 66, 50 (2023)

2023
[37]

Wang et al., Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning, Nat

J. Wang et al., Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning, Nat. Phys. 13, 551-555 (2017)

2017
[38]

J. D. Guimar˜ aes, J. Lim, M. I. Vasilevskiy, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Noise-Assisted Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Systems Using Partial Probabilistic Error Cancellation, PRX Quantum 4, 040329 (2023)

2023
[39]

Flamini, N

F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum information processing: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 016001 (2018)

2018
[40]

H. Wang, Q. Zeng, H. Ma, and Z. Yuan, Progress on Chip-Based Spontaneous Four-Wave Mixing Quantum Light Sources, Adv. Devices Instrum. 5, 0032 (2024)

2024
[41]

P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, New High-Intensity Source of Polarization-Entangled Photon Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4337 (1995)

1995
[42]

Takesue and K

H. Takesue and K. Inoue, Generation of polarization-entangled photon pairs and violation of Bell’s inequality using spontaneous four-wave mixing in a fiber loop, Phys. Rev. A 70, 031802(R) (2004)

2004
[43]

Brendel, N

J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Pulsed Energy-Time Entangled Twin-Photon Source for Quantum Communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2594 (1999)

1999
[44]

H. P. Lo, T. Ikuta, N. Matsuda, T. Honjo, and H. Takesue, Entanglement generation using a controlled-phase gate for time-bin qubits, Appl. Phys. Express 11, 092801 (2018)

2018
[45]

H. P. Lo, T. Ikuta, K. Azuma, T. Honjo, W. J. Munro and H. Takesue, Generation of a time-bin Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger state with an optical switch, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8 035003 (2023)

2023
[46]

Honjo, S

T. Honjo, S. W. Nam, H. Takesue, Q. Zhang, H. Kamada, Y. Nishida, O. Tadanaga, M. Asobe, B. Baek, R. Hadfield, S. Miki, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, Z. Wang, K. Inoue, and Y. Yamamoto, Long-distance entanglement-based quantum key distribution over optical fiber, Opt. Express 16, 19...

2008
[47]

Inagaki, N

T. Inagaki, N. Matsuda, O. Tadanaga, M. Asobe, and H. Takesue, Entanglement distribution over 300 km of fiber, Opt. Express 21, 23241-23249 (2013)

2013
[48]

Takesue, S

H. Takesue, S. D. Dyer, M. J. Stevens, V. Verma, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Quantum teleportation over 100 km of fiber using highly efficient superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Optica 2, 832-835 (2015)

2015
[49]

Takesue and K

H. Takesue and K. Inoue, Generation of 1 .5−µm band time-bin entanglement using spontaneous fiber four-wave mixing and planar light-wave circuit interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 72, 041804(R) (2005)

2005
[50]

Takesue and K

H. Takesue and K. Shimizu, Effects of multiple pairs on visibility measurements of entangled photons generated by spon- taneous parametric processes, Opt. Commun. 283, 276-287 (2010)

2010
[51]

J. Oba, S. Kajita and A. Soeda, Fast simulation for multi-photon, atomic-ensemble quantum model of linear optical systems addressing the curse of dimensionality, Sci. Rep. 14, 3208 (2024). 18

2024
[52]

M. J. D. Powell, An Efficient Method for Finding the Minimum of a Function of Several Variables without Calculating Derivatives, The Computer Journal 7, 155-162 (1964)

1964
[53]

Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys

Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A 55, R1561(R) (1997)

1997
[54]

S. Shen, C. Yuan, Z. Zhang et al., Hertz-rate metropolitan quantum teleportation, Light. Sci. Appl. 12, 115 (2023)

2023
[55]

Q. C. Sun et al. Entanglement swapping with independent sources over an optical-fiber network, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032306 (2017)

2017
[56]

Clarke and F

J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature 453, 1031-1042 (2008)

2008
[57]

M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting Circuits for Quantum Information: An Outlook, Science 339,1169- 1174 (2013)

2013
[58]

W. D. Phillips, Nobel Lecture: Laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 721 (1998)

1998
[59]

Henriet, L

L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G. O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

2020
[60]

Blatt and C

R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 8, 277-284 (2012)

2012
[61]

C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019)

2019
[62]

D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins, Nat. Photonics 12, 516-527 (2018)

2018
[63]

Takesue, E

H. Takesue, E. Diamanti, T. Honjo, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, K. Inoue, and Y. Yamamoto, Differential phase shift quantum key distribution experiment over 105 km fibre, New J. Phys. 7, 232 (2005)

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Gisin and R

N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. photonics 1, 165-171 (2007)

work page 2007

[2] [2]

J. S. Sidhu et al., Advances in space quantum communications, IET Quant. Comm. 2, 182-217 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Luo et al., Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet, Light

W. Luo et al., Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet, Light. Sci. Appl. 12, 175 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017

[5] [5]

Pirandola, B

S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photonics 12, 724-733 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Aslam, H

N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157-169 (2023)

2023

[7] [7]

J. L. O’brien, Optical Quantum Computing, Science 318, 1567-1570 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press (2010)

2010