Quantum advantage for single-photon state characterization

J. J. Renema; M. C. Anguita; S. Marzban; S. N. van den Hoven

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Quantum advantage for single-photon state characterization

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multiphoton interference protocol characterizes all pairwise overlaps of three single photons with less data than pairwise Hong-Ou-Mandel experiments, and an experimental implementation confirms the advantage even against a noiseless idea

desk verdict Solid per-sample Fisher-information result for 3-photon characterization, but the practical 'quantum advantage' claim needs a quantitative rate-resource comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.04903 v2 pith:S3EJSXB4 submitted 2025-12-04 quant-ph

S. N. van den Hoven , M. C. Anguita , S. Marzban , J. J. Renema This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords multiphotoninterferenceHong-Ou-MandeleffectFisherinformationphotonindistinguishabilitysingle-photoncharacterizationbosonsamplinglinearopticalquantumcomputing

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 tries to establish that letting more than two photons interfere is a strictly better way to learn how distinguishable a set of photons is. It proposes a three-photon interference circuit, finds the optimal version by maximizing the determinant of the Fisher information matrix, and shows experimentally that the Fisher information obtained per detected three-photon sample beats what a perfect two-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel characterization would provide. A direct corollary of the Fisher-information comparison is that one multiphoton detection event contains more estimable information about all three pairwise overlaps than one ideal HOM event. The practical significance is that photon indistinguishability, a key resource for boson sampling and photonic quantum computation, could be certified with fewer detection events. The claimed advantage is robust to loss, persisting at arbitrary nonzero transmission in their model.

What carries the argument

The engine is the distinguishability matrix S of pairwise overlaps between single-photon internal wavefunctions, combined with the permanent formula that gives output probabilities for partially distinguishable photons. On top of that sits the Fisher information matrix, whose determinant (D-optimality) is used to optimize the interferometer. The specific optimal circuit for three photons is a balanced beamsplitter followed by a second beamsplitter whose splitting ratio depends on the expected photon quality; in the indistinguishable limit the second beamsplitter is set to 1/3, and destructive interference suppresses the |012> output. The generalization is a cascade where each new beamsplitte

What would settle it

Compute each protocol's Fisher information per generated photon (or per unit measurement time) using the measured heralding rate and three-fold coincidence rate. If the Hong-Ou-Mandel protocol's information per generated photon is larger than the three-photon protocol's, then the per-sample advantage does not translate to a practical throughput advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For three photons, the optimal characterization protocol is a balanced beamsplitter followed by a quality-dependent beamsplitter; a third photon interferes with one output arm of the beamsplitter pair. The paper's central claim is that this circuit yields a Fisher information matrix whose determinant, per detected three-photon event, is strictly larger than the Fisher information matrix of an ideal pairwise Hong-Ou-Mandel characterization of the same three overlaps. The authors show this numerically for the optimized circuit, experimentally with an integrated photonic processor, and then extend the construction to arbitrary photon number by cascading beamsplitters, proving (without optimalit

Load-bearing premise

The advantage is measured per detected n-photon sample; if the fair resource metric is photons consumed or wall-clock time rather than samples, the claimed quantum advantage may shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With the same number of detected samples, the three-photon protocol gives a tighter estimate of all three pairwise overlaps than ideal pairwise HOM; this could reduce characterization time for multi-photon sources.
Since the advantage persists at arbitrary nonzero transmission, the protocol remains useful with lossy sources and non-unit-efficiency detectors, assuming per-sample comparison.
The same interferometer can collect two-photon HOM events while waiting for three-photon events, so the scheme can be run at the rate of a two-photon experiment with occasional three-photon bonuses.
The cascade construction generalizes the improvement to more than three photons, always beating pairwise HOM although not proven optimal.
The protocol could extract triad-phase information that pairwise HOM cannot, because multiphoton interference is sensitive to phases among more than two photons.

Reading between the lines

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

If the per-sample metric is accepted, a natural resource-theoretic extension is to redo the comparison per photon generated or per unit time; the paper's qualitative postselection argument suggests the per-sample advantage may translate, but a rate-rescaled Fisher-information comparison would settle it.
The quality-dependent optimal splitting ratio suggests an adaptive scheme: start with a nominal split, estimate overlaps, then retune the beamsplitter toward the estimated optimum as data accumulate; the paper's optimization assumes equal pairwise overlaps and a fixed design.
The same Fisher-information formalism could benchmark distinguishability characterization for spectrally or temporally structured photons, or for non-identical pairwise overlaps such as one bright and one dim source, where the paper's equal-overlap optimal design would need reweighting.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is a specific 3-photon interferometer whose single detected three-photon event carries more Fisher information about all three pairwise overlaps than a single perfect HOM two-photon event. The authors build that circuit, measure it, and show their experimental FIM tracks the ideal curve. That is a real, non-obvious result, and the experimental work is credible and well documented, including the data availability statement.

Where it earns credit: the FIM calculation is transparent and follows from the standard permanent-based model; the comparison with HOM is generous to HOM (noiseless, perfect beamsplitter); the triad-phase assumption is explicitly discussed and justified; the arbitrary-n generalization is honestly marked as heuristic, without an optimality guarantee. The paper is also careful to display the worst-fit pmf in Fig. 4a, which is a nice antidote to cherry-picking.

The main soft spot is the resource metric, and the stress-test note is right about it. The advantage is evaluated per detected n-photon sample, not per photon consumed or per unit wall-clock time. A 3-photon event costs more than a 2-photon event, so the per-sample comparison alone does not establish a practical efficiency advantage. The authors acknowledge this and propose collecting 2-photon HOM events from the same device while waiting for 3-photon events, but that argument is only qualitative. It is also not obvious that the postselected 2-photon events from their circuit carry the same HOM information as an ideal HOM measurement, because the second beamsplitter changes the two-photon output distribution. A quantitative rate-resource model—or at least an explicit FIM for the combined 2- and 3-photon data stream—is needed to support the headline claim. Without it, the per-sample advantage is a solid information-theoretic fact, but calling it a practical quantum advantage is an overreach.

Minor issues: the experimental FIM points in Fig. 4b have no error bars, and the generalization to arbitrary n is asserted without proof. Both are addressable. The n>3 part should be clearly labeled as a conjecture, not a theorem.

Who gets value: experimentalists and theorists working on photonic indistinguishability characterization, boson sampling, and resource-efficient source characterization. The protocol is useful, and the per-sample Fisher information advantage is a legitimate insight worth having. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it needs a major revision on the resource metric before the advantage claim can stand as stated.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multiphoton interference protocol for characterizing the pairwise overlaps of internal modes of single photons, claiming higher Fisher information efficiency than pairwise Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) experiments. For three photons, the authors numerically optimize a circuit (a balanced beamsplitter followed by a second beamsplitter) and experimentally implement it using SPDC and a programmable silicon-nitride chip. They compare the Fisher information matrix (FIM) inferred from their measurements to a perfect, noiseless HOM experiment and claim that their protocol outperforms HOM even under experimental noise. The paper also proposes a generalization to arbitrary photon number via cascaded or parallel beamsplitters, asserting that such circuits 'always' provide more pairwise-overlap information than HOM.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper introduces a genuinely useful idea: a single multiphoton interference event can simultaneously provide Fisher information about all pairwise overlaps, rather than requiring separate two-photon experiments. The FIM computations appear internally consistent, and the experimental demonstration is a valuable proof-of-principle, with data availability stated. However, the headline 'quantum advantage' is operationalized per detected n-photon sample rather than per photon or per unit time, and the generalization to arbitrary n is asserted rather than proven. The paper therefore needs substantial revision before the significance of the claimed advantage can be fully assessed.

major comments (5)

[Discussion and conclusion, final paragraph] The central claim of 'more efficient' characterization is quantified as Fisher information per detected n-photon sample (Fig. 4b). A 3-photon event is not directly comparable to a 2-photon HOM event in terms of photons consumed or wall-clock time; the authors acknowledge this but respond only qualitatively. The proposed fallback of collecting two-photon HOM events from the same interferometer while waiting for three-photon events is not modeled: the two-photon pmf at the added beamsplitter, detector dead-time, and multi-pair contamination effects are not quantified. Without a rate-resource analysis, the practical 'quantum advantage' claim is not established. Please provide a quantitative model or explicitly restrict the claim to 'per detected sample'.
[Generalization, paragraphs 2-3] The statement 'this way, we always get more information about pairwise overlaps than we would get in a HOM-characterization' is not proven. Adding a beamsplitter and a fresh photon can alter the output pmf in ways that may not monotonically increase the Fisher information for each pairwise overlap, and the optimal splitting ratio may depend on the unknown overlaps. The paper gives two example circuits (Fig. 2) but no general proof or numerical evidence for n > 3. Since the abstract promises a general multiphoton protocol, this is a load-bearing gap; please either provide a proof/numerical study or restrict the claim to the 3-photon case.
[Experiment, Eq. (3) and Fig. 4b] Equation (3) defines the FIM for theta = (|S12|, |S13|, |S23|) only, while the MLE described in the same section includes phi_triad, t1, t2, t3, and alpha. It is unclear whether the determinant of the inverse FIM plotted in Fig. 4b corresponds to the submatrix for the three overlaps or the full matrix including nuisance parameters. A comparison with a perfect HOM FIM (which contains no nuisance parameters) is only meaningful for the overlap submatrix. Please report the marginal FIM for the overlaps and specify the computation procedure precisely.
[Fig. 4b] The experimental FIM points are plotted as a single time series without error bars or confidence intervals. The claim that the experiment 'consistently outperforms' HOM cannot be statistically assessed without an uncertainty estimate (e.g., bootstrap over samples or repeated runs). Please provide error bars or a discussion of the statistical significance of the observed advantage.
[Abstract and Discussion] The claim that the advantage 'persists at arbitrary nonzero transmission' is not quantified or demonstrated in the main text. Figure 1b gives the optimal splitting ratio as a function of overlap, but superiority for off-optimal values of the second beamsplitter transmission is not shown. Please provide a proof or a figure (e.g., determinant ratio vs. transmission for representative overlaps) or remove this claim.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'beampsplitters' should be 'beamsplitters'.
[Eq. (1)] Please clarify the normalization and the role of r_i! s_i! in the denominator; in particular, indicate how the formula accounts for partially distinguishable photons and output configurations with multiple photons per mode.
[Experiment section, fidelity definition] The amplitude fidelity F = (1/N) Tr(|U_target^†| |U_set|) uses absolute values of matrices without definition. Please state whether these are element-wise moduli and whether the fidelity is the usual process fidelity or a different figure of merit.
[Fig. 3 caption] The acronym qPNR should be defined at first use, e.g., as 'quasi-photon-number-resolving'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fisher-information comparison is model-based but grounded in independent experimental data; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The probability model in Eq. (1) is taken from standard external references [26,27]; the Fisher information matrix in Eq. (3) is defined directly from that model; and the experimental data enter independently through a maximum-likelihood estimate, with model fidelity checked by reported total variational distances (0.041, 0.024, 0.020). The protocol circuit is found by numerical optimization of the FIM determinant, which is a standard experimental-design procedure; using the same model for design and evaluation is not circular because the HOM baseline is not baked into the optimization objective, and the model is externally validated by the measured pmf. The self-citations (refs. 11, 12, 24, and partially 31) are used for context—classical simulation of distinguishability, distillation motivation, and the triad-phase modeling choice—and the latter is also supported by an external citation (ref. 30). The Discussion explicitly flags the per-sample versus per-rate fairness issue and offers a qualitative postselection argument; this is a resource-metric limitation, not a definitional reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the distinguishability matrix S is standard in the cited model. The main added assumptions are the choice of equal-overlap optimization and the unproven monotonicity of Fisher information when adding a third photon.

free parameters (3)

Second-beam-splitter transmission q (protocol design parameter) = q ≈ 1/3 at overlap 1; q ≈ 1/2 at overlap 0 (Fig. 1b)
Chosen by numerical D-optimal design assuming equal pairwise overlaps; the protocol's advantage is evaluated for this choice, not proven for all overlap configurations.
Interferometer decomposition parameters (t1, t2, t3, α) = Set experimentally; estimated by MLE
Included in the experimental FIM computation as unknowns; the quoted observed FIM therefore depends on their estimated values.
Triad phase φtriad = Estimated in MLE (value not reported)
Included in the 8-parameter MLE but excluded from the FIM parameter vector; the paper assumes it is negligible based on refs. [30,31].

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Eq. (1): permanent-of-overlap-matrix model for partially distinguishable photons (Tichy, Shchesnovich)
All FIM calculations assume pairwise overlaps S_ij fully capture photon distinguishability and that the permanent formula holds for arbitrary partially distinguishable input states.
domain assumption Triad phase can be ignored for characterization
The paper excludes triad phase from θ, citing experiments [30,31] modeled without it; if triad phases matter, the FIM for the three-photon protocol changes.
ad hoc to paper No-prior-knowledge D-optimal design at equal pairwise overlaps
The numerical optimization fixes the circuit for θ1=θ2=θ3; optimality for unequal overlaps is not proven.
ad hoc to paper Extra interference at the second beamsplitter always adds Fisher information (generalization claim)
The arbitrary-n outperformance is justified by 'we always get more information' rather than by a proof; this is the load-bearing premise for the generalization beyond three photons.
standard math Fock-basis measurement insensitivity to 2N−1 phases; 3×3 unitary parameterized by four parameters
Used to restrict the numerical search to three beamsplitter ratios plus one phase.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum advantage for single-photon state characterization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3EJSXB4

@misc{pith2026251204903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum advantage for single-photon state characterization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3EJSXB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.04903}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a multiphoton interference protocol that characterizes the pairwise overlaps of the internal modes of single photons more efficiently than pairwise Hong-Ou-Mandel characterization experiments. We experi mentally implement this protocol to characterize three photons. We show that our implementation of the char acterization protocol outperforms the pairwise Hong-Ou-Mandel characterization, even if the Hong-Ou-Mandel characterization would have been performed in a noiseless, perfect experiment. We demonstrate this via the Fisher information matrix. Surprisingly, this advantage persists at arbitrary nonzero transmission, demonstrat ing the viability of this protocol for real-world characterization of single photons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04903 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Generalization of multiphoton characterization ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Experimental setup. A Ti:Sapph laser pumps two single-photon sources in parallel. The beam is focused onto a ppKTP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Experimental results. (a) The probability mass func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, inProceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting(Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2011), STOC ’11, p. 333–342, ISBN 9781450306911

2011
[2]

Zhong, H

H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y .-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y .-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y . Hu, et al., Science370, 1460 (2020)

2020
[3]

H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y .-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250503 (2019)

2019
[4]

Bartolucci, P

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombin, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, et al., Nat. Commun.14, 912 (2023)

2023
[5]

Bomb ´ın, C

H. Bomb ´ın, C. Dawson, R. V . Mishmash, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, PRX Quantum4, 020303 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.4.020303

2023
[6]

Barral, F

D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa ´ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V ´azquez-P´erez, J. Villasuso, C. Pi ˜neiro, N. Costas, et al., Com- puter Science Review57, 100747 (2025), ISSN 1574- 0137, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1574013725000231

2025
[7]

B. C. Sanders and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2944 (1995), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2944

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.2944 1995
[8]

Nagata, R

T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science316, 726 (2007), 6 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1138007, URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/science.1138007

doi:10.1126/science.1138007 2007

Show all 38 references

[9]

C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 75 (1980), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.45.75

1980
[10]

J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Ad- hikari, et al., Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

2013
[11]

J. J. Renema, A. Menssen, W. R. Clements, G. Triginer, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 220502 (2018)

2018
[12]

S. N. van den Hoven, E. Kanis, and J. J. Ren- ema, Phys. Rev. A111, 052448 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.111.052448

2025
[13]

Sparrow, Ph.D

C. Sparrow, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2018)

2018
[14]

Saied, J

J. Saied, J. Marshall, N. Anand, S. Grabbe, and E. G. Ri- effel,Advancing quantum networking: Some tools and protocols for ideal and noisy photonic systems(2024), 2403.02515

2024 arXiv
[15]

P. P. Rohde and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A73, 062312 (2006), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.73.062312

2006
[16]

Hong, Z.-Y

C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987)
[17]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, nature409, 46 (2001)

2001
[18]

J. D. Franson, M. M. Donegan, M. J. Fitch, B. C. Ja- cobs, and T. B. Pittman, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 137901 (2002), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.89.137901

2002
[19]

Ewert and P

F. Ewert and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140403 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.113.140403

2014
[20]

W. P. Grice, Phys. Rev. A84, 042331 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.042331

2011
[21]

Marshall, Phys

J. Marshall, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 213601 (2022)

2022
[22]

C. F. D. Faurby, L. Carosini, H. Cao, P. I. Sund, L. M. Hansen, F. Giorgino, A. B. Villadsen, S. N. van den Hoven, P. Lodahl, S. Paesani, et al. (2024), 2403.12866

2024 arXiv
[23]

F. Hoch, A. Camillini, G. Rodari, E. Caruccio, G. Car- vacho, T. Giordani, R. Albiero, N. D. Giano, G. Cor- rielli, F. Ceccarelli, et al.,Optimal distillation of photonic indistinguishability(2025), 2509.02296, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2509.02296

2025 arXiv
[24]

F. H. B. Somhorst, B. K. Sau ¨er, S. N. van den Hoven, and J. J. Renema,Photon distillation schemes with reduced resource costs based on multiphoton fourier interference (2024), 2404.14262

2024 arXiv
[25]

Saied, J

J. Saied, J. Marshall, N. Anand, and E. G. Rieffel,General protocols for the efficient distillation of indistinguishable photons(2024), 2404.14217

2024 arXiv
[26]

M. C. Tichy, Phys. Rev. A91, 022316 (2015)

2015
[27]

Shchesnovich, Phys

V . Shchesnovich, Phys. Rev. A91, 013844 (2015)

2015
[28]

A. J. Menssen, A. E. Jones, B. J. Metcalf, M. C. Tichy, S. Barz, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walm- sley, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 153603 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.118.153603

2017
[29]

V . S. Shchesnovich and M. E. O. Bezerra, Phys. Rev. A 98, 033805 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.033805

2018 doi
[30]

Rodari, L

G. Rodari, L. Novo, R. Albiero, A. Suprano, C. T. Tavares, E. Caruccio, F. Hoch, T. Giordani, G. Car- vacho, M. Gardina, et al., PRX Quantum6, 020340 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.6.020340

2025
[31]

F. H. Somhorst, R. van der Meer, M. Correa Anguita, R. Schadow, H. J. Snijders, M. de Goede, B. Kassenberg, P. Venderbosch, C. Taballione, J. Epping, et al., Nat. Com- mun.14, 3895 (2023)

2023
[32]

M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.58

1994 doi
[33]

W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

2016
[34]

Smith, Biometrika12, 1 (1918), ISSN 00063444, 14643510, URLhttp://www.jstor.org/ stable/2331929

K. Smith, Biometrika12, 1 (1918), ISSN 00063444, 14643510, URLhttp://www.jstor.org/ stable/2331929

1918
[35]

C. G. H. Roeloffzen, M. Hoekman, E. J. Klein, L. S. Wev- ers, R. B. Timens, D. Marchenko, D. Geskus, R. Dekker, A. Alippi, R. Grootjans, et al., EEE J. Sel. Top. Quant. Elec., 24(4):1–21 (2018)

2018
[36]

Taballione, R

C. Taballione, R. van der Meer, H. J. Snijders, P. Hooi- jschuur, J. P. Epping, M. de Goede, B. Kassenberg, P. Venderbosch, C. Toebes, H. van den Vlekkert, et al., Materials for Quantum Technology1, 035002 (2021)

2021
[37]

Feito, J

A. Feito, J. S. Lundeen, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, J. Eis- ert, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, New Journal of Physics11, 093038 (2009), URLhttps://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/9/093038

2009 doi
[38]

van den Hoven, M

S. van den Hoven, M. Correa Anguita, S. Marzban, and J. Renema,Data underlying the publica- tion: ”multiphoton interference outperforms pairwise overlaps for distinguishability charac- terization”,https://doi.org/10.4121/ aea16cd4-1a57-442d-b06c-643fcdab6393. v1(2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, inProceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting(Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2011), STOC ’11, p. 333–342, ISBN 9781450306911

2011

[2] [2]

Zhong, H

H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y .-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y .-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y . Hu, et al., Science370, 1460 (2020)

2020

[3] [3]

H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y .-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250503 (2019)

2019

[4] [4]

Bartolucci, P

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombin, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, et al., Nat. Commun.14, 912 (2023)

2023

[5] [5]

Bomb ´ın, C

H. Bomb ´ın, C. Dawson, R. V . Mishmash, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, PRX Quantum4, 020303 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.4.020303

2023

[6] [6]

Barral, F

D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa ´ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V ´azquez-P´erez, J. Villasuso, C. Pi ˜neiro, N. Costas, et al., Com- puter Science Review57, 100747 (2025), ISSN 1574- 0137, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1574013725000231

2025

[7] [7]

B. C. Sanders and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2944 (1995), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2944

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.2944 1995

[8] [8]

Nagata, R

T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science316, 726 (2007), 6 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1138007, URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/science.1138007

doi:10.1126/science.1138007 2007