Arxiv:2104.12596V3 [Quant-Ph] 27 Jul 2021 2

Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them

Mattia Walschaers∗ Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Sorbonne Université,CNRS, ENS-UniversitéPSL, Collège de France, 4 place Jussieu, F-75252 Paris, France (Dated: July 28, 2021) Gaussian states have played on important role in the physics of continuous-variable quantum systems. They are appealing for the experimental ease with which they can be produced, and for their compact and elegant mathematical description. Nevertheless, many proposed quantum technologies require us to go beyond the realm of Gaussian states and introduce non-Gaussian elements. In this Tutorial, we provide a roadmap for the physics of non-Gaussian quantum states. We introduce the phase-space representations as a framework to describe the different properties of quantum states in continuous-variable systems. We then use this framework in various ways to explore the structure of the state space. We explain how non-Gaussian states can be characterised not only through the negative values of their Wigner function, but also via other properties such as quantum non-Gaussianity and the related stellar rank. For multimode systems, we are naturally confronted with the question of how non-Gaussian properties behave with respect to quantum correlations. To answer this question, we first show how non-Gaussian states can be created by performing measurements on a subset of modes in a Gaussian state. Then, we highlight that these measured modes must be correlated via specific quantum correlations to the remainder of the system to create quantum non-Gaussian or Wigner-negative states. On the other hand, non-Gaussian operations are also shown to enhance or even create quantum correlations. Finally, we will demonstrate that Wigner negativity is a requirement to violate Bell inequalities and to achieve a quantum computational advantage. At the end of the Tutorial, we also provide an overview of several experimental realisations of non-Gaussian quantum states in quantum optics and beyond.

CONTENTS 1. Quantum non-Gaussianity and Entanglement 33 I. Introduction1 2. Wigner Negativity and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steering 34 II. Continuous-Variable Quantum States3 C. Quantum Correlations through A. Fock Space3 non-Gaussianity 35 B. Phase Space5 1. Entanglement measures on phase space 35 C. Discrete and continuous variables 10 2. Entanglement increase 36 D. Gaussian States 11 3. Purely non-Gaussian quantum entanglement 39 III. Non-Gaussian Quantum States 13 D. Non-Gaussianity and Bell inequalities 41 A. Gaussian vs. Non-Gaussian 13 B. Examples of non-Gaussian states 16 VI. Non-Gaussian Quantum Advantages 42 C. Quantum Non-Gaussianity 18 D. Stellar Rank 19 VII. Experimental realisations 46 E. Wigner Negativity 21 A. Quantum optics experiments 46 B. Other experimental setups 48 IV. Creating Non-Gaussian States 23 A. Deterministic methods 23 VIII. Conclusions and outlook 49 B. Conditional methods 24 1. General framework 24 Acknowledgments 50

arXiv:2104.12596v3 [quant-ph] 27 Jul 2021 2. An example: photon subtraction 26 A. Mathematical remarks 51 V. Non-Gaussian States and Quantum Correlations 28 1. Topological vector spaces 51 A. Quantum correlations: a crash course 28 2. Span 52 1. Correlations 29 2. Quantum entanglement 29 References 52 3. Quantum steering 30 4. Bell nonlocality 32 B. Non-Gaussianity through Quantum I. INTRODUCTION Correlations 32 Gaussian states have a long history in quantum physics, which dates back to Schrodinger’s¨ introduction of the coherent state as a means to study the harmonic oscillator [1]. In ∗ [email protected] later times, Gaussian states rose to prominence due to their 2 importance in the description of Bose gases [2–4] and in the tems. We first present some elements many-boson physics, by theory of optical coherence [5,6]. With the advent of quan- treating Fock space. This mathematical environment is prob- tum information theory, the elegant mathematical structure of ably familiar to most readers to describe photons. We then Gaussian states made them important objects in the study of explain how such a Fock space can also be described in phase continuous-variable (CV) quantum information theory [7–9]. space, which is the more natural framework from CV quan- In this Tutorial, we focus on bosonic systems which means tum optics. We will introduce phase-space representations of that the continuous variables of interest are field quadratures. states and observables in CV systems such as the Wigner func- Gaussian quantum states are then defined as the states for tion, and to familiarise the reader with the language of mul- which measurement statistics of these field quadratures is timode systems. By first reviewing the basics of Fock space, Gaussian. we can make interesting connections between what is known Gaussian states can be fully described by their mean field as the discrete-variable (DV) approach and the CV approach and covariance matrix, and, due to Williamson’s decompo- to quantum optics. We will see that there is often a shady sition [10], the latter can be studied using a range of tools region between these two frameworks, where techniques that from symplectic vector spaces. As such, one can directly are typically associated with one framework can be applied in relate quadrature squeezing to Gaussian entanglement via the the other.We will finally argue that the main distinction lies Bloch-Messiah decomposition [11]. In the full state space of in whether one measures photons (DV) or field quadratures CV systems, Gaussian states are furthermore known to play a (CV). specific role: of all possible states with the same covariance In Section III, we provide the reader with an introduction matrix, the Gaussian state will always have the weakest to some of the different structures that can be identified in the entanglement [12] and the highest entropy [13]. From a space of CV quantum states. When pure states are consid- theoretical point of view, Gaussian quantum states provide, ered, all non-Gaussian states are known to have a non-positive thus, an elegant and highly relevant framework for quantum Wigner function [34, 35], but this no longer holds when mixed information theory. On an experimental level, CV quantum states enter the game [36]. In the entirety of the state space, information has long been motivated by advances in quantum non-Gaussian states occupy such a vast territory that it is im- optics, due to the capability of on-demand generation of ever possible to describe all of them within one single formalism. larger entangled states using either spatial modes [14–16] Nevertheless, there has recently been considerable progress or time-frequency modes [17–22]. Furthermore, Gaussian in the classification of non-Gaussian states [37, 38]. We will states also play a key role in the recent demonstration of introduce some key ideas behind quantum non-Gaussianity, a quantum advantage with Gaussian Boson Sampling [23]. the stellar rank, and Wigner negativity as tools to characterise These developments have made the CV quantum optics an non-Gaussian states. important platform for quantum computation [24]. SectionIV introduces two main families of techniques to create non-Gaussian states starting from Gaussian inputs. The Regardless of all the experimental and theoretical successes first approach concentrates on deterministic methods, which of Gaussian states, they have a major shortcoming in the rely on the implementation of non-Gaussian unitary transfor- context of quantum technologies: all Gaussian measurements mations. We will show how such transformations can be built of such states can be efficiently simulated [25]. In pioneering by using a specific non-Gaussian gate. We then introduce the work on CV quantum computation, it is already argued second class of techniques which are probabilisitic and rely on that a non-Gaussian operation is necessary to implement a performing non-Gaussian measurements on a Gaussian state universal quantum computer in CV [26]. Later works that and conditioning on a certain measurement result. We intro- laid the groundwork for CV measurement-based quantum duce our recently developed approach to describe these sys- computing have left the question of this non-Gaussian tems [39] and present mode-selective photon subtraction as a operation somewhat in the open [27–29]. Common schemes, case study. based on the cubic phase gate, turn out to be particularly Then all the pieces are set to discuss the interplay between hard to implement in realistic setups [30]. Furthermore, non-Gaussian effects and quantum correlations in SectionV. these protocols require highly non-Gaussian states, such First, we will consider the resources that are required to condi- as Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) states [31], to encode tionally prepare certain non-Gaussian states. The conditional information. Even though such states could also serve as a scheme relies on performing a non-Gaussian measurement on non-Gaussian resource for implementing non-Gaussian gates one part of a bipartite Gaussian state, and will show that the [32], these states remain notoriously challenging to produce. nature of the quantum correlations in this bipartite state is es- In spite of the practical problems involved with non-Gaussian sential. We will show that we can only generate quantum states, one is obliged to venture into non-Gaussian territory non-Gaussian states if the initial bipartite state is entangled. to reach a quantum computational advantage in the CV Furthermore, to conditionally generate Wigner negativity we regime [33]. This emphasises the importance of a general even require quantum steering. In the second part of Section understanding of non-Gaussian states and their properties. In V, we show how non-Gaussian operations can in return en- this Tutorial, we attempt to provide a roadmap to navigate hance or create quantum correlations. Finally, we will show within this quickly developing field. that Wigner negativity (in either the state or the measurement) is necessary to violate Bell inequalities in CV systems. In SectionII, we take an unusual start to introduce CV sys- In a similar fashion, we will spend most of SectionVI to 3 explain the result of Ref. [33], which shows that Wigner nega- sults. After all, it is difficult to appreciate the subtleties of non- tivity is also necessary to reach a quantum advantage. To show Gaussian states without having a flavour from their Gaussian this, we explicitly construct a protocol to efficiently simulate counterparts. the measurement outcomes of a setup with states, operations, and detectors that are described by positive Wigner functions. In the remainder of the section, we provide comments on the A. Fock Space quantum computational advantage reached with Gaussian Bo- son Sampling. In typical quantum mechanics text books, the story of iden- Finally, in Section VII, we provide a quick overview of tical particles usually starts by considering a set of n parti- non-Gaussian states in CV experiments. Due to the author’s cles, which are each described by a quantum state vector in background, the first half of this overview will focus on quan- a single-particle Hilbert space H, thus for the ith particle we tum optics.In the second part, we also discuss some key devel- ascribe a state vector |ψii ∈ H. The joint state of these n opments in other branches of experimental quantum physics. particles is then given by the tensor product of the state vec- Readers should be warned that this is by no means an exten- tors |ψ1i ,..., |ψni. However, if the particles are identical in sive review of all the relevant experimental progress. A more all their internal degrees of freedom, we should be free to per- general conclusion and outlook on what the future may have mute them without changing the observed physics. Formally, in store is presented in Section VIII. such permutation is implemented by a unitary operator Uσ, for the permutation σ ∈ S n, which acts as

II. CONTINUOUS-VARIABLE QUANTUM STATES Uσ |ψ1i ⊗ · · · ⊗ |ψni = ψσ(1) ⊗ · · · ⊗ ψσ(n) . (1)

Invariance of physical observables under such permutations Before we can start our endeavour to classify non-Gaussian can be achieved by either imposing the n-particle states vec- states of CV systems and study their properties, we must tor to be fully symmetric (bosons) or fully antisymmetric develop some basic formalism for dealing with multimode (fermions) under these permutations of particles. In this Tu- bosonic systems. At the root of bosonic systems lies the torial, we focus exclusively on bosons, and thus the condition canonical commutation relation, [x ˆ, pˆ] ∼ i1, which can be that must be imposed to obtain a bosonic n-particle state is traced back to the early foundations of quantum mechanics. The study of the algebra of such non-commuting observables E E U Ψ(n) = Ψ(n) . (2) has given birth to rich branches of mathematics and mathe- σ matical physics that ponder on the subtleties of these observ- Because these are the only states that are permitted to de- ables and their associated states. In this Tutorial, we will keep scribed the bosonic system, we commonly use the Hilbert a safe distance from the representation theory of the associ- space H (n) which is a subspace of H ⊗n that contains only ated C∗-algebras that describes bosonic field theories in their s those states that fulfil (2). It is usually convenient to gener- most general sense. We do refer interested readers to a rich ate these spaces with a set of elementary tensors, known as but technical literature [4, 40–42]. Fock states, which we define as In this Tutorial, we will exclusively work within the Fock representation, which implies that we consider systems with a X |ψ i ∨ · · · ∨ |ψ i ψ ⊗ ... ψ , (3) finite expectation value for the number of particles. In quan- 1 n B σ(1) σ(n) σ∈S tum optics, this assumption translates to the logical require- n ment that energies remain finite. There are many approaches such that to mathematically construct such systems (luckily for us they (n) are all equivalent [43–46]). Here, we briefly present two such Hs = span |ψ1i ∨ · · · ∨ |ψni | |ψii ∈ H , (4) approaches that nicely capture one of the key dualities on quantum physics. First we will take the particle approach by where we refer to AppendixA2 for some further details introducing the Fock space that describes identical bosonic on the span. This fully describes a system of n bosonic particles in SubsectionIIA. Subsequently, in SubsectionIIB, particles in what is often referred to as first quantisation. It we take the approach that starts out from a wave-picture, by is interesting to note that these identical particles appear to concentrating on the phase-space representation of the elec- be entangled with respect to the tensor product structure of tromagnetic field. Here we will also introduce the phase- H ⊗n. There is still debate on whether this is a mathematical space representations of CV quantum states that will prove artefact of our description or rather a genuine physical feature to be crucial tools in the remainder of this Tutorial. We will of identical particles [47]. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that show how these approaches are quite naturally two sides of this structure leads to physical interference phenomena that the same coin. In SubsectionIIC, we briefly discuss the con- do not exist for distinguishable particles [48]. cept of modes and the role they play in CV quantum systems. This subsection is both intended to provide some clarification The name “first quantisation” suggests the existence of a about common jargon and to eliminate common misconcep- second quantisation, which turns out to be more appropriate tions. We finish this section by presenting a brief case study for this Tutorial. Second quantisation finds its origins in mod- of Gaussian states in SubsectionIID, reviewing some key re- els where particle numbers are not fixed or conserved. This 4 formalism is largely based on creation and annihilation op- where α ∈ H is a non-normalised vector in the single parti- erators, denoteda ˆ† anda ˆ, respectively, that add or remove cle Hilbert space. One can, indeed, simply generalise (7) to particles. To accommodate these operators in our mathemat- non-normalised vectors in H which we use explicitly in (10). ical framework, we must equip our Hilbert space to describe Second, we note that an unusual factor 2 was included to make a varying number of particles. Therefore, we introduce the the definition consistent with (62). Fock space In quantum optics, these ciherent states are crucial objects as they describe perfectly coherent light [5]. It is important to Γ(H) H (0) ⊕ H (1) ⊕ H (2) ⊕ ..., (5) B s s s remark that a coherent state is always generated by a single where the single-particle Hilbert space is given by H (1) = H. vector in the single-particle Hilbert space. Coherent states s often provides a good approximation for the state that is Furthermore, we retrieve a peculiar component H (0) which s produced by a single-mode laser far above threshold [50]. describes the fraction of the system that contains no particles More generally, the study of laser light is a whole field in its H (0) | i at all. On its own, s is thus populated by a single state 0 own right and often the light deviates from the fully coherent that we refer to as the vacuum. This implies that technically (0) approximation. Hs C the zero-particle Hilbert space is just described by a complex number that corresponds to the overlap of the state The creation and annihilation operators are not only impor- with the vacuum. A general pure state in Fock space |Ψi ∈ tant objects because they populate the Fock space; they are Γ(H) can then be described using the structure (5) as also of key importance for describing observables in a many- |Ψi = Ψ(0) ⊕ Ψ(1) ⊕ Ψ(2) ⊕ ..., (6) boson system. These operators are the generators of the algebra of observables that represents the canonical commutation (i) (i) where Ψ ∈ Hs are non-normalised vectors (and therefore relations on Fock space. This implies that any observable can we omit the |.i) in the i-particle Hilbert space. Because |Ψi is ultimately be approximated by a polynomial of creation and a state, we must impose the normalisation condition kΨk2 = annihilation operators. At the heart of this mathematical for- P∞ (i) 2 i=0kΨ k = 1 malism lies the canonical commutation relation (CCR): We can now define a creation operatora ˆ†(ϕ) for every ϕ ∈ H † [49], which acts as [â(ϕ), aˆ (ψ)] = hϕ | ψi, (11) aˆ†(ϕ) |Ψi = 0⊕ Ψ(0) |ϕi ⊕ |ϕi ∨ Ψ(1) ⊕ |ϕi ∨ Ψ(2) ⊕... (7) which describes the algebra of observables. Note that this re- In the same spirit, it is possible to provide an explicit con- lation holds for any vectors |ϕi and |ψi in the single-particle struction of the annihilation operatorsa ˆ(ϕ), but here we will Hilbert space H. These vectors should not form a basis, content ourselves by just introducing the annihilation operator nor should they be orthogonal. When |ϕi = |ψi, we find as the hermitian conjugate of the creation operator. Just as the that [â(ψ), aˆ†(ψ)] = 1. On the other hand, when the single- creation operator that literally adds a particle to the system, particle states |ϕi and |ψi are fully orthogonal, we find that the annihilation operator literally removes one. One additional [â(ϕ), aˆ†(ψ)] = 0. In these cases we recover the typical property of the annihilation operators is that they destroy the creation and annihilation operators for harmonic oscillators. vacuum state: However, by introducing the creations and annihilation operators through (7), we can also deal with more general cases. | i aˆ(ϕ) 0 = 0. (8) Furthermore, all definitions and the form of the CCR are still H We can now use creation and annihilation operators to build valid when ϕ and ψ are unnormalised vectors in . A more an arbitrary Fock state by creating particles on the vacuum detailed discussion can be found in [51]. state When we leave the realm of pure states, the description of quantum states becomes tedious. Commonly, one uses a † † † |ψ1i ∨ · · · ∨ |ψni = aˆ (ψ1)â (ψ2) ... aˆ (ψn) |0i (9) density operatorρ ˆ with trρ ˆ = 1 to formally describe a state. However, we can generally think of these density operators and by considering superpositions of such Fock states, we can as infinite-dimensional matrices with an infinite number of ultimately generate the entire Fock space. By considering any components in the Fock basis. In other words, this is not basis of the single-particle Hilbert space H and construct- necessarily a convenient description. In an operational sense, ing all possible Fock states of all possible lengths that can be any state is considered to be characterised when we know formed by generating particles in these basis vectors we con- all the moments of all the possible observables. Because the struct a basis of the Fock space Γ(H). We refer to this basis creation and annihilation operators generate the algebra, one as the Fock basis. knows all the moments of all the observables if one knows all The beauty of second quantisation lies in the natural ap- † † the correlation functions tr[ˆρ aˆ (ψ1) ... aˆ (ψn)â(ϕ1) ... aˆ(ϕm)], pearance of states which have no fixed particle number. The for all possible lengths n and m. Even though this might seem most important example is the coherent state like an equally challenging endeavour, much of quantum ∞ statistical mechanics boils down to finding expressions of the 2 † j − kαk X [â (α)] |αi B e 8 |0i , (10) correlation functions for relevant classes of states. 2 j j! j=0 5

B. Phase Space mode basis chosen to describe this space is far from unique. As with all Hilbert spaces, we can define unitary transforma- In the previous subsection, we started our analysis by ex- tions and use them to change from one basis to another. As tending a system of one quantum particle to a system of many such, let us introduce the unitary operator U to change be- quantum particles. Here we follow a different route, where tween bases we start by considering the classical electric field. With some Xm effort, we can apply such an analysis to any bosonic field, ui(r, t) = U jiv j(r, t), (17) but in this Tutorial we focus on quantum optics as our main j=1 field of application. For a more extensive introduction from a m X † quantum optics perspective we recommend Ref. [50, 52, 53], vi(r, t) = U jiu j(r, t), (18) whereas a general introduction to quantum physics in phase j=1 space can be found in Ref. [54]. A travelling electromagnetic wave is described by a solu- where we can in principle obtain U as an infinite-dimensional tion of Maxwell’s equations. As is commonly the case in op- matrix with Z tics, we focus on the complex representation of the electric 1 ∗ (+) U = d3r v (r, t) u (r, t), (19) field which is generally given by E (r, t). It is related to the ji V j i real-valued electric field E(r, t) that is encountered in standard V ∗ electrodynamics textbooks by E(r, t) = E(+)(r, t)+ E(+)(r, t) . which remarkably does not depend on time due to the nor- To express the electric field, it is useful to introduce an or- malisation properties of the mode bases. We can analogously thonormal mode basis {ui(r, t)}. These modes are solutions to expand the electric field in the new mode basis Maxwell’s equations (+) X 0 E (r, t) = Ei vi(r, t), (20) ∇ · ui(r, t) = 0, (12) i ! 1 ∂2 0 P where E = Ui jE j. This observation is of great importance ∆ − ui(r, t) = 0. (13) i j c2 ∂t2 when we quantise the electric field. The change of mode basis also imposes a change of coordinates in the optical phase The orthogonalisation property is implemented by the follow- space. Like in (16) the new components can also be divided ing condition in real and imaginary parts, which leads to a new coordinate Z ~0 1 3 ∗ E . Because the coordinate vectors in optical phase space are d r (ui(r, t)) u j(r, t) = δi, j, (14) real 2m-dimensional vectors, we obtain V V where V is some large volume that contains the entire phys- E~0 = OE~, (21) ical system. This assumption serves the practical purpose of allowing us to consider a discrete mode basis and on top it where O is an orthonormal transformation. However, the or- makes physical sense. Note that we do not integrate over t, thogonal transformation O on the phase space must corre- which implies that at every instant of time t we consider a spond to the unitary transformation U on the modes, which mode basis that is normalised with respect to the spatial de- imposes the constraint grees of freedom. It is practical to assume that all relevant 1 ∗ physics can be described by a (possibly large) finite number O2i−1,2 j−1 = (Ui j + Ui j), (22) of modes m. These modes now form a basis in which we can 2 1 ∗ expand any solution to Maxwell’s equations and thus we may O2i−1,2 j = − (Ui j − Ui j), (23) write 2i 1 ∗ m O2i,2 j−1 = (Ui j − Ui j), (24) (+) X 2i E (r, t) = E ju j(r, t), (15) 1 ∗ j=1 O = (U + U ). (25) 2i,2 j 2 i j i j where E are a set of complex numbers which can be written i This imposes a symplectic structure to the transformation O in terms of the real and imaginary parts such that the optical phase space, just like the phase space of (x) (p) analytical mechanics, can be treated as a symplectic space. E j = E + iE . (16) j j The conserved symplectic structure associated with this space These real and imaginary parts of the field are known as the is given by amplitude and phase quadrature, respectively. We can inter- m ! ~ (x) (p) (x) (p) 2m M 0 −1 pret these quantities E B (E , E ,..., Em , Em ) ∈ R as Ω = ω, with ω = , (26) 1 1 1 0 the coordinate in optical phase space that describes the light j=1 field. The space of solutions of Maxwell’s equations forms a such that OT ΩO = Ω. Note that Ω can be interpreted as a Hilbert space which we will call the mode space M and the matrix representation of the imaginary i, in the sense that it 6 has the properties ΩT = −Ω and Ω2 = −1 [55]. This procedure shows us that optical elements, that change the mode basis, change the associated quadrature operators In quantum optics, the electric field of light is treated as a accordingly. quantum observable Eˆ (+)(r, t). In this quantisation, the modes, Equation (30) shows us explicitly that quadrature operators i.e., the normalised solutions to Maxwell’s equations, remain qˆ( f~) andq ˆ(Ω f~) correspond to the same mode, regardless of classical objects and all the quantum features are absorbed in the mode basis. This reflects the fact that f~ generates one axis the coefficients. We can thus write in the optical phase space and Ω f~ generates the second axis X xˆ + ipˆ Eˆ (+)(r, t) = E(1) i i u (r, t), (27) that corresponds to the same mode. As such, any arbitrary i 2 i i mode comes with an associated two-dimensional phase space ~ ~ (1) that mathematically can be denoted as span( f , Ω f ). Because where Ei is a constant that carries the dimensions of the field, this phase space is uniquely associated with a specific mode, which can be interpreted as the electric field of a single pho- we introduce the notation ton. Glossing over many subtleties of the quantisation of the electromagnetic field, we recall the reader that any system that f = span( f~, Ω f~), (32) is described on phase space can be quantised through canoni- and we refer to this as “mode f”. This allows us to concentrate cal quantisation. The quadrature operatorsx ˆ j andp ˆk therefore on the multimode quantum states within this Tutorial, while follow the canonical commutation relations [x ˆ j, pˆk] = 2iδ j,k, such that they satisfy the Heisenberg relation ∆xˆ∆pˆ > 1. As the specifications of the modes can be left ambiguous. The they are introduced above, the quadrature operators are specif- modes can be seen as the physical implementations of the quantum system and are of major importance in the experi- ically related to the specific mode basis. Indeed,x ˆ j andp ˆ j are the quadrature operators that describe the field in mode mental setting as multimode quantum optics experiments rely on the manipulation of these modes. u j(r, t). Thus, when we change the basis of modes, we should change the quadrature operators accordingly in line with (21). To overcome these difficulties, it is often convenient to intro- Multimode quantum states define expectation values of the duce a basis-independent expression for the quadrature oper- field, and when we consider CV quantum optics, we primar- ators, which can be done by mapping any point in the optical ily focus on the expectation values of the quadrature operators ~ phase space f~ ∈ R2m to an observableq ˆ( f~), given by qˆ( f ). These operators are unbounded and have a continuous spectrum. The measurement of a field quadrature thus leads m X to a continuum of possible outcomes and the continuous vari- qˆ( f~) B f2 j−1 xˆ j + f2 j pˆ j. (28) able approach to quantum optics implies that this characterises j=1 quantum properties of light through the measurement of such These quadrature operators follow a generalised version of the quadrature operators. canonical commutation relation (CCR), given by Formally, we can again describe a quantum state on such a system by a density operatorρ ˆ but this description is rather in- [ˆq( f~ ), qˆ( f~ )] = −2i f~T Ω f~ , for all f~ , f~ ∈ R2m, (29) 1 2 1 2 1 2 convenient. It turns out that the quadrature operatorsq ˆ( f~) gen- We highlight the particular case where [ˆq( f~), qˆ(Ω f~)] = 2ik f~k2, erate the algebra of observables for the quantum system that such that we recover the typical form of the CCR for k f~k = 1. is comprised within our multimode light. In other words, any This highlights that Ω maps an amplitude quadrature to its observable can be approximated by a polynomial of quadra- associated phase quadrature. From a mathematical point of ture operators. This generally implies that we can fully char- view, everything is perfectly well-defined for arbitrary f~ ∈ acterise the quantum stateρ ˆ by correlation functions of the ~ ~ R2m and no normalisation conditions have to be imposed. type tr[ˆρqˆ( f1) ... qˆ( fn)]. When we know these correlation From (28) we can see that the norm of f~ can be factored out, functions for all lengths n and normalised vectors in phase such that it serves as general rescaling factor of the quadrature space, we have fully characterised the state. operator. In a physical context, when a quadrature is mea- To go beyond the information that is contained in correla- sured, it is common to renormalise measurements to units of tion functions, it is often convenient to consider probability vacuum noise, which practically means that we set k f~k = 1. distributions as a whole. For a single quadratureq ˆ( f~) we can Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we assume that k f~k = 1 introduce the characteristic function for any λ ∈ R as throughout this Tutorial. We can use these general quadrature ∞ X (iλ)n n operators to express electric field operator as χ(λ) = tr[ˆρeiλqˆ( f~)] = tr[ˆρqˆ( f~) ], (33) n! m n=0 (+) X (1) qˆ(~e j) + iqˆ(Ω~e j) Eˆ (r, t) = E u (r, t), (30) n j 2 j ~ j=1 which is clearly related to the moments tr[ˆρqˆ( f ) ]. The characteristic function is the Fourier transform of the probability and we can use the basis transformation (21) to equivalently distribution of the outcomes of observableq ˆ( f~). We can thus express the electric field operator in a different mode basis as obtain the probability distribution as m (+) X (1) qˆ(O~e j) + iqˆ(ΩO~e j) Z Eˆ (r, t) = E v (r, t). (31) 1 −ixλ j 2 j p(x) = dλ χ(λ)e . (34) j=1 2π R 7

This approach can be readily generalised to the joint probabil- Finally, the Wigner function also produces the correct expec- ity distribution for a set of commuting quadrature operators. tation values We thus consider f~1,... f~n with [ˆq( f~j), qˆ( f~k)] = 0 for all j, k, Z ~T ~T { ~ ~ } ~λ λ f~ λ f~ ··· λ f~ ~λ d~x f1 ~x ... fn ~xW(~x) = Re tr[ˆρqˆ( f1) ... qˆ( fn)] . (40) and we define for all = 1 1 + 2 2 + + n n (note that is R2m not normalised). We can then use the properties of the quadra- ~ Pn ~ Note that considering the real part of tr[ˆρqˆ( f~ ) ... qˆ( f~ ) is es- ture operators to constructq ˆ(λ) = k=1 λkqˆ( fk) and define the 1 n function sentially equivalent to considering symmetric ordering of the operators. Regardless of these nice properties the Wigner χ(~λ) = tr[ˆρeiqˆ(~λ)]. (35) function is by itself not a well-defined probability distribution. Due to complementarity, the function can reach negative val- This function generates all the correlations between observ- ues for some states. This Wigner negativity is consistent with ablesq ˆ( f~1),..., qˆ( f~n) and it can be used to obtain the multi- the impossibility to jointly describe the measurement statis- variate probability distribution tics of all quadratures while also complying with the laws of Z quantum physics (notably the Heisenberg relation). The pro- 1 ~ ~ −i~λT ~x found relation between negativity of the Wigner functions and p(~x) = n dλ χ(λ)e , (36) (2π) Rn joint measurability is perhaps most strikingly illustrated by its connection to contextuality [59]. . The formalism of Wigner ~ where dλ = dλ1 ... dλn. The function p(~x) describes the prob- functions can be used to construct phase-space representations ability density to jointly obtain x1,..., xn as measurement out- of arbitrary observables by introducing comes for the measurements ofq ˆ( f~1),..., qˆ( f~n), respectively. iqˆ(~λ) This approach relies on the fact that commuting observables χA(~λ) = tr[Aeˆ ], (41) can be jointly measured and what we presented to derive (34) and (36) is ultimately just classical probability theory. How- such that the Wigner representation is given by Z ever, not all quadrature operators commute such that joint 1 T W (~x) = d~λ χ (~λ)e−i~λ ~x. (42) measurements are not always possible. This implies that a A 2m A (2π) R2m quantum state cannot be straightforwardly defined by a probability distribution of the optical phase space. These Wigner representations have the appealing property that Intriguingly, we can carry out the same procedure for a full Z ˆ m ∗ multimode system over a set of m modes. To this goal, let us tr[Aρˆ] = (4π) d~x WA(~x)W(~x). (43) define the quantum characteristic function R2m When Aˆ is an observable and thus has Aˆ = Aˆ†, its Wigner χ : R2m → C : ~λ 7→ χ(~λ) tr[ˆρeiqˆ(~λ)]. (37) ∗ B function will be real such that WA(~x) = WA(~x). However, it may sometimes be useful to extend the formalism to more This function, defined on the full optical phase space, can be general operators. As such the entire theory of continuous- used to generate all correlation functions between all quadra- variable quantum systems can be developed using Wigner ture operators. As such, it does characterise the full quan- functions. tum state, but it is common practice to rather study its inverse Fourier transform which is known as the Wigner function [56– Several aspects of the phase-space representations in this 58] section are reminiscent of earlier results in SectionIIA which Z was fully developed in a language of particles (also known as 1 T W ~x ~λ χ ~λ e−i~λ ~x. ( ) B 2m d ( ) (38) a discrete-variable approach). Indeed, the algebra of operators (2π) R2m that is generated by the creation and annihilation operators is This function has many appealing properties even though it actually the same as the algebra generated by the quadrature is not a probability distribution but rather a quasiprobability operators. To formalise this, we must first stress that the op- distribution. First of all, the Wigner function is normalised, tical phase space is isomorphic to an m-dimensional complex R Hilbert space which can equally be interpreted as the single- i.e., R2m d~x W(~x) = 1. Furthermore, its marginals consistently describe all the joint probability distributions for sets of com- particle Hilbert space of a photon. Formally, this equivalence muting quadratures in the system. Formally, this implies that is constructed through the bijection (see also AppendixA1) X p(~x) of (36) can be obtained by integrating over all the phase ~ 2m E f ∈ R 7→ ( f2 j−1 + i f2 j) ϕ j ∈ H, (44) space axes that are not contained within span( f~ ,... f~ ). To 1 n j do so, let us introduce the n-dimensional vector ~xM that is associated with the measured quadratures, and the 2m − n di- E where { ϕ j } is an arbitrary basis of H. We can introduce the mensional vectors ~xc which describe all other axes in phase operators space. An arbitrary point in phase space can thus be written 1 as ~x = ~xM ⊕ ~xc. Then we find that aˆ( f~) = [ˆq( f~) + iqˆ(Ω f~)], Z 2 (45) † 1 P(~xM) = d~xc W(~xM ⊕ ~xc). (39) aˆ ( f~) = [ˆq( f~) − iqˆ(Ω f~)]. R2m−n 2 8

By using (44), we can naturally associate these operators C∗-algebras are essential tools as they allow to reconstruct the to creation and annihilation operators on the single particle whole framework of Hilbert spaces based on representation Hilbert space. We retrieve the canonical commutation rela- theory of abstract algebras (which is essentially the idea of tion canonical quantisation). A highly formal and detailed treatment that considers all these subtleties for bosonic systems a f~ , a† f~ f~T f~ − i f~T f~ , [ˆ( 1) ˆ ( 2)] = 1 2 1 Ω 2 (46) is found in [41]. The key idea is to rather consider a set of which can be connected to the inner product on the Hilbert bounded operators that describes the same algebra of observ- space H via (44). ables [60, 61] and are known as the displacement operators: The deﬁnition of creation and annihilation operators allows ˆ −iqˆ(Ωα~)/2 us to make sense of the vacuum state in our phase space pic- D(α~) = e , (53) ture. The vacuum state is completely characterised by the where α~ ∈ R2m need not be normalised. Again, we can use property the isomorphism (44) to identify the displacement operator on the quantised phase space to a displacement operator on aˆ( f~) |0i = 0, for all f~ ∈ R2m. (47) Fock space. These operators can be seen as generators of the This simple fact can be used to evaluate the quantum charac- quadrature operators and they act in a very natural way on teristic function them:

i[â†(~λ)+aˆ(~λ)] † T χ0(~λ) = tr(|0i h0| e ) (48) Dˆ (α~)ˆq( f~)Dˆ (α~) = qˆ( f~) + α~ f~, (54) ∞ n X i T = h0| [â†(~λ) + aˆ(~λ)]n |0i (49) which means that the value α~ f~ is added to the measurement n! n=0 outcomes ofq ˆ( f~). The displacement operator can be com- X∞ k~λk2n bined according to the rule = − (50) n i T 2 n! α~ Ωα~ 2 n=0 Dˆ (α~ 1)Dˆ (α~ 2) = Dˆ (α~ 1 + α~ 2)e 4 1 . (55)  ~ 2   kλk  This rule is yet another representation of the canonical com- = exp −  . (51)  2  mutation relation and it generates the same algebra of observables. This implies that any observable Aˆ can be written as To obtain equation (50) we need a considerable amount of a linear combination of displacement operators. We use the h | † ~ ~ n | i combinatorics to evaluate 0 [â (λ) + aˆ(λ)] 0 . In general, it Hilbert-Schmidt inner-product hAˆ, Bî = tr[Aˆ†Bˆ] to make † ~ † ~ ~ ~ HS can be shown that h0| aˆ (λ1) ... aˆ (λk)â(λk+1) ... aˆ(λk+l) |0i = this explicit 0. Thus it suffices to cast [â†(~λ) + aˆ(~λ)]n in normal order- Z ing and extract the term proportional to identity. Even though Aˆ = d~λ hDˆ (2Ω~λ), AîHSDˆ (2Ω~λ) straightforward, this calculation is quite cumbersome and thus R2m we do not present the details. Z (56) ~ ˆ ˆ ~ ˆ ~ From (51) the Wigner function can be obtained via an in- = dλ tr[AD(−2Ωλ)]D(2Ωλ), R2m verse Fourier transformation that leads to − 1 k~xk2 and we can readily identify that e 2 W0(~x) = . (52) ˆ ˆ ~ ∗ ~ 2π tr[AD(−2Ωλ)] = χA(λ). (57) This Wigner function describes a Gaussian distribution on the It can then directly be seen that phase space with unit variance along every axis. We can thus Z use (40) to see that the vacuum state saturates Heisenberg’s ˆ ~ ∗ ~ ˆ ~ tr[Aρˆ] = dλ χA(λ)tr[D(2Ωλ)ˆρ] (58) inequality, i.e., ∆qˆ( f~)∆qˆ(Ω f~) = 1. R2m Z ~ ∗ ~ ~ The quadrature operators thus generate the same algebra = dλ χA(λ)χ(λ). (59) R2m of observables as the creation and annihilation operators. However, both sets of observables tend to cause mathemati- And we immediately obtain (43) via Plancherel’s theorem [62, cal problems because they are unbounded operators [42, 60– 63]. 62]. The unboundedness means that, when |Ψi is contained The displacement operators also implement a unitary op- in the Fock space, there is no guarantee thatq ˆ( f~) |Ψi will eration on a quantum state. This unitary operation has a re- also be contain in the Fock space. One way of solving this markably simple effect when it is expressed on the level of the problem explicitly is by only considering states for which Wigner function. Via the property (55), we can calculate that h | ~ 2 | i ∞ ~ | i T ~ Ψ qˆ( f ) Ψ < , such thatq ˆ( f ) Ψ is a well-defined state. ρˆ 7→ Dˆ (α~)ˆρDˆ †(α~) =⇒ χ(~λ) 7→ χ(~λ)e−iα~ λ. (60) Physically this assumption makes sense, as it ultimately implies that we only consider states with finite energies. How- Performing the inverse Fourier transform of these quantum ever, the unboundedness of quadrature operators also disqual- characteristic functions leads to ifies them as well-defined generators of the C∗-algebra of ob- D(α~) servables (since elements of such algebras must be bounded). W(~x) 7→ W(~x − α~). (61) 9

The displacement operator thus literally implements a dis- This naturally introduces the Q-function, given by placement of the Wigner function by a vector α~ ∈ R2m in 1 phase space. QA(α~) = α~ Aˆ α~ , (69) (4π)m Displacement operators are also well-known as the gener- and in particular for the quantum stateρ ˆ we ﬁnd that ators of the coherent states that were introduced in (10). We can combine the bijection between phase space and Hilbert 1 Q(α~) = α~ ρˆ α~ . (70) space (44), the expression of creation and annihilation oper- (4π)m ators in terms of quadratures (45), and the deﬁnition of the displacement operator (53) to derive that The latter is of particular interest because it represents the quantum stateρ ˆ as an actual probability distribution. This

α~ = Dˆ (α~) |0i . (62) leads us to the general identity that Z Z By combining (52) and (61), we immediately see that the tr[AˆBˆ] = dα~PA(α~)QB(α~) = dα~QA(α~)PB(α~). (71) Wigner function for such a coherent state is given by R2m R2m

− 1 k~x−α~k2 Thus finishing our introduction to the various descriptions of e 2 Wα(~x) = W0(~x − α~) = . (63) the quantum states and observables of bosonic many-particle 2π systems. We emphasise that there is a slight difference between the coherent states as defined here, and coherent states as sometimes The Q-function has a clear physical interpretation. It is di- introduced in literature. The difference is a factor two, which rectly proportional to the fidelity of the stateρ ˆ with respect appears because we normalised the shot noise to 1 rather than to a target coherent state α~ . Furthermore, it is always pos- to 1/2. As such, our coherent states have an energy in mode f itive, which implies that it is a well-defined probability dis- which is given by tribution. Because we can write α~ ρˆ α~ = tr[ˆρ α~ α~ ], we can use (43) and (52) to express the Q-function in terms of the † 1 T 2 T 2 Wigner function as α~ aˆ ( f~)a( f~) α~ = [(α~ f~) + (α~ Ω f~) ]. (64) 4 Z Q(α~) = d~x W(~x)W0(~x − α~). (72) The coherent states lead us to two other representations R2m of quantum states and observables: the Q-function and P- function. The definition of the P-function is related to the idea To satisfy both (43) and (71), we find that that coherent states form an overcomplete basis of Fock space. 1 Z − This implies, notably, that for a m-dimensional single particle W(~x) = m dα~ P(α~)W0(~x α~) (73) (4π) 2m Hilbert space R Z − 1 k~x−α~k2 1 e 2 Z 1 = m dα~ P(α~) m . (74) 1 (4π) R2m (2π) m dα~ α~ α~ = , (65) (4π) R2m In turn, this implies that with 1 the identity operator. We can then show that any ob- Z − 1 k~β−α~k2 servable can be written as [5,6] 1 ~ ~ e 4 Q(α~) = m dβ P(β) m . (75) Z (8π) R2m (2π) ˆ 1 A = m dα~PA(α~) α~ α~ , (66) (4π) R2m These results thus show that all these phase-space representations are ultimately related to one another through convolution where we refer to PA(α~) as the P-function of the observable or deconvolution with a Gaussian (recall that the Wigner func- Aˆ. Similarly, we can represent a density of operatorρ ˆ by its P- tion of the vacuum (52) is a Gaussian distribution on phase function P(α~). The reader should be warned that P-functions space). One can now follow Ref. [64] to define a continuous often have rather unpleasant mathematical properties. In par- family of phase-space representations Wσ for σ ∈ [−1, 1] ticular, they often are not actual functions and can be highly !m Z − 1 k~β−α~k2 singular. 1 e 2[1−σ] W (α~) = d~β P(~β) , (76) The P-function naturally comes with a dual representation σ m 4π[1 − σ] R2m (2π) that is known as the Q-function. As often in quantum physics, what actually counts is the expectation value of an observable where we convolute the P-function with an ever increasing in a specific state. We can use the P-function to write Gaussian, smoothening its features. We can then see that Z Z 1 ˆ m W W tr[Aˆρˆ] = dα~PA(α~) α~ ρˆ α~ (67) tr[Aρˆ] = (4π) dα~ A,−σ(α~) σ(α~). (77) m m (4π) R2m R2 Z 1 = dα~P(α~) α~ Aˆ α~ . (68) We find, notably, that W(~x) = Wσ=0(~x), Q(α~) = Wσ=−1(α~), m m (4π) R2m and P(α~) = (4π) Wσ=1(α~). This shows that the phase-space 10 representation becomes more regular when decreasing made this method unfeasible for most states. Even though σ. Other generalised probability distributions have been there was an early demonstration of the method for coherent considered in literature [65, 66], often to circumvent the states [69], it is only due to recent developments in detector unappealing properties of the P-function. In this Tutorial, we technologies that the method the method can be applied to mainly use the Wigner function and (to a lesser extent) the more general states [70, 71]. The idea was also other settings Q-function, as they are suitable tools to classify non-Gaussian [72], and was used in pioneering CV experiments with trapped quantum states. The P-function is often used in literature to ions, such as [73], and in cavity-QED [74, 75]. characterise the non-classicality of a state, where the intuition is that classical light is a mixture of coherent states (and thus its P-function is a probability distribution) [5,6]. C. Discrete and continuous variables

Before we close this introductory section on the phase space In SubsectionIIA, we have introduced a many-boson sys- description of CV quantum systems, we introduce one final tem, regardless of the physical realisation of these bosons. tool that often comes in handy. The Wigner function can it- Such a many-boson system and its Fock space are built upon self be obtained as the expectation value of an operator [67]. the structure that is determined by the single-particle Hilbert Formally, we write space H. The Fock space that is constructed accordingly has 1 a rich structure that is further explored in the Tutorial [51]. In W(~x) = tr[ˆρ∆ˆ (~x)]. (78) optics, the bosons that we consider are photons, and quantum (2π)m optics can thus be seen as the theory of a many-boson sys- Using linearity and (38), we obtain the special case tem in the context ofIIA. This approach to quantum optics is Z referred to as the DV approach. ˆ ~ 1 ~ iqˆ(~λ) In SubsectionIIB, we contrast this with the CV approach ∆(0) = m dλ e . (79) (2π) R2m to quantum optics. This approach relies on the measurement of the field quadratures, and can thus been seen as a bosonic By using techniques based on (54) and (55), we can show that quantum field theory. Therefore we started this approach by introducing the classical electric field and its modes, which we ˆ ~ ~ ˆ ~ − ~ ∆(0)ˆq( f )∆(0) = qˆ( f ). (80) subsequently quantised through canonical quantisation. We introduced the notion of optical phase space as a general way This means that ∆ˆ (~0) is the parity operator. Its eigenstates are of describing CV quantum systems. The phase space is di- the Fock states, since rectly related to the modes of the field and manipulations of † † n † † the modes also cause changes in the optical phase space. Nev- ∆ˆ (~0)a ( f~1) ... a ( f~n) |0i = (−1) a ( f~1) ... a ( f~n) |0i . (81) ertheless, any system with a phase space can be described by Thus we can formally identify these techniques. Both of these approaches are ultimately equivalent. ∆ˆ (~0) = (−1)Nˆ , (82) Bosonic creation and annihilation operators describe the same algebra of observables as bosonic quadrature operators, which where Nˆ is the number operator. We define this operator by means that on the level of mathematical structure, both ap- introducing a mode basis {~e1, Ω~e1,...,~em, Ω~em} of the optical proaches can be interchanged and even mixed. This is strik- ˆ Pm † phase space, such that N B j=1 a (~e j)a(~e j). This definition ingly clear when the Wigner function, i.e, the phase-space can be combined with the properties of the displacement op- representation of quantum states and observables that is most erator to obtain that naturally associated with field quadratures, turns out to be directly measurable by counting photons. Notably, this implies ˆ Nˆ ∆(~x) = Dˆ (−~x)(−1) Dˆ (~x). (83) that when it comes to mathematical structures, bosonic particles such as atoms can also be described on phase space. Note that what we just obtained is the operator equivalent of The real difference between CV and DV approaches is of a δ-function, which becomes even more explicit when we ex- an experimental nature. What is important is not the observ- plicitly write down its Wigner representation ables that are technically present in the quantum system, but the observables that are practically measured in the lab. For 1 0 W 0 (~x) = δ(~x − ~x ), (84) ∆(~x ) (4π)m the CV approach we typically use homodyne detection to measure quadratures [7, 76], whereas in DV approaches we which follows directly from (43) and (78). count photons [77]. This result may seem somewhat artificial, but it turns out to be extremely useful. The observable ∆ˆ (~x) can be measured A common source of misunderstanding between the DV experimentally by counting photons, which means that the and CV community stems from the role they attribute to the combination of photon counting and displacements directly single-particle Hilbert space and optical phase space, respec- allows us to reconstruct the Wigner function of the quantum tively. As we argued, both spaces are (at least for a finite- state [68]. Up to recently, the lack of good photon-number- dimensional number of modes) isomorphic, see AppendixA1 resolving detectors in the optical frequency range has long for some additional mathematical intuition. However, the 11

Hilbert space of a photon, which is inherently a quantum par- value of the field quadrature ticle, is often interpreted as a quantum object. At the same time, the optical phase space represents the field quadratures tr[ˆρqˆ( f~)] = ~ξT f~, (86) of optical modes and is thus rather considered to be a classical object. The origin of this confusion lies in the fact that the similarly, we find for the covariance matrix optical modes, i.e., normalised solutions of Maxwell’s equations, also form a Hilbert space that has its origins entirely in tr[ˆρqˆ( f~1)ˆq( f~2)] − tr[ˆρqˆ( f~1)]tr[ˆρqˆ( f~2)] classical physics. (87) = f~T V f~ − i f~T Ω f~ . The optical modes are the vessels that contain photons 1 2 1 2 much in the same way as a set of electrons contains spins. These quantities can thus be obtained for arbitrary quantum The crucial difference is that optical modes are not uniquely states, but for Gaussian states the covariance matrix and the defined, we can manipulate them, transform them from one mean field also determine all higher order expectation values. mode basis to another with an interferometer and thus con- The most elegant way to see this is via the multivariate cumu- sider new superpositions of modes. In typical experimental lants (also known as truncated correlation functions), which settings, one would not consider a superposition of two elec- vanish beyond order two [4]. This fact implies that all prop- trons a new well-defined electron. erties of Gaussian states can ultimately be deduced from their Because creation and displacement operators always act in mean field and -often more importantly- from their covariance one specific mode (i.e., they are generated by a single vector matrix. on the single-photon Hilbert space), single-photon states and Hitherto, we have encountered the vacuum state |0i and the coherent states are always single-mode states. We may expand coherent states α~ as examples of Gaussian states. Both of this single mode in a different mode basis, which can even be the examples have a covariance matrix V = 1. However, there done physically by sending the state through a beamsplitter, is much larger range of possible covariance matrices available to create some form of entanglement in the quantum states. and they have to satisfy certain constraints [78]. At first in- However, this entanglement is just a manifestation of the fact stance, we note that a covariance matrix must be positive. An that we are not considering the optimal mode basis. In the CV additional constraint is obtained by imposing that the variance approach, this has led to the notion of “intrinsic” properties ∆2qˆ( f~) > 0 for all f~ in phase space. Eq. (87) then directly [53], which are those properties of quantum states that are in- ~T − ~ dependent of the chosen mode basis. The purity and entropy yields that f (V iΩ) f > 0, which implies that V > 0 and − of a state are notable examples, but one can also introduce a suggests that (V iΩ) > 0. However, the latter is not obvious, ~ notion of “intrinsic entanglement” to refer to a state that is en- since f are real vectors, whereas (V − iΩ) is a complex ma- tangled in any possible mode basis. In the next subsection, we trix. We thus need an additional ingredient: the Heisenberg introduce Gaussian states which will later be shown to never inequality. Formally, this inequality can be obtained through be intrinsically entangled. Robertson’s more general inequality [79], such that we find:

2 2 2 1 ∆ qˆ( f~ )∆ qˆ( f~ ) > tr{ρˆ[ˆq( f~ ), qˆ( f~ )]} . (88) 1 2 4 1 2 D. Gaussian States We can now apply the CCR (29) to obtain the general form

Now that we have introduced phase-space representations 2 2 ~ 2 ~ ~T ~ for states and observables of CV quantum systems, we still ∆ qˆ( f1)∆ qˆ( f2) > f1 Ω f2 . (89) need one building block before we can tackle multimode non- Gaussian states: a good understanding of Gaussian states. It On the other hand, the definition (87) of the covariance matrix is not the goal of this subsection to delve deep into decades can be used to translate this result to worth of research on Gaussian states. We rather highlight a 2 few key results that set apart Gaussian quantum states from ~T ~ ~T ~ ~T ~ f1 V f1 f2 V f2 > f1 Ω f2 . (90) the rest of the vast states space. For more extended reviews, we refer the reader to [8,9]. These states are also extensively This identity can then be used to prove ( f~T −i f~T )(V −iΩ)( f~ + studied in the mathematical physics literature under the name 1 2 1 ~ ~ ~ 2m “quasi-free states of the CCR algebra”. i f2) > 0 for all f1, f2 ∈ R . As a consequence, we find that Gaussian states are by definition states that have a Wigner − function which is a Gaussian: V iΩ > 0, (91)

− 1 (~x−~ξ)T V−1(~x−~ξ) an important constraint on the covariance matrix V, which can e 2 WG(~x) = √ , (85) be understood as combining the positivity conditions and the (2π)m det V Heisenberg inequality. To further understand the structure of covariance matrices where ~ξ is referred to as the mean field (or displacement) and and the Gaussian states that they describe, we highlight some V is known as the covariance matrix. With (40), we can ver- important results on symplectic matrices. The first of these ify that the mean field indeed corresponds to the expectation results is Williamson’s decomposition [10], which states that 12 any positive-definite real matrix V can be diagonalised by a This means that we can always find a set of symplectic T symplectic matrix S (i.e., a matrix with S ΩS = Ω): eigenvectors {~e1, Ω~e1,...,~em, Ω~em} of a pure Gaussian state’s 2q ~e s T covariance matrix, which have the properties that ∆ ˆ( j) = j V = S NS, with N = diag[ν , ν , ν , ν , . . . , ν , ν ]. (92) 2 1 1 2 2 m m and ∆ qˆ(Ω~e j) = 1/s j, such that the Heisenberg relation is saturated: ∆2qˆ(~e )∆2qˆ(Ω~e ) = 1. At the same time, we find The values ν , . . . ν are also known as the symplectic spec- j j 1 m that clearly either ∆2qˆ(~e ) of ∆2qˆ(Ω~e ) is smaller than one trum of V. From Heisenberg’s relation, we then find the addi- j j (and thus below shot noise). tional constraint that ν1, . . . , νm > 1, in other words the values in the symplectic spectrum are larger than shot noise. It now becomes straightforward to see the Heisenberg’s relation also Gaussian states naturally come with the notion of Gaus- implies that sian channels [81], they are the completely-positive trace- preserving transformations that map Gaussian states into other det V > 1. (93) Gaussian states. We have already seen that the displacement operators are unitary transformations that fulfil this condition. It thus becomes apparent that the Heisenberg inequality is sat- Because any Gaussian transformation Γ preserves the general urated when det V = 1. The states for which this is the case shape of the Wigner function (85), we can simply describe the must have a covariance matrix V = S T S . Gaussian channel Γ in terms of its actions on the mean field The Gaussian states for which the Heisenberg inequality is and the covariance matrix: saturated turn out to be the pure Gaussian states. Recall that 2 Γ T the purity of a quantum state is given by µ = tr[ˆρ ]. This V 7→ XVX + Vc, (98) quantity can be directly calculated from the Wigner function Γ via (43). We then find for an arbitrary Gaussian state ~ξ 7→ X~ξ + α.~ (99) Z m 2 1 The vector α~ simply serves to displace the entire Gaussian to µG = (4π) d~x WG(~x) = √ . (94) R2m det V a different location in phase space. On the level of the covariance matrix, X transforms reshapes the initial covariance Alternatively, we may use the symplectic spectrum to express matrix, whereas V describes the addition of Gaussian classi- µ Qm ν−1 c G = k=1 k . This shows us that a Gaussian state is pure cal noise. Both can a priori be any real matrices, as long as if and only if its covariance matrix is a positive symplectic they satisfy the constraint matrix, i.e., it can be written as V = S T S . The class of states with a covariance matrix given by V = T Vc − iΩ + iXΩX > 0. (100) S T S is much larger than just the vacuum and coherent states 1 T with V = . The additional states turn out to have asym- This constraint derives from the demand that XVX + Vc is a T metric noise in their quadratures, and because the Heisenberg well-defined covariance matrix, and therefore XVX + Vc − inequality is saturated this implies that some quadratures have iΩ > 0. Because V is a well-defined covariance matrix, X(V − T T less noise than the vacuum state. The states with such covari- iΩ)X > 0 and thus it can be seen that XVX + Vc is also ance matrices are therefore known as squeezed states. To for- a well-defined covariance matrix whenever (100) holds. This malise this intuition, we consider the Bloch-Messiah decom- simple argument proves (100) is a sufficient condition for Γ to position (which is known in mathematics and classical me- transform the covariance matrix of the initial state into a new chanics as Euler’s decomposition) [11, 80]. Any symplectic bona fide covariance matrix. matrix S can be decomposed as follows: An important case is obtained when we impose that Γ con-

1/2 −1/2 1/2 −1/2 serves the purity of the state and is thus a unitary transfor- S = O1KO2, with K = diag[s , s ,..., s , s ], (95) 1 1 m m mation. It then immediately follows that Vc = 0, since there cannot be any classical noise. The displacement α~ is simply where O1 and O2 are orthogonal symplectic matrices, i.e., T 1 T implemented by a displacement operator, and the constraint O j O j = and O j ΩO j = Ω. We can then see that for any pure Gaussian state, we find (100), combined with the demand that purity is conserved implies that X is a symplectic matrix. In other words, a Gaussian T T 2 T V = S S = O K O. (96) unitary transformation Uˆ G satisfies V 7→ S VS . Another relevant example is the case of uniform Gaussian losses, where We have already encountered orthogonal symplectic transfor- p we set X = 1 − η1, Vc = η1 and α~ = 0, with the positive mations in (21), where we associated them with transforma- value η 6 1 denoting the amount of loss. tions of mode bases. Thus, if we find a set of optical modes More generally, the action of a Gaussian channel on an ar- that are prepared in a pure Gaussian state, we can always find bitrary state can be understood from its action on exp[iqˆ(~λ)], a different mode basis in which the state is given by which can be proven to take the form   s1  " #   Γ T T 1 T  1/s1  ~ 7→ ~ ~ − ~ ~   exp[iqˆ(λ)] exp iqˆ(X λ) + iα~ λ λ Vcλ . (101) 0 T  .  2 V = OVO =  ..  . (97)    s  We can then calculate the quantum characteristic function and  m  1/sm use some properties of Fourier transforms to find that the 13

Wigner function transforms as states [84] and then extend it to a hierarchy based on stellar rank [38]. A different approach is provided by considering Z − 1 (~y−α~)T V−1(~y−α~) Γ e 2 c that the negativity of the Wigner function can be used as a W(~x) 7→ d~y W(X−1~x − ~y) √ . (102) m genuine signature of non-classicality [85]. However, before R2m (2π) det Vc we attack these different measures to structure non-Gaussian For Gaussian unitary transformations we find the appealing quantum states, we contrast some properties of Gaussian and result that W(~x) 7→ W(S −1(~x−α~)). This means that a Gaussian non-Gaussian states. unitary transformation is simply a coordinate transformation Fig.1 provides an overview that can be used as a brief guide on phase space. to understand the structure of non-Gaussian states. We at- Proving that any completely positive Gaussian channel Γ is tempt to highlight how the different quantities used to struc- of the form (102) with condition (100), is a challenging task. ture the non-Gaussian part of state space are interconnected. The result was first obtained in [82, 83], using the language of C∗-algebras. The proof is rather technical and we will not go into details here. A. Gaussian vs. Non-Gaussian The paradigm of Gaussian channels is also useful to structure general Gaussian states. One may for example wonder Gaussian states have many extraordinary properties that set which Gaussian channel would transform the vacuum state them apart from non-Gaussian states. First of all, pure Gaus- into the Gaussian state with covariance matrix V. In gen- sian states turn out to be the only quantum states that saturate eral, there is no unique solution to this question, but there is a the uncertainty relation. The easiest way to see this is by de- straightforward route to find an answer. First, take any sym- scribing arbitrary pure states in terms of their wave functions. T plectic matrix S that satisfies V − S S > 0 (the Williamson The wave functions associated with amplitude quadratures decomposition guarantees that this is always possible). This qˆ( f~) and those associated with phase quadraturesq ˆ(Ω f~) are implies that there is a positive-definite matrix Vc such that T related by a Fourier transform. This fact can then be used to V = S S +Vc. As such, an arbitrary Gaussian state can always show that only Gaussian wave functions saturate the Heisen- be decomposed as berg inequality. The extension to arbitrary mixed states can Z be achieved via Jensen’s inequality, which emphasises that no −1 − 1 (~y−α~)T V−1(~y−α~) WG(~x) = d~y W0(S ~x − ~y)e 2 c . (103) mixed states can saturate the uncertainty relation. Let us con- R2m P 2 ~ sider a mixed stateρ ˆ = k pk |Ψki hΨk| with variances ∆ qˆ( f ). The symplectic operation that is applied to the vacuum is 2 ~ We also introduce the variances ∆kqˆ( f ) for the pure states known as multimode squeezing in optics. These transfor- |Ψki. From Jensen’s inequality [86], it follows that mations are fully equivalent to Bogoliubov transformations X 2 ~ 2 ~ that are regularly used in condensed matter physics [4,8]. ∆ qˆ( f ) > pk∆kqˆ( f ). (104) Combined with a displacement, this operation provides the k most general operation that maps quadrature operators into well-defined quadrature operators. For Heisenberg’s inequality, we calculate X 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 2 ~ 2 ~ Now that we have introduced the basic concepts of Gaus- ∆ qˆ( f )∆ qˆ(Ω f ) > pk∆kqˆ( f )∆kqˆ(Ω f ) k sian states, we are equipped to start exploring their non- X 2 ~ 2 ~ (105) Gaussian counterparts. Several other important properties of + pk pl∆kqˆ( f )∆l qˆ(Ω f ) Gaussian states will be introduced along the way to stress just k,l how peculiar these Gaussian states are compared to the rest of > 1. state space. The presence of cross terms highlights that even when all the pure states in the mixture saturate the inequality, the mixture III. NON-GAUSSIAN QUANTUM STATES does not. The only possible exception is the case where the state is pure. Contrary to Gaussian states with their elegant Wigner func- That only pure Gaussian states saturate the Heisenberg in- tion and properties that can be nicely deduced from the covari- equality may seem like an innocent observation, but it has an ance matrix, the set of non-Gaussian states is vast and wild. important implication for non-Gaussian states. The Heisen- Literally all states with Wigner functions that are not Gaussian berg inequality can be formulated entirely in terms of the co- are contained within this class. To give an idea of the enor- variance matrix. We showed in (92) that the inequality is sat- mous variety, one can consider that highly exotic states such urated if and only if the covariance matrix is symplectic, i.e., as Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states [31] and Schrodinger¨ cat V = S T S . Furthermore, we showed in (94) that a Gaussian states inhabit the set of non-Gaussian states together with the state is pure if and only if its covariance matrix is symplectic states that describe single photons and even certain convex V = S T S . The fact that no non-Gaussian states can saturate mixtures of Gaussian states. Throughout the years, there have the inequality thus implies that non-Gaussian states can never been considerable efforts to structure the set of non-Gaussian have a symplectic covariance matrix V = S T S . This is a first states. We will introduce the notion of quantum non-Gaussian hint of the special role played by Gaussian states. 14

Quantum non-Gaussian states Wigner-negative states Fock states Photon-added states … Photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum Schrödinger cat states GKP states

Stellar rank AAAB7XicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69BIvgqSRF1GPRi8cK9gPaUDbbTbt2sxt2J0Io/Q9ePCji1f/jzX/jts1BWx8MPN6bYWZemAhu0PO+ncLa+sbmVnG7tLO7t39QPjxqGZVqyppUCaU7ITFMcMmayFGwTqIZiUPB2uH4dua3n5g2XMkHzBIWxGQoecQpQSu1elxGmPXLFa/qzeGuEj8nFcjR6Je/egNF05hJpIIY0/W9BIMJ0cipYNNSLzUsIXRMhqxrqSQxM8Fkfu3UPbPKwI2UtiXRnau/JyYkNiaLQ9sZExyZZW8m/ud1U4yugwmXSYpM0sWiKBUuKnf2ujvgmlEUmSWEam5vdemIaELRBlSyIfjLL6+SVq3qX1Zr9xeV+k0eRxFO4BTOwYcrqMMdNKAJFB7hGV7hzVHOi/PufCxaC04+cwx/4Hz+AMR5j0M= Gaussian states Schrödinger cat1 states GKP states (stellar rank 0) Coherent states Stellar rank 1

AAACM3icbVBLSwMxGMzWV62vVY9egkUQhCVbqvZY9CKeKtgHdJeSTdM2NJtdkqxQlv4nL/4RD4J4UMSr/8F0uwdtHQgZZuYj+SaIOVMaoVersLK6tr5R3Cxtbe/s7tn7By0VJZLQJol4JDsBVpQzQZuaaU47saQ4DDhtB+Prmd9+oFKxSNzrSUz9EA8FGzCCtZF69i1yzivQ4yajIYKexGLIqcezCyJPZsYZRE61lqfcxZQ7T/XsMnJQBrhM3JyUQY5Gz372+hFJQio04Viproti7adYakY4nZa8RNEYkzEe0q6hAodU+Wm28xSeGKUPB5E0R2iYqb8nUhwqNQkDkwyxHqlFbyb+53UTPaj5KRNxoqkg84cGCYc6grMCYZ9JSjSfGIKJZOavkIywxESbmkumBHdx5WXSqjjuhVO5q5brV3kdRXAEjsEpcMElqIMb0ABNQMAjeAHv4MN6st6sT+trHi1Y+cwh+APr+we/96iq Squeezed vacuum 0.52 0 0 +0.48 1 1 Stellar rank n ≥ 2 | ih | | ih | Thermal states 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 n n aˆ† ⇢ˆG (â) n n Non-Gaussian Mixtures tr[(ˆ a) (â†) ⇢ˆG] of Gaussian states (Stellar rank 0) 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 1 ~↵ ~↵ + ~↵ ~↵ 2 | ih | | ih | ⇣ ⌘ Figure 1. Overview of the different types of non-Gaussian states that can be found in state space. The different aspects will all be considered throughout Section III. Here we attempt to show the stellar hierarchy and how it differentiates itself from the convex hull (mixtures) of Gaussian states. Furthermore, we emphasise that the stellar rank and Wigner negativity are different quantifiers of non-Gaussianity. It should be noted that all non-Gaussian pure states are Wigner-negative states, but we can find states that are not mixtures of Gaussian states without Wigner negativity. For all the classes, we provide examples of states that belong to this group, the Wigner functions for several of these examples are shown in Fig.2.

A more general result along these lines states that for all measures, this result can be used to show that for all states statesρ ˆ with the same covariance matrix V, the Gaussian state with the same covariance matrix, Gaussian states are the least always has the highest von Neumann entropy [13]. First of entangled ones (entanglement will be much more extensively all, note that entropy −tr[ˆρ logρ ˆ] is conserved under unitary discussed in SectionV). However, several common entangle- transformations. Due to the Williamson decomposition (92), ment measures, e.g., the logarithmic negativity [87] and the we can write any Gaussian state as entanglement of formation [88], are not super-additive. At the heart of these extremal properties lies the central Om ˆ ˆ † limit theorem [4, 89–91]. There are many versions of the cen- ρˆG = UG ρˆn j UG, (106) j=1 tral limit theorem in quantum physics, but we will stick to what is probably the simplest one. As always, we consider † our optical phase space R2m, but this time, we will take N whereρ ˆn j is a thermal state of the Hamiltoniana ˆ j aˆ j with average particle number n j = (ν j − 1)/2. From statistical mechan- copies of it, which implies that we are dealing with a phase ics, we know that thermal states are the quantum states that space R2Nm = R2m ⊕ · · · ⊕ R2m for the full system. We can maximise the von Neumann entropy for a given temperature then embed a vector ~λ ∈ R2m in the jth of these N copies via (here fixed by the occupations n j). ~λ j B ~0 ⊕ · · · ⊕~0 ⊕~λ ⊕~0 · · · ⊕~0 and introduce the new averaged It turns out that Gaussian states are limiting cases for many operator quantities [12]. This result shows that for a range of function- XN als f on the state space, we find that f (ˆρ) > f (ˆρG), where ~ 1 ~ qN (λ) B √ qˆ(λ j). (107) ρˆG is the Gaussian state with the same covariance matrix as N ρˆ. Apart from some more technical aspects such as continu- j=1 ity, f must have two important features: it must be conserved It is rather straightforward to see that these observables fol- under (a certain class of) unitary operations f (Uˆ ρÛˆ †) = f (ˆρ) low the canonical commutation relation. We can now restrict and it must be strongly super-additive f (ˆρ) > f (ˆρ1) + f (ˆρ2) ourselves to studying the algebra that is generated entirely by (note thatρ ˆ1 andρ ˆ2 are marginals ofρ ˆ). The equality must be such averaged quadrature operators. When we then assume saturated for product states, i.e., f (ˆρ1 ⊗ ρˆ2) = f (ˆρ1) + f (ˆρ2). that the different copies of the system are “independently and For strongly sub-additive functions with f (ˆρ) 6 f (ˆρ1) + f (ˆρ2) identically distributed” we must set the overall state to be (N) ⊗N the same result implies f (ˆρ) 6 f (ˆρG), (after all, in that case ρˆ = ρˆ . We then find the characteristic function of the − f is a strongly super-additive function). It is clear that the algebra of averaged observables by von Neumann entropy fulfils the latter conditions and is max- ⊗N iq (~λ) imised for Gaussian states. For super-additive entanglement χN (~λ) = tr[ˆρ e N ]. (108) 15

The following pointwise convergence can be shown: relative entropy allows us to connect δ(ˆρ) to a range of interesting properties, as shown in [93]. For example, it directly N→∞ follow that δ(ˆρ) = 0 if and only ifρ ˆ = σˆ . Furthermore, the χN (~λ) → χG(~λ), (109) V measure δ(ˆρ) inherits convexity and monotonicity properties from the relative entropy. These are exactly the properties that where χG(~λ) is the characteristic function of the Gaussian made this measure a useful ingredient in the resource theory stateρ ˆG that has the same covariance matrix asρ ˆ. This means that the non-Gaussian features in any stateρ ˆ can be coarse for quantum non-Gaussianity presented in [95]. grained away by averaging sufficiently many copies of the Thus, the connection between (110) and relative entropy state. Note that this result considers N copies of an arbitrary shows that δ(ˆρ) can indeed be used as a measure for non- m-mode state. The single-mode version of this result was Gaussianity in the sense that it measures “entropic distance” proven in [89], whereas a much more general versions are betweenρ ˆ andσ ˆ V . Yet, there is one important question that re- derived in [90, 91]. In [12] the central limit theorem is mains to be answered: is σV indeed the closest Gaussian state combined with invariance under local unitary transformations toρ ˆ? An affirmative answer to this question was provided in to proof the final extremality result, we will not review these Ref. [96], where it was shown that points in detail. δ(ˆρ) = min S (ˆρ || ρˆG), (113) ρˆG The extremality of Gaussian states and the associated central limit theorem highlight why Gaussian states are important where we minimise over all possible Gaussian states in quantum information theory and quantum statistical me- ρˆG. The main idea of the proof is to show that chanics. It also shows that Gaussian states have some par- S (ˆρ || ρˆG) − S (ˆρ || σˆ V ) = S (σ ˆ V || ρˆG) > 0 such that ticular properties compared to non-Gaussian states. It thus the smallest relative entropy in indeed achieved forσ ˆ V . For should not come as a surprise that some of these properties the technical details, we refer the interested Reader to [96]. can be used to measure the degree of non-Gaussianity of the Furthermore, we note that a similar non-Gaussianity measure state [92–94]. As we mentioned before, for a fixed covari- was introduced by using the Wehrl entropy (based on the ance matrix V the von Neumann entropy is maximised by the Q-function) rather than the von Neumann entropy [97]. Gaussian state. This suggest that we can use the difference in von Neumann entropy as a measure for non-Gaussianity. We have thus shown that Gaussian states are special in the To formalise things, let us consider an arbitrary stateρ ˆ with sense that they minimise entanglement and maximise entropy covariance matrix V and mean field ~ξ (this quantities can be as compared to other states with the same covariance matrix. derived, respectively, for the second and first moments of the Another profound distinction can be found when comparing pure Gaussian states to pure non-Gaussian states. In this case, quadrature operators). We then construct a Gaussian stateσ ˆ V , has the same covariance matrix and the mean field. In the there is a seminal result by Hudson [34] that was extended by spirit of extremality, we then define Soto and Claverie to multimode systems [35] which states that a pure state can have a non-negative Wigner function if and

δ(ˆρ) = S (σ ˆ V ) − S (ˆρ), (110) only if the state is Gaussian. In other words, all non-Gaussian pure states exhibit Wigner negativity. where S (ˆρ) B −tr[ˆρ logρ ˆ]. Because von Neumann entropy is Here, we follow the approach of [98] to prove this result. constant under unitary transformations, for a Gaussian state First of all, we introduce the function it only depends on the symplectic spectrum ν1, . . . , νm. In 1 2 ? 8 kα~k other word, we can calculate S (σ ˆ V ) directly by using the FΨ(α~) B hα~ | Ψie , (114) Williamson decomposition (92) on V. We ﬁnd from [13] that such that the Q-function (70) of the state |Ψi is given by m " # X ν j + 1 ν j + 1 ν j − 1 ν j − 1 − 1 2 − 1 k k2 S (σ ˆ V ) = log log . (111) ? 4 α~ 2 2 2 2 Q(α~) = FΨ(α~) e . (115) j=1 (4π)m

However, it should be noted that the entropy of the non- From (114), we directly find that Gaussian states S (ˆρ) is generally harder to calculate unless 2 1 k k2 ? 4 α~ we can accurately approximate the state by a finite density FΨ(α~) 6 e . (116) matrix in the Fock basis. Furthermore, if the stateρ ˆ is pure, we simply find that δ(ˆρ) = S (σ ˆ V ). Next, we observe that a Q function that reaches zero implies Due to extremality of Gaussian states it directly follows that a negative Wigner function, which can be seen from (72). δ(ˆρ) > 0, but this does not necessarily mean that δ(ˆρ) is a good Thus, demanding that the state has a positive Wigner function ? measure for non-Gaussianity. Refs. [13, 93] establish that implies demanding that Q(α~) > 0, and thus that FΨ(α~) has no zeros. Using the equivalence between 2m-dimensional δ(ˆρ) = S (ˆρ || σˆ V ), (112) phase space and a complex m-dimensional Hilbert space, we can use the multidimensional but restricted version of the where S (ˆρ || σV ) B tr[ˆρ(logρ ˆ − logσ ˆ V )] is the quantum rela- Hadamard theorem [35], which states that any entire function m tive entropy betweenρ ˆ and reference stateσ ˆ V . The quantum f : C 7→ C without any zeros and with order of growth [99] 16 r is an exponential f (z) = exp g(z), where g(z) is a polynomial Multimode Fock states can be obtained by acting on the ? of degree s 6 r. We then note that FΨ is an entire function vacuum with different creation operators in different modes. of maximal growth r = 2 as given by (116). Hadamard’s Even though these different modes do not necessarily have ? theorem then tells us that FΨ(α~) is Gaussian. In other words, to be orthogonal [51], we here focus on the case where they if a pure quantum state |Ψi has a positive Wigner function are. For example, in m-mode system, we can chose a basis ? 2m FΨ(α~) must be Gaussian. The only states for which this is the {~e1, Ω~e1,...,~em, Ω~em} of the phase space R and define mul- case are Gaussian states. timode Fock states as 1 † n1 † nm In summary, we have seen that Gaussian states inherit a ne1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ nem B √ [â (~e1)] ... [â (~em)] |0i , particular extremal behaviour from the central limit theorem. n1! ... nm! This should not come as a surprise given that they are the (119) Gibbs states of a free bosonic field at finite temperature. Thus, where the kth mode in the basis contains nk photons. Note that a non-Gaussian state can be expected to have more “exotic” for nk = 0 we have a vacuum mode. For the Wigner function, features than the Gaussian state with the same covariance ma- this implies trix. This also formalises the intuition that Gaussian states are Wn ,...,n (~x) = Wn (~xe ) ... Wn (~xe ). (120) more classical states. This idea is further established by the e1 em e1 1 em f fact that all pure Gaussian states are the only possible pure Here we have used that the phase space point ~x can be states that have a positive Wigner function. expressed as ~x = ~xe ⊕ · · · ⊕ ~xe , where ~xe is the phase space The fact that non-Gaussian states automatically have non- 1 m k coordinate within the subspace spanned by ~ek and Ω~ek. We positive Wigner functions no longer holds when mixed states T can note ~xek = (xk, pk) , such that we find the coordinate are considered. A simple example is that stateρ ˆ = [|0i h0| + T representation ~x = (x1, p1,..., xm, pm) in the chosen basis of † a ( f~) |0i h0| a( f~)]/2, which is clearly non-Gaussian but also phase space. has a positive Wigner function. There have been considerable efforts to extend Hudson’s theorem in some form to mixed Non-Gaussian states do not necessarily have to be pure, states [36]. However, in what follows, we will see that there they can also come in the form of statistical mixtures. The are many ways for a state to be non-Gaussian. This makes it most basic example of such as state is a non-Gaussian mix- particularly hard to connect a measure such as (110) to more ture of Gaussian states. As a simple example, let is consider a operational interpretations. In the next section, we start by mixture of two coherent states showing some examples of different non-Gaussian states to 1 make the Reader appreciate their variety. ρˆ = α~ α~ + −α~ −α~ . (121) 2 Even though this is a highly classical state, it is still non- B. Examples of non-Gaussian states Gaussian as clearly seen from its Wigner function

An overview of the diﬀerent examples discussed in this 1 − 1 k~x−α~k2 − 1 k~x+α~k2 W(~x) = e 2 + e 2 . (122) section if shown in Fig.2. 4π

A ﬁrst important class of non-Gaussian states are Fock Another important example of a non-Gaussian mixed state is † states, generated by acting with creation operators a ( f~) on ED ρˆλ = λ |0i h0| + (1 − λ) 1 f 1 f . (123) the vacuum state

E 1 † ~ n In the mode f~, the Wigner function of the state behaves as n f B √ [ˆa ( f )] |0i , (117) n! − 1 k~xk2 e 2 which is a state of n photons in mode f . These states are W (~x) = [(1 − λ)k~x k2 + 2λ − 1] . (124) λ f 2π inherently single-mode, even though they can be embedded in a much larger multimode state space. The Wigner function for This Wigner function reaches negative values as long as λ < such states is commonly found in quantum optics textbooks, 1/2 and subsequently becomes positive. Nevertheless, it will but deriving it using (38) is a good exercise. Here we simply remain non-Gaussian until λ = 1. As we will see in Subsec- state the result: tion III C, even when the Wigner function is positive, it is not n ! n+k 2k − 1 k~xk2 always possible to describe this state as a mixture of Gaussian X n (−1) k~x k e 2 W (~x) = f . (118) states. n f k k! 2π k=0 Generally speaking, non-Gaussian states can come in a wide variety of shapes which can be much more exotic than ~T ~ ~T ~ In the most general sense, we write ~xf = ( f ~x) f + ( f Ω~x)Ω f the examples discussed above. A popular class of Gaussian as the projector of ~x on the phase space of mode f , but it states is obtained by taking coherent superpositions of Gaus- is most practical to use the coordinate representation ~xf = sian states. As we will see in Section VII, there has been a T T T (x f , p f ) where x f = f~ ~x and p f = f~ Ω~x to describe the strong experimental focus on two speciﬁc types of such states: two-dimensional phase space associated with mode f . Schrodinger’s¨ cat states [100] and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill 17

Fock states

Mixed non-Gaussian states Cat state GKP state

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

AAACA3icbVBNS8NAEN34WetX1JteFovgxZIUUY9FLx4r2A9oQthsJ+3SzSbsboQSCl78K148KOLVP+HNf+O2zUFbHww83pthZl6Ycqa043xbS8srq2vrpY3y5tb2zq69t99SSSYpNGnCE9kJiQLOBDQ10xw6qQQShxza4fBm4rcfQCqWiHs9SsGPSV+wiFGijRTYhx43tsa5J2NsxHFwhj1JRJ9DYFecqjMFXiRuQSqoQCOwv7xeQrMYhKacKNV1nVT7OZGaUQ7jspcpSAkdkj50DRUkBuXn0x/G+MQoPRwl0pTQeKr+nshJrNQoDk1nTPRAzXsT8T+vm+noys+ZSDMNgs4WRRnHOsGTQHCPSaCajwwhVDJzK6YDIgnVJrayCcGdf3mRtGpV96Jauzuv1K+LOEroCB2jU+SiS1RHt6iBmoiiR/SMXtGb9WS9WO/Wx6x1ySpmDtAfWJ8/emeXaw== 1 AAACA3icbVBNS8NAEN3Ur1q/ot70slgETyUpoh6LHhS8VLAf0ISw2U7bpZtN2N0IJRS8+Fe8eFDEq3/Cm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8MOFMacf5tgpLyyura8X10sbm1vaOvbvXVHEqKTRozGPZDokCzgQ0NNMc2okEEoUcWuHwauK3HkAqFot7PUrAj0hfsB6jRBspsA88bmyNM09G+Pq2Pg4c7Eki+hwCu+xUnCnwInFzUkY56oH95XVjmkYgNOVEqY7rJNrPiNSMchiXvFRBQuiQ9KFjqCARKD+b/jDGx0bp4l4sTQmNp+rviYxESo2i0HRGRA/UvDcR//M6qe5d+BkTSapB0NmiXsqxjvEkENxlEqjmI0MIlczciumASEK1ia1kQnDnX14kzWrFPatU707Ltcs8jiI6REfoBLnoHNXQDaqjBqLoET2jV/RmPVkv1rv1MWstWPnMPvoD6/MH+KSXGA== ( ~↵ ~↵ + ~↵ ~↵ ) 2 | ih | | ih | cat GKP0 | i | i

Figure 2. Several examples of Wigner functions for single-mode non-Gaussian states. The Wigner functions for the Fock states are obtained from (118) and the mixture of a Fock state and a vacuum is given by (124). The mixture of coherent states is expressed in (122) where we set kα~k = 4. The Wigner function for the cat state is given by (126) where we have chosen kα~k = 6. Finally, for the GKP state (130), we numerically integrated a wave function expression of the state with s = 2 and δ = 0.3 to obtain the Wigner function.

0 0 0 (GKP) states [31]. The former are obtained by coherently su- Furthermore, we have the relations hx √| xi = δ(x − x), hp | 0 −ipx perposing two coherent states, and often are split in even |cat+i pi = δ(p − p), and hp | xi = e / 2π. GKP states are and odd |cat−i cat states: constructed by considering a grid of such states to create a 1 qubit, by identifying the two following GKP vectors: |cat i α~ ± −α~ , (125) ± B X √ N E p GKP0˜ B x = 2k π , (128) where N = 2(1 ± exp[−kα~k2]) is the normalisation coef- k∈Z X √ ficient which depends on the displacement α~. The latter is E GKP1˜ B x = (2k + 1) π . (129) often referred to as “the size of the cat”. The Wigner function k∈Z of these states resembles that of (122) but has an additional interference term Clearly, these states are not normalisable and not physical as √ − 1 k~x−α~k2 − 1 k~x+α~k2 T − 1 k~xk2 they would require infinite energy to be created. Thus, it is e 2 + e 2 ± cos( 2 α~ ~x)e 2 W (~x) = . common to construct approximate GKP states, by replacing cat± −k k2 4π(1 ± e α~ ) the states |xi with displaced squeezed states, and by truncating (126) the summation by adding a Gaussian envelope: The appearance of these interference terms creates several re- √ gions in phase space where the Wigner function attains neg- X −2π[kδ]2 |GKP0i B N0 e Dˆ [2k π] |si , (130) ative values. The term “Schrodinger’s¨ cat state” has histori- k∈Z cally grown from the idea that coherent states describe classi- X √ −2π[(k+1/2)δ]2 ˆ cal electromagnetic fields and can thus be considered “macro- |GKP1i B N1 e D[(2k + 1) π] |si . (131) scopic”, in particular for large values of kα~k. However, one k∈Z should honestly admit that they fail to capture an important here N are normalisation constants and |si is a single-mode point of Schrodinger’s¨ thought experiment [101]: the entan- 0,1 squeezed vacuum, which implies that its Wigner function is glement with a microscopic quantum system (i.e., the decay ~ξ , T V /s, s s > event that triggers the smashing of the vial of poison). Never- given by (85) with = (0 0) and = diag[1 ] for 1. theless, the term “cat state” has established itself firmly in the To get a good GKP state√ for quantum error correction, we s π CV jargon, and now also lies at the basis of derived concepts generally need that . The Wigner function of an ideal such “cat codes” for error correction [102, 103]. GKP state is a grid of delta functions, which again highlights |GKP i Finally, there are the GKP states. In their idealised form, that it is a non-physical state. The more realistic states 0 |GKP i they rely on eigenvectors of the quadrature operators (some- and 1 have well-defined Wigner functions, even though times also known as infinitely squeezed states). To keep no- they are not very insightful to write down explicitly. In Fig.2, tation simple, we will restrict to the single mode with quadra- we plot an example that was calculated numerically by taking k ture operatorsx ˆ andp ˆ. The eigenvectors of these operators into account only the first few terms around = 0 in the sum. are then formally written as GKP states may seem a little artificial at first glance, but they have we developed with a very clear purpose: to encode xˆ |xi = x |xi , andp ˆ |pi = p |pi . (127) a qubit in a harmonic oscillator [31]. This encoding implies 18 a notion of fault-tolerance as these states are designed to be mixed state with a positive Wigner function can be written as very efficient at correcting displacement errors. The more a well-chosen mixture of Gaussian states. After all, Gaussian realistic incarnations of these states (130) are therefore often states are the only pure states with positive Wigner functions. proposed as candidates for encoding the information in CV This intuition turns out to be false [84], which means that the quantum computation protocols [29]. Furthermore, it was set of states with a non-positive Wigner function is not the shown that these states can also be used as the sole non- same as the set of states that lie outside of the convex hull of Gaussian resource to implement a CV quantum computer [32] Gaussian states G. More formally, let us define

Once we progress into the realm of multimode states, the ( Z ) class of non-Gaussian states becomes even more vast. In Sub- G B ρˆ | ρˆ = dγ p(γ)ˆρG(γ) , (133) section IV B 2, we will present a dedicated introduction to multimode photon-subtracted states, which is a useful state general concepts in this Tutorial. Furthermore, these states where γ is some arbitrary way of labelling Gaussian states have a particular importance in CV quantum optics experi- ρˆG(γ) and p(γ) is a probability distribution on these labels. ments. As a final example, we introduce another class of mul- Note that (103) tells us that we can generate all Gaussian states timode non-Gaussian states, which have been highly relevant by taking convex combinations of displaced squeezed states, for quantum metrology: N00N states [104–106]. Even though and thus we can limit ourselves toρ ˆG(γ) = |ΨG(γ)i hΨG(γ)| in these states very useful for quantum sensing with optical se- the definition of G. tups, the general idea that underlies these states was first intro- Any quantum stateρ ˆ that is not contained in the convex duced for fermions [107] in an attempt to mimic the advantage hull of Gaussian states, i.e.,ρ ˆ < G, is referred to as a “quan- that is provided by squeezing in optics. tum non-Gaussian” state. The intuition behind this terminol- N00N states are two-mode entangled states defined in a pair ogy is that Gaussian pure states are less quantum than non- of orthogonal modes g1 and g2. The state contains exactly Gaussian pure states that boast a non-positive Wigner func- N photons, and is a superposition of a state with all photons tion. A mixed state that is quantum non-Gaussian may have being mode g1 and a state with all photons in mode g2: a positive Wigner function, but it cannot be created without adding states with non-positive Wigner functions into the 1 E E |N00Ni B √ Ng1 + Ng2 . (132) pure-state decomposition. Hence, these states are more quan- 2 tum than the states that are in the convex hull of Gaussian E states G. Here we recall that the state Ng1 can be trivially embedded to the full multimode space by adding vacuum in all other Next, one may wonder how to differentiate between states modes. We will study these states in more detail for N = 2 in that are quantum non-Gaussian and states which are in the our discussion of the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect surrounding Eq. convex hull G. Throughout the last decade, many methods (165). However, here we highlight already that the Wigner have been developed to answer this question. We start by in- function of |N00Ni is not simply the sum of Wigner functions troducing the main idea of Ref. [109] because it is based on of the form (118). The entanglement will create additional the Wigner function. The key idea is that Gaussian distribu- interference terms, just like we saw in (126). In the present tions have tails, which means that we can take an arbitrary −1 case, these interferences are genuinely multimode, and thus pure Gaussian state W0(S (~x − α~)), and evaluate the Wigner related to quantum correlations. function at to origin of phase space: Experimentally, these states have been created and analysed − 1 kS −1α~k2 using a DV approach [108]. As we highlighted in Subsection e 2 W (S −1α~) = . (134) II C, the distinction between DV and CV is somewhat sub- 0 (2π)2 tle and mainly depends on what is measured. Because N00N states are built from Fock states and have a well-defined total −1 2 1 photon number, they are most natural to analyse using photon- Clearly, when kS α~k → ∞, we do find that W0(S α~) → 0. number resolving detectors. This limit essentially corresponds to a system with infinite energy. It is thus natural to try to bound the value of the Wigner function in the origin by a function that depends on the energy C. Quantum Non-Gaussianity N of the state. For an arbitrary pure Gaussian state, we find that Non-Gaussian states come in a wide variety, which means also that some of them are more exotic than others. Non- Xm 1 N = tr[ˆρaˆ†(~e )â(~e )] = tr[S T S − 1] + kα~k2 . (135) Gaussian states that are of limited interest, are those which j j 4 are convex combinations of Gaussian states. Gaussian states j=1 do not form a convex set, after all, we can immediately see −1 2 that, e.g., [W0(~x − α~ 1) + W0(~x − α~ 2)]/2 is not a Gaussian func- Using the properties of the operator norm, we write kS α~k = tion even though it is a convex combination of Gaussian states. kS −1Oα~k2, where O is a symplectic orthogonal transforma- The fact that the set of non-Gaussian states contains mix- tion. Furthermore, we note that kα~k2 = kOα~k2. It is then tures of Gaussian states may lead one to suspect that any useful to explicitly write the coordinate representation of the 19

(x) (p) (x) (p) T vector Oα~ = (α1 , α1 , . . . , αm , αm ) , such that Nevertheless, there are many quantum non-Gaussian states that do not violate inequality (143). After all, why would the m ! X 1 1 origin of phase space be the most interesting point? A first N = s + + (α(x))2 + (α(p))2 − 2 (136) 4 j s j j solution is provided in [109], where it is argued that j=1 j 1 m ∈ G ⇒ ~ −4NΓ(2NΓ+1) X ρˆ = WΓ(0) > m e , (144) = n j. (137) (2π) j=1 for all Gaussian channels Γ that act on the Wigner function Γ At the same time, we expand ofρ ˆ as W(~x) 7→ WΓ(~x). Recall that the action of a Gaussian channel was defined in (102). The quantity NΓ then denotes m (p) 2 the average number of particles in the state Γ(ˆρ). Further X (α j ) kS −1α~k2 = s (α(x))2 + , (138) generalisations of this scheme have been worked out in [110]. j j s j=1 j Moreover, Ref. [111] has considered combinations of the value of the Wigner function in several points to reach better and with a little algebra we can show that witnesses for quantum non-Gaussianity. Further progress has been made by identifying observables that are more easily m 1 X measurable with typical CV techniques [112]. Others have kS −1α~k2 6 4n (2n + 1) 6 4N(2N + 1), (139) 2 j j considered other phase-space representations of the state to j=1 identify witnesses of quantum non-Gaussianity [113, 114]. such that Quantum non-Gaussianity has been investigated with a − 1 − wide range of tools. In this Tutorial we have limited our- W (S 1α~) > e 4N(2N+1). (140) 0 (2π)m selves to phase space methods in the spirit of the CV approach. However, there is also a significant body of work on quan- This means that the value of the Wigner function of a pure tum non-Gaussianity using techniques that are more typical in Gaussian state in the origin of phase space is bounded from DV quantum optics. The earliest works on the subject used below by a function of the average number of particles N. photon-statistics to distinguish quantum non-Gaussian states However, it is not obvious that we can extend this bound to from convex mixtures of Gaussian states [84]. This research arbitrary mixtures of Gaussian states. Let us assume thatρ ˆ ∈ line has been continued in recent years to uncover new aspects G, then the Wigner function in the origin is given by of quantum non-Gaussian states, such as the “non-Gaussian Z depth” [115] and techniques to differentiate different types of ~ −1 multi-photon states [116]. Ultimately, these photon-counting W(0) = dγp(γ)W0(S γ α~ γ), (141) techniques were extended to develop a whole hierarchy of

−1 quantum non-Gaussian states [37]. These ideas have been where we saw that W0(S γ α~ γ) is the value of a pure Gaussian further formalised and generalised through the notion of the state’s Wigner function in the origin and γ is some arbitrary “stellar rank” of a quantum state. label for the Gaussian states in the mixture. Therefore we can bound the states in the convex combination 1 Z ∞ D. Stellar Rank W(~0) > dN p˜(N )e−4Nγ(2Nγ+1), (142) (2π)m γ γ 0 An interesting starting point to introduce the stellar repre- where we introduce a probability distributionp ˜ on the average sentation is the method [98] to prove Hudson’s theorem. We particle numbers of the pure Gaussian states in the mixture. recall the definition 1 2 The overall average number of particles in the stateρ ˆ is then ? 8 kα~k R ∞ FΨ(α~) B hα~ | Ψie , (114) given by N = dNγ p˜(Nγ)Nγ. The final element that we re- 0 of what we will henceforth refer to as the stellar function. To quire is the fact that exp[−4N (2N +1)] is a convex function, γ γ avoid technical complications, let us now restrict ourselves such that we can apply Jensen’s inequality to find that to single-mode systems such that the optical phase space is 2 1 R . Note that, in a single-mode system, there is only one cre- ρˆ ∈ G =⇒ W(~0) > e−4N(2N+1). (143) ation operatora ˆ† with associated annihilation operatorsa ˆ. We (2π)m can then follow [38] to introduce the stellar representation of This means that we can simply use the total energy of the single-mode quantum states. Note that some similar ideas are state to construct a witness for quantum non-Gaussianity. This also present in other works [117]. clearly shows that there are quantum non-Gaussian states with First, we develop the stellar representation for pure states, positive Wigner functions. An explicit example can be con- which will then be used to generalise the framework to mixed states in (148). We use the definition of the displacement op- structed by tuning the γ in the state [(1 − γ) |0i h0| + γ|1 ~ih1 ~|] f f erator to show that to 1/2 > γ > 1/2 − e−4γ(2γ+1) (where we use that γ is also the ? † average particle number in this particular state). |Ψi = FΨ(â ) |0i , (145) 20 which immediately implies that the stellar representation is these values over all possible decompositions to arrive at the ? ? unique. In other words, if FΨ = FΦ it follows that |Ψi = |Φi stellar rank ofρ ˆ. up to a phase. In our proof of Hudson’s theorem, we have Convex roof constructions are commonly used to treat ? already highlighted that FΨ satisfies the property (116) which mixed states as they are easy and natural to formally define. means that it is an entire function with growth order r = 2. However, they are often much harder to calculate in practice. ? Because in this single-mode setting FΨ can be interpreted This is where the stellar representation unveils its most re- as a function of a single complex variable, the Hadamard- markable property: stellar robustness. To formalise this idea, ? Weierstrass theorem implies that FΨ can be fully represented [38] introduced the robustness as the trace distance between by its zeros (one can consider this as a generalisation of the the state and the nearest possible state of lower stellar rank. fundamental theorem of calculus). This thus implies that a 1 q single-mode state is completely determined by the zeros of R?(Ψ) B inf tr (|Ψi hΨ| − ρˆ)2. (149) ? r?(ˆρ) 0 when r?(Ψ) < ∞ ? FΨ : C 7→ C counted with multiplicity. Alternatively one may [38]. This means that any state that is sufficiently close to a count the zeros of the Q-function with multiplicity and divide pure state of r?(Ψ) is also of rank r?(Ψ) or higher. by two. The idea of stellar robustness can be generalised [118] by The fact that a state is fully characterised by its stellar introducing k-robustness. For any k < r?(Ψ), we define ? representation FΨ can be made more explicit by consider- q ing the roots {α~ 1,..., α~ r?(Ψ)} of the Q-function which repre- ? 2 Rk (Ψ) B inf 1 − |hΦ | Ψi| , (151) sents |Ψi (note that we use (44) to interchange between phase- r?(Φ)6k space representation and complex Hilbert space representa- and show subsequently that tion). The single-mode state |Ψi can then be used to express r ? ? r (Ψ) Rk (Ψ) = 1 − sup hΨ| ρˆ |Ψi. (152) 1 Y ? |Ψi = Dˆ †(α~ )â†Dˆ (α~ ) |Ψ i , (146) r (ˆρ)6k N j j G j=1 The k-robustness can thus be interpreted as the nearest | i N distance from a state |Ψi at which we can find any state where ΨG is a pure Gaussian state and a normalisation ? constant. We can then use the stellar rank to induce some of stellar rank k, provided k < r (Ψ). Beyond showing ? | i further structure in the set of states by defining that Rk (Ψ) is non-zero when Ψ is of finite stellar rank, Ref. [118] also provides an explicit method to calculate ? ? RN B {|Ψi | r (Ψ) = N}. (147) Rk (Ψ). Thus, for whichever stateρ ˆ is available in an experiment one can attempt to find a pure target state |Ψi for which ? 2 that groups all states of stellar rank N. Note that the hΨ| ρˆ |Ψi > 1 − Rk (Ψ) to prove thatρ ˆ is at least of stellar Hadamard-Weierstrass theorem also considers functions with rank k. an infinite amount of zeros and the case N = ∞ is thus mathematically well-defined. It turns out that this case is not We note that for pure states r?(Ψ) = 0 implies that the state just a pathological limit. An evaluation of the Q-function is Gaussian (this is essentially what is proven in Hudson’s the- shows that Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states and Schrodinger¨ orem). From the definition (148) we can then deduce that cat states inhabit the set R∞. r?(ˆρ) = 0 ⇐⇒ ρˆ ∈ G, (153) Clearly, all that was introduced so far only works for pure where G denotes, again, the convex hull of Gaussian states. states. We can naturally extend this result via a convex roof On the other hand, states for which r?(ˆρ) > 0 cannot be writ- construction, by defining ten as a mixture of Gaussian states and are thus quantum non- r?(ˆρ) B inf sup{r?[Ψ(γ)]}, (148) Gaussian. {p(γ),|Ψ(γ)i} γ This idea can be extended by using the stellar k-robustness (152) as a witness of quantum non-Gaussianity. When we where the infimum is considered of all probability dis- want to check whetherρ ˆ is quantum non-Gaussian, it suffices Rtributions on the set of pure states that lead toρ ˆ = to find a pure target state |Ψi such thatρ ˆ is closer to |Ψi than dγp(γ) |Ψ(γ)i hΨ(γ)|. In words, there are many ways to de- ? the 1-robustness Rk (Ψ). More formally written, whenever a compose the stateρ ˆ in pure states and we consider all of them. pure state |Ψi exists with the following property: For each decomposition, we define the stellar rank as the high- ? 2 est rank of the states in the decomposition. Then we minimize hΨ| ρˆ |Ψi > 1 − R1 (Ψ) =⇒ ρˆ < G, (154) 21 andρ ˆ is quantum non-Gaussian. This may seem like a com- apart from normal probability distributions of phase space. plicated challenge, but for a single-photon state |Ψi = |1i we For mixed states, this no longer holds and thus we spent the ? 2 find that 1 − R1 (Ψ) ≈ 0.478 [118]. This means that any state previous two sections developing methods to characterise the which has a fidelity of more than 0.478 with respect to a Fock non-Gaussian features of these states. Whether it is through state is quantum non-Gaussian. This idea can be extended to quantum non-Gaussianity or the more refined stellar rank, higher stellar ranks: whenever we find a target state |Ψi such these methods focus on characterising the non-Gaussian re- ? 2 that hΨ| ρˆ |Ψi > 1 − Rk (Ψ) , the stateρ ˆ is at least of stellar sources that are required to generate a certain state. In this rank k. Note that the fidelity of an experimentally generated subsection, we change the perspective and focus rather on stateρ ˆ with any pure target state |Ψi can be calculated from negative values of the Wigner function (“Wigner negativity” double homodyne measurements onρ ˆ [118]. There is no need in short) as a resource of interest. to experimentally create the pure state |Ψi, the latter is just Wigner negativity has the advantage of being a clear quan- theoretical input needed to analyse the data. tum feature, it reflects that different quadratures in the same Obviously, the stellar rank imposes a lot of additional mode cannot be jointly measured and thus goes hand in hand structure on the state space. It rigorously orders all states that with the principle of complementarity. More formally, it has can be achieved by combining a finite number of creation op- even been connected to the principle of quantum contextual- erators and Gaussian transformations. The creation operator ity [59]. Indeed, in SectionVI we will elaborate on the fact serves as a tool to increase the stellar rank by one and the that Wigner negativity is a necessary resource for reaching a stellar rank actually corresponds to the minimal number of quantum advantage, i.e., performing a task that cannot be ef- times the creation operator must be applied to obtain the state, ficiently simulated by a classical computer. However, the idea together with Gaussian operations. The stellar rank remains of using Wigner negativity as a signature of non-classicality unchanged under Gaussian unitary transformations, which was already around before it was connected to a quantum makes sense for a measure of the non-Gaussian character of computational advantage. An important step to formalise this the state, and thus it falls within the set of intrinsic properties idea was the introduction of a measure for Wigner negativ- of a state as discussed in SubsectionIIC. Furthermore, the ity [85], which lies at the basis of recent resource theories of class of states with infinite stellar rank can be understood Wigner negativity [95, 121]. as the set that contains the most exotic states. However, it A priori, there are several natural measures than can be used ? is lonely at the top as it can be shown that R∞(Ψ) = 0 for for Wigner negativity. It is therefore useful to consider some states of infinite rank. This means that we can find states of desirable properties that are required for a measure of Wigner finite stellar rank arbitrarily close to a state of infinite stellar negativity. First of all, we want the measure to be zero if and rank. As stressed in [38], this implies that finite rank states only if the Wigner function is positive. It seems natural to de- are dense in the full Fock space and any state of infinite-rank mand that, furthermore, Wigner negativity remains unchanged can be arbitrarily well approximated by finite rank states. under Gaussian unitary transformations. It is then tempting Whereas a finite stellar rank k of any experimental state can to simply consider the absolute value of the lowest possible be certified by achieving a sufficiently high fidelity to a target value of the Wigner function, but this would have some un- state |Ψi to fall within the range given by its k-robustness natural outcomes. It would mean that a single photon state ? Rk (Ψ), a similar procedure is impossible for infinite stellar would have more Wigner negativity than a two photon state. ranks. This means, in practice, that genuinely infinite-rank We thus need to look for a different measure. states are impossible to certify in experiments because one The starting point of [85] is that the normalisation of the never achieves perfect fidelity. Nevertheless, different states Wigner function implies that ? of infinite rank may differ significantly in the values Rk (Ψ) Z ∞ for k < . d~x W(~x) > 1, (155) R2m Many of the results on stellar rank rely on the Hadamard- and that the inequality is strict whenever there is Wigner neg- Weierstrass theorem that allows to uniquely factorise F?(α~) Ψ ativity. Furthermore, Liouville’s theorem implies that inte- as a Gaussian and a polynomial, where the roots of the poly- grals over phase space are unchanged by Gaussian transfor- nomial are the roots of F? and thus also the roots of the Ψ mations. A first possible way of measuring Wigner negativity Q-function. Sadly, this theorem cannot be straightforwardly is through the negativity volume generalised to a multimode setting, which is known in mathematics as Cousin’s second problem [119]. Notable progress Z was made in [120] where one studies multimode stellar func- N(ˆρ) B d~x W(~x) − 1. (156) 2m tions which are polynomials and it was shown that there is no R straightforward generalisation of (146). This measure has the major advantage of being convexR due to the triangle inequality, which means that forρ ˆ = dγp(γ)ˆρ(γ) we find that E. Wigner Negativity Z N(ˆρ) 6 dγp(γ)N[ˆρ(γ)]. (157) Hudson’s theorem shows us that all pure non-Gaussian states have non-positive Wigner functions, which sets them However, this measure is not additive, i.e., N(ˆρ1 ⊗ ρˆ2) , 22

N(ˆρ1)+N(ˆρ2). To circumvent this shortcoming, another mea- will combine this finding with the idea that Wigner negativity sure for Wigner negativity has been introduced [95, 121, 122]: remains unchanged under Gaussian transformations. A par- Z ticularly simple Gaussian transformation is a balanced beam splitter, which ultimately just implements a change in mode N(ˆρ) B log d~x W(~x) . (158) R2m basis that we describe by an orthonormal transformation OBS . When we mix two photons, prepared in orthogonal modes f1 Clearly, N(ˆρ1 ⊗ ρˆ2) = N(ˆρ1) + N(ˆρ2) making this measure and f2 by such a balanced beamsplitter, we will see the Hong- additive. However, the introduction of the logarithm destroys Ou-Mandel effect in action (more details can be found in [51] the convexity of the measure. Note that the two measures where a similar notation is used): are closely related by N(ˆρ) = log[N(ˆρ) + 1]. Thus when N N N N (ˆρ1) > (ˆρ2), we also find that (ˆρ1) > (ˆρ2). E E OBS 1 E E 1 f1 ⊗ 1 f2 7→ √ 2g1 − 2g2 B |HOMi , (165) 2 The single-mode examples that are considered in Ref. [85] lead to some interesting observations. First of all, they show where f1, f2 and g1, g2 are the input and output modes of the that for Fock states Wigner negativity increases with the pho- beam splitter, respectively. The Hong-Ou-Mandel output state ton number. Furthermore, they show that for Schrodinger¨ cat |HOMi is thus a superposition of two photons in mode g1 and states the integral is bounded from above by a value smaller two photons in mode g2. We can now use the simple fact than the Wigner negativity of a two-photon state. Even though that Wigner-negativity is unchanged under Gaussian unitary Fock states of increasing stellar rank have increasing Wigner transformations to show that negativity, there is no clear relation between stellar rank and E E Wigner negativity for more general classes of states. For ex- N (|HOMi) = N 1 f1 ⊗ 1 f2 = 2N(|1i) > N(|2i), (166) ample, Schrodinger¨ cat states are of infinite stellar rank, sug- gesting that they are in this regard the most exotic states, but this then also implies that N (|HOMi) > N(|2i). At first sight, they only manifest a limited amount of Wigner negativity. this is somewhat of a peculiar finding: by taking a superposi- As a case study, let us briefly concentrate on the Wigner tion of two states with the same Wigner negativity one finds a negativity of Fock states (117). One can now evaluate the state with a higher Wigner negativity. Wigner negativity of such states to find that An explicit look at the Wigner function of the Hong-Ou- Mandel state |HOMi provides some insight. We find that this N(|1i) ≈ 0.42612 and N(|1i) ≈ 0.354959, (159) Wigner function can be written as (yet again a good exercise N(|2i) ≈ 0.72899 and N(|2i) ≈ 0.547537, (160) to show this explicitly) N(|3i) ≈ 0.97667 and N(|3i) ≈ 0.681415, (161) 1 W (~x ⊕ ~x ) = [W (~x ) + W (~x )] HOM g1 g2 2g1 g1 2g2 g2 which shows that the negativity does not simply increase lin- 2 (167) + W (~x ⊕ ~x ), early with the number of photons even for the additive mea- int g1 g2 sure N. However, let us now look at a multimode n-photon where W is the contribution to the Wigner function that con- state where each photon occupies a different mode, i.e., a int ~ ~ tains all the interference terms that are induced by the super- Fock state generated by creation operators in f1,..., fn with position. We can calculate that span{ f~j, Ω f~j} , span{ f~k, Ω f~k} for all j , k, ! 1 † † E E N [W (~x ) + W (~x )] N(|2i), (168) ~ ~ 2g1 g1 2g2 g2 6 aˆ ( f1) ... aˆ ( fn) |0i = 1 f1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ 1 fn . (162) 2

The Wigner function for this state can be shown to be (show- and thus, by additionally applying the triangle inequality, we ing this based on (38) is again a good exercise) can understand that the additional negativity in the Hong-Ou- Mandel state is due to the term Wint. Yn In the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, it is common to talk about W1 ,...,1 (~xf ⊕ · · · ⊕ ~xf ) = W1 (~xf ). (163) f1 fn 1 n fk k interference between particles, but in a more general CV k=1 language this interference will be equivalent to some form Either by explicitly using the expression of the Wigner func- of entanglement which is exactly described by the Wigner tion, or by using the additivity property, we find that function contribution Wint. In other words, the superposition E E between 2g1 and 2g2 has more Wigner negativity than E E N 1 f1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ 1 fn = nN(|1i). (164) each of its two constituents because it creates entanglement between the modes g1 and g2. This is a first indication Numerically, we can show that nN(|1i) > N(|ni) and thus we that there is a connection between quantum correlations can generally conclude that n photons in different modes hold and non-Gaussian features of the Wigner function. We will more Wigner negativity than n photons in the same mode. explore this connection in further detail in SectionV. Let us now concentrate on the case where n = 2. We showed that two photons in different modes are more Wigner Even though Wigner negativity is an important non- negative than two photons in the same mode, and now we Gaussian feature, it is often hard to witness [123]. The most 23 common experimental technique is homodyne tomography A. Deterministic methods [124] to fully reconstruct the quantum state. These methods come with the inconvenience that it is hard to set good error To introduce some further structure in the sets of Gaussian bars. Techniques to circumvent the need for a full tomography and non-Gaussian unitary transformations, it is useful to take have been developed based on homodyne [125] and double- a quantum computation approach that is inspired by [26, 128]. homodyne (or heterodyne) measurements [118, 123]. These The central idea of this work is that Gaussian unitary transfor- methods come with the advantage of permitting to put a de- mations are always generated by “Hamiltonians” that are at gree of confidence on the proclaimed Wigner negativity. most quadratic in the quadrature operators (or equivalently in the creation and annihilation operators). Let us denote that as

Uˆ G = exp{iP2(ˆq)} (169)

IV. CREATING NON-GAUSSIAN STATES where the polynomials P2(ˆq) are generated by combining terms of the types 1,q ˆ( f~), andq ˆ( f~1)ˆq( f~2). A remarkable prop- In Section III we have discussed the many ways of charac- erty of these three types of observables is that they are closed terising non-Gaussian quantum states and their properties. In under the action of a commutator. Indeed, using the canon- this section, we explore the different theoretical frameworks ical commutation relation (29) and the general properties of for creating these states. An overview of some important ex- commutators, we can show that perimental advances to put these theoretical techniques into [ˆq( f~ ), qˆ( f~ )] ∼ 1, (170) practice is left for Section VII. 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~0 Gaussian quantum states can in some sense be understood [ˆq( f1), qˆ( f2)ˆq( f3)] ∼ qˆ( f ), (171) X as naturally occurring states. The foundational work of Planck ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~0 [ˆq( f1)ˆq( f2), qˆ( f3)ˆq( f4)] ∼ qˆ( f1)ˆq( f2). (172) that lies at the basis of all of quantum mechanics provides a first description of the thermal states of light that describe Thus, we can use the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to black body radiation. In a more modern language, we refer ˆ ˆ 0 show that the combination of two Gaussian unitaries UGUG is to this as the thermal states of an ensemble of quantum har- again a Gaussian unitary. monic oscillators or a free bosonic field. It has long been un- This notion lies at the basis of universal gate sets in the derstood that these states are Gaussian [2–4]. Creating this CV approach. Using typical techniques from Lie groups, we kind of Gaussian states of light is thus literally as simple as can look for a minimal set of Gaussian unitaries than can be switching on a light bulb. combined to generate all possible Gaussian unitary transfor- When we turn towards more sophisticated light sources mations. Generally, such a set is clearly not unique, but there such as lasers, we can encounter coherent light that is de- are some natural choices. For example, we previously saw scribed by coherent states [5,6]. Generating squeezed light that a Gaussian unitary transformation is a combination of becomes much harder and typically requires nonlinear optics displacement operations and symplectic transformations. Fur- [126]. Nevertheless, pumping a nonlinear crystal with a co- thermore, the Bloch-Messiah decomposition (95) shows us herent pump generally suffices to deterministically create a that any symplectic transformation can be decomposed into squeezed state [127]. Recall from the end of subsectionIID a combination of multimode interferometers and single-mode that from a theoretical point of view all these pure Gaussian squeezing. In turn, interferometers can be decomposed as a states can be created by applying Gaussian unitary transfor- combination of beamsplitters and phase shifters [129]. In- mation to the vacuum state. deed, we can choose the set of Gaussian gates to be From an experimental point of view, the creation of non- Uˆ D(~λ) B Dˆ (~λ), (173) Gaussian states is much harder than the creation of their Gaus- sian counterparts. Nevertheless, we start by introducing an Uˆ S (~λ) B exp i[ˆq(~λ)ˆq(Ω~λ) + qˆ(Ω~λ)ˆq(~λ)], (174) ideal theoretical approach that is not too different from Gaus- 2 2 Uˆ P(~λ) B exp i[ˆq(~λ) + qˆ(Ω~λ) ], (175) sian states. In essence, it suffices to apply a non-Gaussian unitary operation to the state to create a non-Gaussian state. Uˆ BS (~λ1, ~λ2) B exp i[ˆq(~λ1)ˆq(~λ2) + qˆ(Ω~λ1)ˆq(Ω~λ2)], (176) In SubsectionIVA we dig deeper into the desired structure of 2m such non-Gaussian unitary transformations that would in prin- where we note that ~λ, ~λ1, ~λ2 ∈ R are not normalised and ciple allow for the deterministic generation of non-Gaussian ~λ1 ⊥ ~λ2. These unitary operators describe a displacement, quantum states. In experiments (in particular those in optics) a squeezer, a phase shifter, and a beamsplitter, respectively. such non-Gaussian unitary transformations are hard to come We note that all these operations act on a single modes, by, which is why one very often uses different preparation except for the beamsplitter which connects a pair of modes. schemes. In SubsectionIVB, we provide a general introduc- These transformations are referred to as a Gaussian gate set; tion into the conditional preparation of non-Gaussian quantum when we can implement all these gates in all the modes of states, where one measures part of the system and conditions some mode basis, we can generate any multimode Gaussian on a certain measurement outcome. This process projects the transformation, and thus any Gaussian state. remainder of the system into a new non-Gaussian state. 24

To generate non-Gaussian unitary transformations and thus Other CV systems are more appropriate for the implemen- non-Gaussian states, we need to add more unitary gates to the tation of non-Gaussian unitary transformations. In particu- Gaussian gate set. The relevant question is thus how many lar the systems used in circuit-QED have such non-Gaussian gates one should add and which gates are the best choices. contributions in their Hamiltonians [134, 135] which suggests The answer to the first question is surprising: one needs to that they may be more capable of deterministically generating add just one single gate [27]. The argument is simple, when non-Gaussian states than their optical counterparts. Still, the we consider the operatorsq ˆ(~λ)3, we find that characterisation, detection, and control of such states is expected to be challenging. Recently, some important progress 3 n 2 n [ˆq(~λ1) , qˆ(~λ2) ] =qˆ(~λ1) [ˆq(~λ1), qˆ(~λ2) ] was made by demonstrating triplet-generation in these sys- n 2 tems [136]. + [ˆq(~λ1), qˆ(~λ2) ]ˆq(~λ1) (177) n + qˆ(~λ1)[ˆq(~λ1), qˆ(~λ2) ]ˆq(~λ1). B. Conditional methods With the canonical commutation relations we can show that ~ ~ n ∼ ~ n−1 [ˆq(λ1), qˆ(λ2) ] qˆ(λ2) , which can be inserted in (177) to The experimental difficulties that are encountered when try- obtain ing to implement non-Gaussian unitary transformations can 3 n 2 n−1 n−1 2 be circumvented by abandoning the demand of unitarity. This [ˆq(~λ1) , qˆ(~λ2) ] ∼qˆ(~λ1) qˆ(~λ2) + qˆ(~λ2) qˆ(~λ1) (178) implies that we no longer consider operations that can be im- n−1 + qˆ(~λ1)ˆq(~λ2) qˆ(~λ1). plemented deterministically, but rather resort to what can be broadly referred to as conditional operations. This idea was This calculation thus shows that commutation with the op- formalised by Kraus when characterising the most general eratorsq ˆ(~λ)3 increases the order of the quadrature operators. ways of manipulating quantum states [137]. Thus, with the quadratic Hamiltonians to generate all oper- In the most general sense, we can implement a conditional ations that conserve the order of polynomials of quadrature operation by taking a set of linear operators on Fock space ~ 3 operators andq ˆ(λ) to increase the order of the polynomial Xˆ1, Xˆ2,... and acting on the state in the following way by one, we can ultimately generate the full algebra of observables. On the level of unitary gates, this implies that a full P ˆ ˆ † j X jρˆX j universal gate set is given by ρˆ 7→ . (181) P ˆ † ˆ tr[ˆρ j X j X j] U ={Uˆ D(~λ), Uˆ S (~λ), Uˆ P(~λ), Uˆ BS (~λ1, ~λ2), Uˆ C(~λ)}, (179) This formalism is typically implemented by performing some ˆ ~ 3 with UC B exp iqˆ(λ) . (180) form of generalised measurement on the stateρ ˆ [138]. When ρˆ is a deterministically generated Gaussian state, the action In other words, combining sufficiently many of these gates al- of a well-chosen set of operators Xˆ1, Xˆ2,... can turn it into a lows us to built any arbitrary unitary transformation generated non-Gaussian state. In optics, two of the most well-known ex- by a Hamiltonian which is polynomial in the quadrature oper- amples of this technique are single-photon addition and sub- ators. traction. In both cases, there is only a single operator Xˆ . For The non-Gaussian gate Uˆ is known as the cubic phase 1 C photon addition, we implement Xˆ = aˆ†( f~), whereas photon gate. The argument above shows that any experiment that can 1 ˆ ~ implement Gaussian transformations and a cubic phase gate subtraction requires the realisation of a case where X1 = aˆ( f ). can in principle generate any arbitrary non-Gaussian state. In many physical setups, and in particular in optics, the Even though many protocols have been proposed to experi- problem is that measurements are destructive and a mea- mentally realise a cubic phase gate [28, 130–133], any con- surement effectively removes the measured mode from the vincing implementations have yet to be demonstrated. One of system. Therefore, it is common to prepare large multimode the key problems is that experimental imperfections and finite Gaussian states of which a subset of modes is measured in squeezing are detrimental for the most commonly proposed order to conditionally prepare a non-Gaussian state in the methods [30]. remaining modes. We now introduce a general framework to In principle, there is no particular reason to limit our atten- describe the non-Gaussian Wigner functions that are created tion to cubic phase gates. Already in the very first work on accordingly [39]. the subject it is argued that essentially any Hamiltonian of a higher than quadratic order can be used a a generator [26]. Thus, optical processes that performs photon triplet generation can also be used as a non-Gaussian gate, which can even 1. General framework be converted into the cubic phase gate [? ]. This requires well- controlled high χ(3) nonlinearities which are generally only First of all, let us consider a general multimode phase space 0 achieved by using exotic nonlinear crystals or well-controlled and separate it into two subsystems, i.e., R2m = R2l ⊕ R2l , individual atoms. Handling such setups with a sufficient de- where we will perform some generalised measurement on the gree of control to actually implement a quantum gate is ex- l0 modes and leave the remaining l modes untouched. This tremely challenging. introduces a general structure in the points of phase space ~x ∈ 25

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 W (~x) ˆ tr[Aˆρˆ] renormalises the state and gives the probability of ac- A g ~xf 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 W ˆ(~xf )=h itually| W obtainingf (~xf ) the measurement result that corresponds to W (~x ) f A ˆ Aˆ g | AAˆ. In an actual experiment, this operation is implemented by h i 0 source 2l

AAAB7nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lE0WPRi8cK9gPaUDbbTbt0swm7E6GE/ggvHhTx6u/x5r9x0+agrQ8GHu/NMDMvSKQw6LrfTmltfWNzq7xd2dnd2z+oHh61TZxqxlsslrHuBtRwKRRvoUDJu4nmNAok7wSTu9zvPHFtRKwecZpwP6IjJULBKFqpk/WDkISzQbXm1t05yCrxClKDAs1B9as/jFkacYVMUmN6npugn1GNgkk+q/RTwxPKJnTEe5YqGnHjZ/NzZ+TMKkMSxtqWQjJXf09kNDJmGgW2M6I4NsteLv7n9VIMb/xMqCRFrthiUZhKgjHJfydDoTlDObWEMi3srYSNqaYMbUIVG4K3/PIqaV/Uvau6+3BZa9wWcZThBE7hHDy4hgbcQxNawGACz/AKb07ivDjvzseiteQUM8fwB87nDxUCj2Y= ˆ AAAB7nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lE0WPRi8cK9gPaUDbbSbt0swm7G6GE/ggvHhTx6u/x5r9x0+agrQ8GHu/NMDMvSATXxnW/ndLa+sbmVnm7srO7t39QPTxq6zhVDFssFrHqBlSj4BJbhhuB3UQhjQKBnWByl/udJ1Sax/LRTBP0IzqSPOSMGit1sn4QktFsUK25dXcOskq8gtSgQHNQ/eoPY5ZGKA0TVOue5ybGz6gynAmcVfqpxoSyCR1hz1JJI9R+Nj93Rs6sMiRhrGxJQ+bq74mMRlpPo8B2RtSM9bKXi/95vdSEN37GZZIalGyxKEwFMTHJfydDrpAZMbWEMsXtrYSNqaLM2IQqNgRv+eVV0r6oe1d19+Gy1rgt4ijDCZzCOXhwDQ24hya0gMEEnuEV3pzEeXHenY9Fa8kpZo7hD5zPHxaHj2c= many repeated measurements of the modes in R and A cor- g f responds to a specific detector output of these measurements. The non-measured part of the state is only used when the de- Figure 3. Sketch representation of the conditional preparation tector indicates this specific output, otherwise it is simply dis- scheme for creating the non-Gaussian states described by (190). Note carded. This conditional selection of the state significantly that both f and g can be highly multimode. The Wigner function changes the properties of the state in a way that is strongly shown on the right was obtained by a conditional protocol shown in influenced by Aˆ. [39]. As we described in (42), the operator Aˆ comes with an associated phase-space representation WA(~xg) which can be used 2m 2l to formally describe the phase-space representation ofρ ˆf|A: R , which can now be written as ~x = ~xf ⊕~xg with ~xf ∈ R and 2l0 ~xg ∈ R . The general procedure is schematically outlined in R 0 ⊕ R2l d~xgWA(~xg)W(~xf ~xg) Fig.3 and we will present the details step by step. Wf|A(~xf) = R . (188) Any stateρ ˆ on this system then comes with a Wigner func- R2l0 d~xgWA(~xg)Wg(~xg) tion W(~x) = W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) that is defined on the global phase space. This state can be reduced to one of the two subsystems There is a more practical way of expressing this Wigner func- by tracing out the other subsystem, which can be described on tion by exploiting the fact that the initial multimode Wigner the level of the Wigner function by the following integrals: function W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is positive and therefore describes a well- defined probability distribution on phase space. This implies Z that the conditional probability distribution Wf(~xf) B d~xgW(~xf ⊕ ~xg), (182) R2l0 Z W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) ⊕ W(~xg | ~xf) B , (189) Wg(~xg) B d~xfW(~xf ~xg). (183) Wf(~xf) R2l When the state is Gaussian and the Wigner function is given is also a well-defined probability distribution, which is ob- 2l by (85), the structure of the phase space is reflected in the tained when we fix one point in phase space ~xf ∈ R and look at the probability distribution for the remaining modes in mean field vector ~ξ and in the covariance matrix V: 0 R2l . We can then use this conditional probability distribution ⊕ | ~ξ = ~ξf ⊕ ~ξg, (184) to write W(~xf ~xg) = W(~xg ~xf)Wf(~xf), which can be inserted ! in (188) to find V V V = f fg , (185) Vgf Vg ˆ hAig|~xf Wf|A(~xf) = Wf(~xf), (190) T hAî with Vfg = Vgf. The matrices Vf and Vg describe all the vari- 0 ances and correlations of the modes within R2l and R2l , re- where we define spectively. In addition, the submatrix Vgf contains all the cor- Z l0 relations between the modes in the different subspaces, which hAî B (4π) d~xgWA(~xg)Wg(~xg), (191) R2l0 will be important for conditional state preparation. One can Z show that for such Gaussian states, the reduced states are also h î l0 | 2l A g|~xf B (4π) d~xgWA(~xg)W(~xg ~xf). (192) Gaussian, for the modes in R given by R2l0

− 1 (~x −~ξ )T V−1(~x −~ξ ) e 2 f f f f f The quantity hAî is simply the expectation value of the ob- Wf(~xf) = √ , (186) m servable Aˆ in the stateρ ˆ. hAîg|~x , on the other hand, is the ex- (2π) det Vf f pectation value of the function WA(~xg) where ~xg is distributed 0 and analogously for the modes in R2l . As Gaussian states are ˆ according to the distribution W(~xg | ~xf), which makes hAig|~xf a the states that are least challenging to produce, they form the function of the selected phase space point ~xf. However, even starting point of the conditional state preparation scheme. though W(~xg | ~xf) is a well-defined probability distribution As a next step, we must implement some form of operation on phase space, it does not necessarily correspond to a quan- 2l0 on the modes that correspond to the phase space R . To do tum state. Indeed, W(~xg | ~xf) may violate the Heisenberg so, we consider the action of a general POVM element Aˆ > 0 inequality which will be of vital importance in SectionV as it that corresponds to a specific measurement outcome. We can is narrowly connected to quantum steering. then obtain a conditional state via In the specific case where W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is Gaussian, we find that W(~xg | ~xf) is also a Gaussian probability distribution, trg[Aˆρˆ] ρˆf|A B , (187) given by tr[Aˆρˆ] h 1 T −1 i 0 − ~x − ~ξ V ~x − ~ξ 2l exp 2 ( g g|~xf ) g|~x ( g g|~xf ) The partial trace trg[Aˆρˆ] only runs over the modes in R be- f W(~xg | ~xf) = . (193) l0 p cause the other modes are left untouched. The denominator (2π) det Vg|~xf 26

Using the notation of (185), we express its covariance matrix 2. An example: photon subtraction

− −1 T Single-photon subtracted states are theoretically obtained Vg|~xf = Vg VgfVf Vgf, (194) by acting with an annihilation operator on the state. Their and mean field vector density matrices are given by ~ † ~ − aˆ(b)ˆρaˆ (b) ~ξ = ~ξ + V V−1(~x − ~ξ ). (195) ρˆ = , (196) g|~xf g gf f f f tr[â†(~b)â(~b)ˆρ] if the photon is subtracted in one specific mode b. In The covariance matrix Vg|~xf is known in the mathematics literature [139] as the Schur complement of V. The Schur com- practice [124, 142, 143], we can implement this operation plement is interesting properties, for example, V is a positive on the stateρ ˆ through a mode-selective beamsplitter Uˆ = matrix if and only if the same holds for the Schur comple- exp{θ[â†(~g)â(~b) − aˆ†(~b)â(~g)]}, that couples the mode b to an ment Vg|~xf . This immediately implies that the Gaussian prob- auxiliary mode g which is prepared in a vacuum state. We thus ability distribution in (193) is well-defined. Furthermore, the describe the action of the beamsplitter on the system of inter- Schur complement also plays an important role in the theory est and the auxiliary mode as Uˆ (ˆρ ⊗ |0i h0|)Uˆ †. As a next step, of Gaussian quantum correlations [140]. It should be noted we mount a photon-detector on one of the output modes of that Vg|~xf does not actually depend on the chosen value for ~xf. the beamsplitter and condition on events where the detectors ˆ count a single photon. Thus, we generate the state Thus, the conditional expectation value hAig|~xf only depends on the phase space point ~xf through the displacement ~ξg|~x . † f trg[Uˆ (ˆρ ⊗ |0i h0|)Uˆ (1 ⊗ |1i h1|)] This is a particular feature of Gaussian states. ρˆ− = . (197) θ Uˆ ρ ⊗ | i h | Uˆ † 1 ⊗ | i h | Finally, remark that the derivation of (190) holds true for tr[ (ˆ 0 0 ) ( 1 1 )] all initial states with a positive Wigner function. Whenever the The reader can now recognise (187). As a next step, we as- initial multimode Wigner function W(~xf ⊕~xg) is positive, it fol- sume that the beamsplitter is transmitting nearly all the in- lows that Wf(~xf) is also positive. Furthermore, given that hAî coming light, such that θ → 0. We can then approximate is the quantum expectation value of a positive semi-definite Uˆ ≈ 1 + θ[â†(~g)â(~b) − aˆ†(~b)â(~g)]. Then, when we insert this operator it clearly also is a positive quantity. Hence, Wigner − approximation in the expression forρ ˆθ , we find that only the negativity is entirely contained with hAî . The fact that 2 g|~xf terms ∼ θ survive such that hAîg|~x can take negative values is exactly due to W(~xg | ~xf) not f ~ † ~ being the Wigner function of a quantum state. Furthermore, − − aˆ(b)ˆρaˆ (b) ρˆ = lim ρˆθ = . (198) (192) teaches us that the conditionally generated Wigner func- θ→0 tr[â†(~b)â(~b)ˆρ] tion Wf|A(~xf) can only achieve negative value when WA(~xg) is non-positive. A much more detailed analysis of multimode photon subtrac- Thus, in order to conditionally prepare a state with Wigner tion with imperfect mode-selectivity can be found in [144]. negativity, one faces strict requirements, on both the POVM We note that through this approach, photon subtraction can be element Aˆ that is conditioned upon and on the conditional understood as a weak measurement of the number of photons [145]. probability distribution W(~xg | ~xf) that is obtained from the initial multimode state. We will discuss this point in greater detail in SectionVB. For a more experimentally-inclined We can now derive the Wigner function of a single-photon- perspective on the production of non-Gaussian states, we subtracted state through (193) by following the idea of (197). refer to [76]. We initially start from a Gaussian state with covariance matrix Vf and one auxiliary mode that is prepared in the vacuum ! Before we move on to consider photon subtraction as an V 0 V = f . (199) example of conditional creation of non-Gaussian states, let ini 0 1 us take a moment the opposite process: Gaussification. The authors of [141] consider several copies of an initial non- We then implement a mode-selective beamsplitter that mixes Gaussian state which are mixed through linear optics and sub- one specific mode b with the auxiliary vacuum mode, follow- sequently some output modes are measured with on-off detec- ing the scheme outlined in Fig.4. An e ffective way to de- tors. The conditioning is done of the events where no photons scribe such a transformation is by designing a new mode basis are detected, and such that we can interpret Aˆ as a projector B, which has b as one of the modes in the mode basis. We c c in vacuum. By repeating several iterations of this scheme (as- complete the basis with complementary modes b1,... bm−1, suming many successful conditioning events), the initial non- such that the modes basis of phase space is given by B = Gaussian state is converted into a Gaussian state. The Gaus- ~c ~c ~c ~c ~ ~ {b1, Ωb1,..., bm−1, Ωbm−1, b, Ωb}. Thus, we can perform such sification process thus relies on starting from a non-Gaussian a basis change as state and conditioning by projecting on a Gaussian state: the ! ! ! ! vacuum. This point of view nicely complements our approach V 0 OT 0 V 0 O 0 f 7→ B f B , (200) to create non-Gaussian states. 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 27

AAAB7XicbVBNSwMxEJ2tX7V+VT16CRbBU9ktUj2WevFmRfsB7VKyabaNzSZLkhXK0v/gxYMiXv0/3vw3pu0etPXBwOO9GWbmBTFn2rjut5NbW9/Y3MpvF3Z29/YPiodHLS0TRWiTSC5VJ8CaciZo0zDDaSdWFEcBp+1gfD3z209UaSbFg5nE1I/wULCQEWys1Lrtp/X7ab9YcsvuHGiVeBkpQYZGv/jVG0iSRFQYwrHWXc+NjZ9iZRjhdFroJZrGmIzxkHYtFTii2k/n107RmVUGKJTKljBorv6eSHGk9SQKbGeEzUgvezPxP6+bmPDKT5mIE0MFWSwKE46MRLPX0YApSgyfWIKJYvZWREZYYWJsQAUbgrf88ippVcpetVy5uyjV6lkceTiBUzgHDy6hBjfQgCYQeIRneIU3RzovzrvzsWjNOdnMMfyB8/kDUiKO+A== where the matrix of basis change is given by OBS

AAAB7nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0mKVI9FLx4r2A9oQ9lsJ+3SzSbsboQS+iO8eFDEq7/Hm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8IBFcG9f9dgobm1vbO8Xd0t7+weFR+fikreNUMWyxWMSqG1CNgktsGW4EdhOFNAoEdoLJ3dzvPKHSPJaPZpqgH9GR5CFn1Fipk/WDkISzQbniVt0FyDrxclKBHM1B+as/jFkaoTRMUK17npsYP6PKcCZwVuqnGhPKJnSEPUsljVD72eLcGbmwypCEsbIlDVmovycyGmk9jQLbGVEz1qveXPzP66UmvPEzLpPUoGTLRWEqiInJ/Hcy5AqZEVNLKFPc3krYmCrKjE2oZEPwVl9eJ+1a1atXaw9XlcZtHkcRzuAcLsGDa2jAPTShBQwm8Ayv8OYkzovz7nwsWwtOPnMKf+B8/gAV+o9p  | | | | | |  AAAB7nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0mKVI9FLx4r2A9oQ9lsJ+3SzSbsboQS+iO8eFDEq7/Hm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8IBFcG9f9dgobm1vbO8Xd0t7+weFR+fikreNUMWyxWMSqG1CNgktsGW4EdhOFNAoEdoLJ3dzvPKHSPJaPZpqgH9GR5CFn1Fipk/WDkISzQbniVt0FyDrxclKBHM1B+as/jFkaoTRMUK17npsYP6PKcCZwVuqnGhPKJnSEPUsljVD72eLcGbmwypCEsbIlDVmovycyGmk9jQLbGVEz1qveXPzP66UmvPEzLpPUoGTLRWEqiInJ/Hcy5AqZEVNLKFPc3krYmCrKjE2oZEPwVl9eJ+1a1atXaw9XlcZtHkcRzuAcLsGDa2jAPTShBQwm8Ayv8OYkzovz7nwsWwtOPnMKf+B8/gAV+o9p   f  c c c c  f OB = ~b Ω~b ... ~b Ω~b ~b Ω~b . (201)  1 1 m−1 m−1   | | | | | | 

AAAB83icbVBNSwMxEJ31s9avqkcvwSJ4KrtF1GOpF29W6Bd015JNs21oNlmSrFCW/g0vHhTx6p/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvTDjTxnW/nbX1jc2t7cJOcXdv/+CwdHTc1jJVhLaI5FJ1Q6wpZ4K2DDOcdhNFcRxy2gnHtzO/80SVZlI0zSShQYyHgkWMYGMl//6x2c98gjmqT/ulsltx50CrxMtJGXI0+qUvfyBJGlNhCMda9zw3MUGGlWGE02nRTzVNMBnjIe1ZKnBMdZDNb56ic6sMUCSVLWHQXP09keFY60kc2s4Ym5Fe9mbif14vNdFNkDGRpIYKslgUpRwZiWYBoAFTlBg+sQQTxeytiIywwsTYmIo2BG/55VXSrla8q0r14bJcq+dxFOAUzuACPLiGGtxBA1pAIIFneIU3J3VenHfnY9G65uQzJ/AHzucPWyiRPw== It is now instructive to explicitly write the rows and columns T AAAB8XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKewGUY8hXrwZwTwwWcLspJMMmZ1dZmaFsOQvvHhQxKt/482/cZLsQRMLGoqqbrq7glhwbVz328mtrW9sbuW3Czu7e/sHxcOjpo4SxbDBIhGpdkA1Ci6xYbgR2I4V0jAQ2ArGNzO/9YRK80g+mEmMfkiHkg84o8ZKj3e9tMuoILVpr1hyy+4cZJV4GSlBhnqv+NXtRywJURomqNYdz42Nn1JlOBM4LXQTjTFlYzrEjqWShqj9dH7xlJxZpU8GkbIlDZmrvydSGmo9CQPbGVIz0sveTPzP6yRmcO2nXMaJQckWiwaJICYis/dJnytkRkwsoUxxeythI6ooMzakgg3BW355lTQrZe+yXLm/KFVrWRx5OIFTOAcPrqAKt1CHBjCQ8Ayv8OZo58V5dz4WrTknmzmGP3A+fwD8FpB5 corresponding to mode b: O O ! c cb B AAAB+nicbVDLTgJBEOzFF+Jr0aOXicQEL2SXGPVI8OJNjPJIYN3MDgNMmH1kZlZD1v0ULx40xqtf4s2/cYA9KFhJJ5Wq7nR3eRFnUlnWt5FbWV1b38hvFra2d3b3zOJ+S4axILRJQh6Kjocl5SygTcUUp51IUOx7nLa98eXUbz9QIVkY3KlJRB0fDwM2YAQrLblm8fo+KfcI5qh+krpJ/TZ1zZJVsWZAy8TOSAkyNFzzq9cPSezTQBGOpezaVqScBAvFCKdpoRdLGmEyxkPa1TTAPpVOMjs9Rcda6aNBKHQFCs3U3xMJ9qWc+J7u9LEayUVvKv7ndWM1uHASFkSxogGZLxrEHKkQTXNAfSYoUXyiCSaC6VsRGWGBidJpFXQI9uLLy6RVrdhnlerNaalWz+LIwyEcQRlsOIcaXEEDmkDgEZ7hFd6MJ+PFeDc+5q05I5s5gD8wPn8A9v+TLA==

AAAB7nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0mKVI9FLx4r2A9oQ9lsN+3SzSbsToQS+iO8eFDEq7/Hm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8IJHCoOt+O4WNza3tneJuaW//4PCofHzSNnGqGW+xWMa6G1DDpVC8hQIl7yaa0yiQvBNM7uZ+54lrI2L1iNOE+xEdKREKRtFKnawfhGQ0G5QrbtVdgKwTLycVyNEclL/6w5ilEVfIJDWm57kJ+hnVKJjks1I/NTyhbEJHvGepohE3frY4d0YurDIkYaxtKSQL9fdERiNjplFgOyOKY7PqzcX/vF6K4Y2fCZWkyBVbLgpTSTAm89/JUGjOUE4toUwLeythY6opQ5tQyYbgrb68Ttq1qlev1h6uKo3bPI4inME5XIIH19CAe2hCCxhM4Ble4c1JnBfn3flYthacfOYU/sD5/AEXf49q b g Note that Vf is the 2 × 2 matrix that describes the initial state AAAB/nicbVDLSsNAFL2pr1pfUXHlZrAIdVOSIuqy6sZlBfuApoTJdNIOnTyYmRRLCPgrblwo4tbvcOffOG2z0NYDFw7n3Mu993gxZ1JZ1rdRWFldW98obpa2tnd298z9g5aMEkFok0Q8Eh0PS8pZSJuKKU47saA48Dhte6Pbqd8eUyFZFD6oSUx7AR6EzGcEKy255lHbTa+zijOmBD26qeP5aJCduWbZqlozoGVi56QMORqu+eX0I5IENFSEYym7thWrXoqFYoTTrOQkksaYjPCAdjUNcUBlL52dn6FTrfSRHwldoUIz9fdEigMpJ4GnOwOshnLRm4r/ed1E+Ve9lIVxomhI5ov8hCMVoWkWqM8EJYpPNMFEMH0rIkMsMFE6sZIOwV58eZm0alX7olq7Py/Xb/I4inAMJ1ABGy6hDnfQgCYQSOEZXuHNeDJejHfjY95aMPKZQ/gD4/MHJyyU+A== c WA(~xg) covariances of mode b, while Vf is the (m−1)×(m−1) that describes all the covariances in the complementary modes. The cb bc rectangular matrices Vf and Vf contain all the correlations between the mode b and the complementary modes in the basis. Now, we mix the mode b and the auxiliary vacuum mode Figure 4. Schematic representation of an implementation of mode- on a beam splitter. This beamsplitter is implemented by the selective photon subtraction. See main text for details. For illustrta- transformation tion, the initial state on the left is a product of single-mode squeezed vacuum states, but the protocol can in principle be applied to any  Vc Vcb 0  f f  T Gaussian state. V(B) = O(B) Vbc Vb 0 O(B) , (203) BS BS  f f  BS  0 0 1 c c modes b1,... bm−1. This means that the finer details of the in- (B) where OBS is given by terferometer OB are not important for the final OBS , the key point is that OB changes towards a mode basis in which ~b and 1 0 0    Ω~b are basis vectors of the phase space. (B)  1 − 1 OBS = 0 cos θ sin θ  . (204) For the particular case of photon subtraction, we consider a  1 1  0 sin θ cos θ very weak beamsplitter, such that we consider the limit θ → 0. In this case, we can express the conditional mean field (195) As a final step, we change the basis back to the original basis, and covariance matrix (194) of the auxiliary mode g by such that the final state’s covariance matrix becomes ~ ≈ − T −1 − ~ ~ ! T ! ξg|~xf θ(Vbf B )Vf (~xf ξf) + θξb (209) OB 0 (B) OB 0 V = 1 VBS 1 . (205) T 1 −1 ~ ~ 0 0 = θB ( − Vf )(~xf − ξf) + θξb V ≈ 1 + θ2 V − 1 − (V − BT )V−1(V − B) , (210) We can now rewrite this entire transformation such that the g|~xf b bf f fb matrix V in (185) is given by 1 2 1 T −1 = + θ − B Vf B ,

T T T V = OBS ViniOBS , (206) where we introduce the matrices Vb = B Vf B, Vbf = B Vf, T and Vfb = Vf B as well as the vector ~ξb = B ~ξf. We can then with use these quantities to evaluate that ! T ! OB 0 (B) O 0 B W(~xg | ~xf) ≈ (211) OBS = 1 OBS 1 0 0 1 − k~xgk ! (207) e 2 − (cos θ − 1) BBT + 1 sin θ B 1 + θ ~xT · BT (1 − V 1)(~x − ~ξ ) + θ~xT · ~ξ = . (2π)m g f f f g b − sin θ BT cos θ1 θ2 + (~xT · BT (1 − V−1)(~x − ~ξ ) + ~xT · ~ξ )2 We introduce the 2m×2 matrix B which implements the mode- 2 g f f f g b selectivity of the beamsplitter in mode b and is defined as T 1 −1 ~ ~ 2 T 1 T −1 − kB ( − Vf )(~xf − ξf) + ξbk + ~xg − B Vf B ~xg   | | + O(θ3) .   B = ~b Ω~b . (208)    | |  As a next step, we must choose a POVM element Aˆ to measure. In the case of photon subtraction, we mount a photon Hence, we can simply use OBS as a mode-selective beam- counter on the auxiliary mode and for single-photon subtrac- splitter that mixes one specific mode of a multimode state tion we condition on the event where this detector detects with the auxiliary mode. We should highlight that OBS ul- exactly one photon. Because we use a very weakly reflec- timately turns out to be independent of the complementary tive beamsplitter, the probability of obtaining such an event is 28 small but when it occurs, we have created a photon subtracted θ. In practice, one chooses the reflectivity of the beamsplitter state on the remaining modes. with respect to the energy content of the initial state to effec- On a theoretical level, mounting a photon counter and con- tively suppress all higher order terms in (211). In the single- ditioning on a single photon is translated to choosing Aˆ = mode case, an early thorough analysis of the implementation ED 1g 1g . We already encountered the corresponding Wigner of photon-subtraction can be found in [149]. There are also function in (118), and thus we can combine this with (211) to proposals in literature to use a photon subtraction setup with obtain larger values of θ to gain an additional advantage in quantum Z state preparation [150–152]. ˆ As a final note, we point out that a similar treatment can hAig|~xf = 4π d~xgW1~g (~xg)W(~xg | ~xf) R2 be used to describe photon-added states, which are also rele- 2 θ − (212) vant in experiments [153, 154]. It is perhaps surprising that ≈ kBT (1 − V 1)(~x − ~ξ ) + ~ξ k2 2 f f f b such state can be obtained by performing a measurement on h i a part of a Gaussian state, but it suffices to replace the beam- 1 − BT V−1B O θ3 , + tr f + ( ) splitter in (197) with a two-mode squeezer. In other words, we set Uˆ = exp{θ[â†(~g)â†(~b) − aˆ(~b)â(~g)]}, and consider again and in a similar fashion we find that the limit where the parameter θ is small, i.e. weak squeezing. Z Even though this is a simple step in theory, it is much harder hAî = 4π d~x W (~x )W (~x ) g 1~g g g g in an actual experimental setting. Photon subtraction can be R2 (213) 2 implemented with a passive linear optics element, while pho- θ 2 3 ≈ tr [Vb − 1] + k~ξbk + O(θ ). ton addition always requires squeezing and thus a nonlinear 2 optics implementation. The actual evaluation of these integrals is not completely straightforward. As a key idea, we use that the integral takes the form of a polynomial multiplied by a Gaussian. We can V. NON-GAUSSIAN STATES AND QUANTUM thus evaluate the expectation value of the polynomial with re- CORRELATIONS spect to this Gaussian distribution. In essence, this boils down to calculating a set of moments of a Gaussian probability dis- In this Section, we explore the interplay between non- tribution. We see rather quickly that the lowest orders in θ 2 Gaussian effects and quantum correlations. First, in Subsec- vanish, such that the leading order is θ . Putting everything tionVA, we provide a crash course to introduce the unfa- together, we find that miliar reader to the most important types of quantum correlations: entanglement, steering, and Bell non-locality. In Sub- hAî g|~xf sectionVB we will subsequently highlight how certain types lim Wf|A(~xf) = lim Wf(~xf) θ→0 θ→0 hAî of quantum correlations can be used to create certain types h i T 1 −1 ~ ~ 2 1 T −1 of non-Gaussian states via the methods of SubsectionIVB. kB ( − Vf )(~xf − ξf) + ξbk + tr − B Vf B = Wf(~xf). In SubsectionVC, we then explore how non-Gaussian opera- 2 tr (Vb − 1) + k~ξbk tions can create or enhance quantum correlations by focusing (214) on photon-subtracted states. Finally, we will explore the role that is played by non-Gaussian states in Bell inequalities in As such, we obtain the Wigner function for a multimode SubsectionVD. photon-subtracted state. This Wigner function can be obtained using several different methods, ranging from algebraic [146, 147] to analytical [148]. The difference between those approaches and our method here is that we do not directly use A. Quantum correlations: a crash course the properties of the annihilation operator, but rather model the exact experimental setup, while relying entirely on phase- We start by giving a quick introduction to the different space representations. kinds of common quantum correlations. Readers who want to The methods presented here for treating photon-subtracted get a more thorough overview on these subjects are referred states can straightforwardly be extended to the subtraction of Refs. [155–157] as natural starting points. multiple photons in different modes and we can easily replace photon-number resolving detection with an on-off detector by In this Tutorial, we solely consider bipartite quantum cor- setting Aˆ = 1−|0i h0|. The techniques used in the calculations relations. This implies that we structure the system in a remain essentially the same and it yields the same result in the similar way as in SubsectionIVB and divide the m-mode θ → 0 limit (doing this calculation may prove to be a good system in two parts, each with their own phase space, i.e., 0 exercise for the motivated Reader). However, any real imple- R2m = R2l ⊕ R2l . It is noteworthy that the corresponding Fock mentation of a photon subtraction experiment will use a beam- space takes the structure Γ(Hm) = Γ(Hl) ⊗ Γ(Hl0 ), where we splitter with finite reflectivity, such that the will be a difference again use the mapping (44) between the phase space R2k and between on-off detectors and photon-number resolving detec- the k-dimension Hilbert space Hk. These structures are cru- tors due to the small contributions of higher order terms in cial to understand quantum correlations. 29

1. Correlations 2. Quantum entanglement

To better understand quantum correlations, it is useful to Quantum entanglement is probably the most well-known start by generally defining what a correlations is. In a sta- type of quantum correlation. The notion of entanglement de- tistical sense, two stochastic variables X and Y are correlated rives directly from the structure of the quantum state space when the expectation values have the following property and is related to the contrast between pure states in classical and quantum physics. E E E (XY) , (X) (Y). (215) To understand this contrast, we loosely follow the idea of This can be translated to the level of probability distributions [159]. Let us be a bit more precise as to what is meant with by stating that the joint probability distribution for outcomes pure states in classical physics in the context of CV systems. X = x and Y = y is not the product of the marginals Classically, in a context of statistical mechanics, any CV system can be described by a probability distribution on phase P(x, y) , P(x)P(y), (216) space. From a mathematical point of view, this means that the space containing all the possible classical states is a convex where Z Z set because any convex combination of two probability distri- P(x) = dy P(x, y), and P(y) = dx P(x, y). (217) butions is again a probability distribution. Pure states are for- Y X mally defined as the extreme points of the convex set, i.e., the states that cannot be decomposed as being a convex combina- X Y Here, and denote the possible outcomes of the stochastic tion of two other states. In a classical theory, where states can variables X and Y, respectively [158]. unambiguously be represented by probability distributions on When we talk about quantum systems, there are generally phase space, the pure states are delta functions centred on the many observables that can be considered. When we consider a different points of phase space. From a physical point of view, global multimode system with phase space R2m and two sub- 0 this corresponds to the intuition that pure states are “the least R2l R2l systems with phase spaces and , there is a whole al- noisy” states, which simply corresponds to a single point in gebra of observables involved. The role of the stochastic ob- phase space. servables X and Y will be taken up by local observables Xˆ and 0 For our phase space R2m = R2l ⊕ R2l these delta Yˆ that are contained in the observable algebra generated by, functions factorise with respect to the subsystems, i.e., 2l 2l0 respectively,q ˆ( f~) andq ˆ(~g), with f~ ∈ R and ~g ∈ R . These 0 0 0 0 2m 0 2l δ(~x − ~x ) = δ(~xf − ~xf)δ(~xg − ~xg), with ~x, ~x ∈ R , ~xf, ~xf ∈ R , local observables are correlated when 0 2l0 and ~xg, ~xg ∈ R . In the light of (216) we thus conclude tr(Xˆ ⊗ Yˆρˆ) , tr(Xˆρˆf)tr(Yˆρˆg), (218) that pure states of classical systems are always uncorrelated [160]. Any correlations that are present in classical states are whereρ ˆf andρ ˆg are the marginals (or reduced states) ofρ ˆ for thus obtained by taking a convex combination of uncorrelated 2l 2l0 the subsystems R and R . pure states. When we talk about correlated systems rather than correlated observables, we consider that there exists a pair of lo- In quantum systems, pure states are represented by state cal observables such that (218) holds. Thus, if two systems vectors in a Hilbert space (in our case Fock space). They also are not correlated, it follows that for all possible observables can be seen as the extreme points of a convex set of states ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ tr(X ⊗ Yρˆ) = tr(Xρˆf)tr(Yρˆg). This lack of correlations can that contains all density matricesρ ˆ. As we saw in the exam- be expressed on the level of the quantum state by the iden- ple where we discussed the Hong-Ou-Mandel state |HOMi in ityρ ˆ = ρˆf ⊗ ρˆg. On the level of Wigner functions, we can (165), pure quantum states can actually be correlated in the therefore say that a state contains correlations if the Wigner sense of (219). This crucial difference between classical and function satisfies quantum pure states lies at the basis of quantum entanglement. The notion of entanglement derives directly from the struc- W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) , Wf(~xf)Wg(~xg), (219) ture of the quantum state and is defined as the opposite of a where the marginal Wigner functions are defined as in (182, separable state. For pure states, separable states |Ψi ∈ Γ(Hm) 183). are the pure states that are uncorrelated and can thus be writ- It is clear that correlations between systems can occur, both, ten as |Ψi = |Ψli ⊗ |Ψl0 i with |Ψli ∈ Γ(Hl) and |Ψl0 i ∈ Γ(Hl0 ). in the context of classical probability theory and in quantum All other pure states are said to be entangled. They possess theory. However, we already established that quantum physics correlations that are not due to some type of convex combina- imposes additional contraints on the statistics of observables, tion of uncorrelated states, something which is impossible for which ultimately make it impossible to describe CV quantum classical pure states. systems in terms of probability distributions on phase space. The situation is more subtle when considering mixed states, Similarly, quantum physics leads to new features for the cor- i.e. convex combinations of pure states. Convex mixtures of relations of subsystems. Thus, in our study of quantum cor- classical pure states can also show correlations, and it is there- relations we explore correlated systems, in the sense of (219), fore crucial to make a distinction between this type of classical and we seek to differentiate between correlations that are of correlations and quantum correlations. Due to the structure of classical origin and those that can be attributed to a quantum classical pure states, we find that any classical joint proba- origin. bility distribution on phase space can be written as a convex 30 combination of local probability distributions not necessarily know the origins and behaviour of γ, but the Z model generally captures two important elements. First, all (γ) (γ) correlations are induced by the common variable γ that gov- P(~xf ⊕ ~xg) = dγp(γ)P (~xf)P (~xg), (220) erns the convex mixture. Second, the local probability distributions P(γ)(x) and P(γ)(y) have a quantum origin. For CV where γ is some arbitrary way of labelling states, distributed ρˆ ρˆ according to distribution p(γ). This notion of classical cor- systems the latter point for example implies that these local relations can directly be generalised to quantum states [161], probability distributions must satisfy the Heisenberg inequal- and thus a mixed state is said to be separable when all of its ity. These quantum constraints on the local probability distri- (γ) (γ) correlations are classical, i.e., when it is a convex mixture of butions Pρˆ (x) and Pρˆ (y) are typically useful for the falsifi- product states cation of the local hidden variable model (223) and thus prove Z the presence of quantum entanglement [164, 165]. (γ) (γ) ρˆ = dγ p(γ)ˆρf ⊗ ρˆg . (221) 3. Quantum steering In the language of Wigner functions, the separability condition translates to In a formal sense, quantum steering is a rather recent addi- Z tion to the family of quantum correlations. Nevertheless, it is W(~x ⊕ ~x ) = dγp(γ)W(γ)(~x )W(γ)(~x ), (222) f g f f g g exactly this phenomenon that lies at the basis of the Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox [166]. Schrodinger’s¨ re- where we again use the definitions of (182, 183). Quantum sponse to the EPR paper [167, 168] lies at the basis of what states that cannot be described by a Wigner function of the we now call quantum steering, but the broader implications form (222) are not separable and are said to be entangled. of these results were only sporadically discovered and formalised [169, 170]. Hence, quantum entanglement describes the origin of the Just like for quantum entanglement, a system is said to be quantum correlations rather than their properties. Neverthe- steerable if the measurement statistics cannot be explained in less, the set of separable states is a convex set and thus the terms of a local hidden variable model. A peculiarity of quan- Hahn-Banach separation theorem [162, 163] teaches us that it tum steering is that it involves a certain directionality, where is in principle possible to use observables to distinguish be- one of the subsystems is said to ”steer” the other subsystem. tween separable and entangled states. In this sense the differ- This asymmetry is represented in the local hidden variable ence between entangled and separable states is measurable. model, which takes the following form: For the sake of uniformity, we highlight that separable states Z lead to the following measurement statistics of local observ- (γ) P(x, y) = dγp(γ)P(γ)(x)P (y), (226) ables Xˆ and Yˆ: ρˆ Z P(x, y) = dγp(γ)P(γ)(x)P(γ)(y). (223) where we emphasise the striking resemblance to (223). Note ρˆ ρˆ that, contrary to the case of quantum entanglement, we now allow the probability distribution P(γ)(x) for the first subsys- It is crucial to emphasise that the distributions of measure- (γ) (γ) tem to be arbitrary and thus do not impose any constraints of ment outcomes Pρˆ (x) and Pρˆ (y) are governed by the laws of quantum theory on it. If there exist observables Xˆ and Yˆ for quantum physics. Formally, we can use the spectral theorem which the probability distribution is not consistent with the to write model (226), the subsystems with phase space R2l is able to 0 Z Z steer the subsystem with phase space R2l . Xˆ = dx xEˆ x, and Yˆ = dy yEˆy, (224) Quantum steering is perhaps most logically explained in X Y terms of conditional states and probability distributions. For non-steerable states, the local hidden variable model (226) such that Eˆ x and Eˆy are the POVM elements that correspond to the measurement outcomes x and y for the measurement must hold for all observables, which in turn imposes condi- of the (generalised) observables Xˆ and Yˆ, respectively. The tions on the level of states. Here these conditions manifest on the level of conditional states of the type (187). To see this, probability distribution P(γ)(x) is then given by ρˆ we consider the conditional probability distribution associated Z with (226): P(γ)(x) = tr[Eˆ ρˆ(γ)] = (4π)l d~x W (~x )W (~x ), (225) ρˆ x f f Ex f f f R (γ) R2l (γ) dγp(γ)P (x)Pρˆ (y) P(y | x) = , (227) (γ) P(x) and analogously for Pρˆ (y). For separable states, the equation (223) with local proba- where the probability to obtain a certain outcome Xˆ = x is bility distribution given by (225) holds for any arbitrary pair given by of local observables. The model that is described by these Z equations is known as a local hidden variable model for quan- (γ) tum entanglement, where γ is the hidden variable. We may P(x) = dγp(γ)P (x). (228) 31

Note that for any x the function Now let us now express (233) for quadrature operators:

(γ) 2 p(γ)P (x) ∆2 [ˆq(~g )]∆2 [ˆq(~g )] ~gT Ω~g , (234) P˜(γ | x) B (229) inf 1 inf 2 > 1 2 P(x) 2l0 where ~g1,~g2 ∈ R . As a next step, we must understand the is a well-defined probability distribution. Furthermore, if we properties of the average inference variance ∆2 [ˆq(~g )], which ˆ inf 1 demand that (227) holds for all observables Y, we find the we obtain by conditioning on a quadrature observable in the following condition for the conditional state: other subsystem’s phase space R2l. More specifically let us Z assume that we condition on measurements ofq ˆ( f~ ), such that (γ) 1 ρˆ ˆ = dγ P˜(γ | x)ˆρ . (230) 2 g|X=x g we must evaluate the conditional variance ∆ (ˆq(~g1) | qˆ( f~1) = 2 x). The conditional variance ∆ (ˆq(~g1) | qˆ( f~1) = x) is then Because quantum steering is a property of the state, we again given by the matrix element of the covariance matrix that de- require (230) to hold for all observables Xˆ for a state to not be scribes W(~xg | x f~1) as defined in (193): steerable.  ~ ~T  2 T  Vgf f1 f1 Vfg  The local hidden variable model (226) and the consequence ∆ (ˆq(~g1) | qˆ( f~1) = x) = ~g Vg − ~g1, (235) 1  ~T ~  for the conditional state (230) may seem stringent, but it is f1 Vf f1 often intricate to formally prove that such a model cannot explain observed data. It turns out that computational methods because the quantity does not depend on the actual outcome based on semidefinite programming [171] are well suited to that is post-selected upon, we find that prove that the set of all possible conditional states is incon-   V f~ f~T V sistent with (230). A more physical point of view is based 2 T  gf 1 1 fg  ∆inf[ˆq(~g1)] = ~g1 Vg − ~g1, (236) on developing steering inequalities [172]. As a notable exam-  ~T ~  f1 Vf f1 ple, one can derive a type of conditional Heisenberg inequality   V f~ f~T V for states of the form (230). The local hidden variable model 2 T  gf 2 2 fg  ∆inf[ˆq(~g2)] = ~g2 Vg − ~g2 (237) (226) assumes that the laws of quantum physics constrain the  ~T ~  f2 Vf f2 measurement statistics in the second subsystem. We can then ˆ 2 define the conditional variance of an arbitrary observable Y From (236) and (237) we can deduce that ∆inf[ˆq(~g)] > 0 ~gT V ~g for all ~g ∈ R2l regardless of theq ˆ( f~) that is condi- 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ 2 ˆ 2 g|~xf ∆ (Y | X = x) B tr[Y ρˆg|Xˆ=x] − tr[Yρˆg|Xˆ=x] , (231) tioned upon. Thus, if Vg|~xf satisfies the Heisenberg inequality which leads to the “average inference variance” the inference Heisenberg inequality (234) is also satisfied. The setting with homodyne measurements, or more gen- Z eral Gaussian measurements, is close to the system that is 2 ˆ 2 ˆ | ˆ ∆inf(Y) B dxP(x)∆ (Y X = x), (232) discussed in [166]. For this reason, we will refer to quantum X steering with Gaussian measurements as EPR steering in that characterises the precision with which we can infer the contrast to more general quantum steering. This type of measurement outcome of Yˆ, given a measurement outcome of steering has been studied extensively in literature, e.g., Xˆ. Under the assumption that (230) holds, we can than prove [170, 173–175] and will be a key element in SectionVB2. the inference Heisenberg inequality [172] Note that both subsystems clearly play a very different Z 2 2 2 1 role in this setting. The first subsystem simply produces ∆ (Yˆ )∆ (Yˆ ) > dxP(x) tr [Yˆ , Yˆ ]ˆρ ˆ , (233) inf 1 inf 2 1 2 g|X3=x 2 X3 measurement results of different observables. The information of these measurements in the first subsystem is then 2 ˆ 2 ˆ where ∆inf(Y1) and ∆inf(Y2) can be conditioned on any observ- used to infer measurement results in the second subsystem, ables Xˆ1 and Xˆ2, respectively. which is assumed to be a quantum system. In a quantum Thus, whenever one performs a series of conditional mea- communication context, this asymmetry corresponds to a surements that violate the inference Heisenberg inequality level of trust: we position ourselves in the steered system and (233), the assumption (230) cannot hold and thus the mea- trust that our system is a well-behaved quantum system, but surements in the subsystem with phase space R2l have steered we do not trust the party that controls the other subsystem 0 those in the subsystem with phase space R2l . In more collo- (up to a point where we do not even want to assume that quial terms, the inequality (233) sets a limit on the precision the data that are communicated to us come from an actual with which classical correlations between observables can be quantum system). The violation of a steering inequality used to infer measurement outcomes of one quantum subsys- practically allows to verify in such a setting that there is tem, based on measurement outcome of the other subsystem indeed a quantum correlation between the two subsystems (regardless of whether it is quantum or not). Quantum correla- [176]. tions allow us to outperform these bounds and provide better inference than classically possible, and this phenomenon is The inference Heisenberg inequality (233) shows that quan- the essence of quantum steering. tum steering describes certain properties of the quantum cor- 32 relations. States that can perform quantum steering thus pos- are the strongest types of quantum correlations. sess correlations that can be used to infer measurement outcomes better than any classical correlations could. These cor- The key insight of Bell’s work [177, 178] is that (238) puts relations cannot be described by a hidden variable model of constraints on the correlations of different combinations of ob- the form (226), which is more general than the model (223). servables in the subsystems. These constraints, cast in the Thus, all states that produce statistics consistent with (223) form of Bell inequalities can be violated by certain quantum are also consistent with (226) such that states that can per- states. The inconsistency of quantum physics with the model form steering must be entangled. However, there are states (238) can in itself be seen as a special case of contextuality that produce statistics that is consistent with (226), but incon- [179]. Over the decades, many different kinds of Bell in- sistent with (223). In other words, not all entangled states can equalities have been derived (see for example [180]). Here we be used to perform quantum steering. In this sense, quantum restrict to presenting one of the most commonly used incar- steering can be said to be “stronger” than quantum entangle- nations: the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality ment. [181]. This inequality relies on the measurement of four observables: Xˆ and Xˆ 0 on the first subsystem and Yˆ and Yˆ 0 on the second subsystem. Furthermore, we consider that the ob- 4. Bell nonlocality servables can take two possible values: −1 or 1. Assuming the model in (238) it is then possible to derive

To date, the seminal work of John S. Bell on the Einstein- 0 0 0 0 hXˆYî − hXˆYˆ i + hXˆ Yî + hXˆ Yˆ i 6 2, (239) Podolsky-Rosen paradox [177] is probably one of the most remarkable findings on the foundations of quantum physics. where h.i denotes the expectation value. In this Tutorial we What most had long taken for granted, the existence of local skip the derivation of this result, but the interested reader hidden variables to explain the probabilistic nature of quan- is referred to [182] for a detailed discussion. Remarkably, tum physics, turned out to be inconsistent with the theoretical certain highly entangled states can violate this inequality. quantum formalism. It is here that we find the real historical origin of the concept of quantum correlations as something The experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities formally fundamentally different from classical ones. shows that quantum correlations are profoundly different than As for quantum entanglement and steering, the story of classical correlations [183–186]. However, one needs clever Bell nonlocality starts from a local hidden variable model that combinations of several observables in both subsystems to ac- bears a strong resemblance to (223) and (226). In this case, the tually observe the difference. With most experimental loop- model attempts to describe the joint measurement statistics of holes now closed [187–191], Bell inequalities can now in prin- ˆ ˆ X and Y as ciple be used to impose a device independent level of security Z on various quantum protocols [192]. P(x, y) = dγp(γ)P(γ)(x)P(γ)(y). (238) As a concluding remark, it is interesting to highlight the existence of a semi-device independent framework for testing The key observation is that now all the quantum constraints quantum correlations [193, 194]. The key idea is that noth- on the probability distributions have been dropped and both ing is assume about the measurements devices nor about the the P(γ)(x) and P(γ)(y) can be any mathematically well-defined states, much like in the scenario of Bell inequalities. Yet, in probability distributions. Even though the difference between the framework of [193, 194] one does add an additional level (223) and (226) on the one hand, and (238) on the other hand, of trust in the sense that one assumes that the inputs of the may appear small, the impact of dropping the constraints on measurement device can be controlled and trusted. In a way, the local distributions is enormous. Think for example of this additional intermediate level of trust is somewhat reminis- the Hahn-Banach separation theorem that is invoked to define cent of quantum steering. This framework was very recently entanglement witnesses, this crucially relies on the Hilbert extended to the CV setting [195]. space structure of the state space. Think for example of (233) which crucially depends on the fact that quantum probabilities are constrained by the Heisenberg inequality. Abandon- B. Non-Gaussianity through Quantum Correlations ing all connections that tie probabilities to operator algebras on Hilbert spaces deprives quantum mechanics of their tool- In SubsectionIVB, we explained how conditional opera- box. Nevertheless, it turns out that some quantum states in- tions can be used to create non-Gaussian quantum states. The duce statistics that is inconsistent with (238). presence of correlations plays an essential role in this frame- Again, we note that states that can be described by the work. Indeed, in the absence of correlations the combina- models (223) or (226) can also be described by the model tion of (222) and (189) implies that W(~xg | ~xf) = Wg(~xg). (238). Bell’s local hidden variable model (238) is thus As a consequence, we see from (192) for the conditional ˆ ˆ the most general one and the class of states that lead to expectation value hAig|~xf = hAi, and thus from (190) that measurement statistics that cannot be described by it is the Wf|Aˆ(~xf) = Wf(~xf). In other words, the conditional operation smallest. Therefore, we say that the correlations that lead to a has no effect whatsoever and gives the same result as tracing 0 violation of the model (238), also known as Bell nonlocality, out the modes in R2l . 33

A closer look at the explicit expressions and show thatp Ã(γ) is a well-defined probability distribution. First, we use the definition of the reduced state hAîg|~x Z W (~x ) = f W (~x ), (190) f|A f ˆ f f Wg(~xg) = d~xfW(~xf ⊕ ~xg) (242) hAi R2l Z (γ) and = dγp(γ)Wg (~xg), (243) Z 0 R ˆ l and thus we immediately find that dγpÃ(γ) = 1. Further- hAig|~xf B (4π) d~xgWA(~xg)W(~xg | ~xf), (192) R2l0 (γ) more, we note that Wg (~xg) is the Wigner function of a well- (γ) defined quantum stateρ ˆg and thus shows that whenever there are correlations, and thus hAîg|~x , f Z hAî, the conditional Wigner function is a priori non-Gaussian. (γ) (γ) d~xgWA(~xg)Wg (~xg) = tr[ˆρg Aˆ] > 0. (244) When we use explicitly that the initial state is Gaussian and R2l0 thus that W(~xg | ~xf) is given by (193), this condition can be The final inequality follows from the fact that Aˆ is a posi- translated to the existence of non-zero components in Vgf in (185). The precise properties of the resulting non-Gaussian tive semi-definite operator. As a consequence, we find that quantum state depend on the conditional expectation value pÃ(γ) > 0 for every possible γ. Thus, we find that for a sepa- hAî . rable initial state g|~xf Z In literature, some attention has been devoted to propos- (γ) W (~x ) = dγp˜ (γ)W (~x ). (245) ing different types of measurements for such heralding proce- f|A f A f f dures. One may think of using on-off detectors [196], photon- Up to this point, we only assumed that the initial state is number resolving detectors [150], parity detectors [197], and separable. As we saw in Subsection III C, a mixed quantum more exotic multimode setups [198, 199]. However, these state with a positive Wigner function cannot necessarily be works usually assume that the initial quantum state is a pure decomposed in states with positive Wigner functions. There- Gaussian state obtained by an idealised source of multimode fore, we can generally not infer much about the properties of squeezed vacuum states. As we saw in Subsection VA2, the Wigner function W(γ)(~x ) in (245). for pure states correlations automatically imply entanglement, f f and it even turns out that all correlated pure states violate a As a next step, we use the fact that the initial state is also Bell inequality [200]. In other words, for pure states all corre- a Gaussian state. Recall from (103) that any mixed Gaus- lations are quantum correlations and all these quantum corre- sian state can be decomposed as a mixture of pure Gaussian lations are of the strongest type. When we no longer make states. A priori, however, it is not trivial that this decom- such assumptions on the initial multimode Gaussian state, position is consistent with decomposition in separable states we will see that hAî will not only depend on the chosen g|~xf (222). Thus, it remains to show that for Gaussian separable POVM Aˆ, but also on the properties of W(~x | ~x ). In the g f states the Wigner functions W(γ)(~x ) and W(γ)(~x ) in (222) are SubsectionsVB1 andVB2, we explain that certain types of f f g g also Gaussian. non-Gaussian features can only be achieved through certain We start from a crucial observation on covariance matrices types of quantum correlations in the initial Gaussian state. An that was made in [201]: whenever an m-mode state with co- overview of the results of this section is provided in Fig.5. variance matrix V is separable, there are covariance matrices 0 0 Vf and Vg such that 0 ! 1. Quantum non-Gaussianity and Entanglement Vf 0 0 0 V > 0 = Vf ⊕ Vg. (246) 0 Vg To understand the role of quantum entanglement in a con- 0 0 Note that Vf and Vg are covariance matrices on the phase 0 ditional preparation scheme, we contrast it to a system with spaces R2l and R2l , respectively. Nevertheless, V0 and V0 are only classical correlations. In that regard, let us suppose that f g generally not the same as the covariance matrices Vf and Vg of the initial quantum state is separable such that its Wigner func- (185) that describe the marginal distributions. We should em- tion can be cast in the form (222). By inserting this form in phasise that the Williamson (92) and Bloch-Messiah (95) de- (188), we find that compositions offer the necessary tools to explicitly construct V0 and V0 (we will come back to this point in SubsectionVC). Z R (γ) f g 2l0 d~xgWA(~xg)Wg (~xg) This allows us to use similar techniques as in (103). Let us W (~x ) = dγp(γ) R W(γ)(~x ). f|A f R f f first define R2l0 d~xgWA(~xg)Wg(~xg) − 1 T 0−1 (240) 2 ~xf Vf ~xf 0 e W (~xf) , (247) As a next step, we define f B m p 0 (2π) det Vf R (γ) − 1 ~xT V0 −1~x e 2 g g g 2l0 d~xgWA(~xg)Wg (~xg) 0 R W (~xg) B . (248) pÃ(γ) B p(γ) R , (241) g m p 0 (2π) det Vg R2l0 d~xgWA(~xg)Wg(~xg) 34

CONDITIONAL STATE INITIAL STATE

Bell non-local states Necessary for… Wigner-negative Steerable states states

Quantum non- Gaussian states Non-Steerable Entangled states

Non-gaussian mixtures of (Correlated) Gaussian states Separable states

Gaussian states Uncorrelated states

Figure 5. Different types of quantum correlations are required to be present in the initial Gaussian state W(~x) to create conditional states Wf|A(~xf ), as described in (190), that belong to a certain class. We thus show how the typical hierarchy of quantum correlations (right) can be connected to the structure of the CV state space that was introduced previously in Fig.1. Throughout SubsectionVB, we prove that these different types of quantum correlations are necessary resources to achieve different types of states.

We can then use (246) to define a positive definite matrix Vc B Without making any assumptions on the POVM element Aˆ of 0 0 V − Vf ⊕ Vg, such that a decomposition of the type (103) gives the conditional operation, we retrieve that the conditional state us always is a convex combination of Gaussian states, given by (250). Thus, when the initial state is Gaussian, entanglement W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) = is a necessary resource to produce quantum non-Gaussian − 1 −~ T −1 −~ Z 2 (~y ξ) Vc (~y ξ) (249) states via conditional operations. 0 0 e d~y W (~xf − ~yf)W (~xg − ~yg) √ , f g m R2m (2π) det Vc where we again impose the structure of the bipartition on ~y = 2. Wigner Negativity and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steering 2l 2l0 ~yf ⊕ ~yg, with ~yf ∈ R and ~yg ∈ R . Furthermore, recall that ~ ξ is the mean field of the initial Gaussian state W(~xf ⊕ ~xg). In Subsection III E, we explained that Wigner negativ- The structure we obtain in (249) exactly corresponds to (222), ity is a “stronger” non-Gaussian feature than quantum non- where ~y now labels the states and thus plays the role of the Gaussianity. Here, we show that also stronger types of quan- abstract variable γ. tum correlations are required to conditionally create Wigner We can then use the structure (249) in the derivation (245) negativity. To understand how Wigner negativity can be and then we find that achieved through a conditional preparation scheme, it suffices Z to understand when the conditional expectation value hAîg|~x 0 f Wf|A(~xf) = d~yfWf (~xf − ~yf)p Ã(~yf). (250) in (192) reaches negative values. R2l Regardless of the chosen POVM, WA(~xg) is the Wigner In any concrete choice of Aˆ, one can use (241) to derive an function of a positive semi-definite operator Aˆ as defined 0 explicit expression forp Ã(~yf), which will generally be a non- by (42). Thus, whenever there is a quantum stateρ ˆ that | Gaussian probability distribution, such that Wf|A(~xf) describes has W(~xg ~xf) as associated Wigner function, (43) implies ˆ 0 ˆ a non-Gaussian state. However, the resulting conditional that hAig|~xf = tr[ˆρ A] > 0. Hence, to conditionally create a state (250) is clearly a statistical mixture of Gaussian states non-positive Wigner function (190) the conditional probabil- and thus lies in the convex hull of Gaussian states. In the ity distribution W(~xg | ~xf) cannot be a well-defined Wigner language of Subsection III C this means that the conditional function. This observation holds whenever the initial state state is non-Gaussian but not quantum non-Gaussian and has has a positive Wigner function. a stellar rank 0. When in addition we assume that the initial state is Gaus- In summary, we have assumed that our initial state with sian, we find that W(~xg | ~xf) is a Gaussian distribution (193). Wigner function W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is a separable Gaussian state. Whether the conditional probability distribution W(~xg | ~xf) 35 describes a Gaussian quantum state depends entirely in the modes g if the modes g can be steered by performing Gaussian properties of its covariance matrix, i.e., the Schur complement measurements on the modes f. Somewhat counterintuitively,

Vg|~xf . Indeed, W(~xg | ~xf) describes a quantum state if and only it turns out that the created Wigner negativity volume (156) is if Vg|~xf satisfies the Heisenberg inequality. Because Vg|~xf does not directly proportional to the strength of EPR steering [202]. 2l not depend on the choice ~xf ∈ R , it follows that W(~xg | ~xf) As a final remark, we note that, in a multimode context, 2l corresponds to a quantum state either for all ~xf ∈ R (if the EPR steering is constrained by monogamy relations [203– Schur complement (194) satisfies the Heisenberg inequality) 205]. Notably, this implies that when a single mode g can 2l or for none of the ~xf ∈ R (if the Schur complement (194) be steered by a single other mode f , it is impossible for any violates the Heisenberg inequality). other mode to also steer g. This naturally has profound con-

If Vg|~xf satisﬁes the Heisenberg inequality, the conditional sequences for the conditional generation of Wigner negativity state’s Wigner function Wf|A(~xf) must thus be positive. To bet- that we discussed in this section. The monogamy relations for ter understand the physical resources required to conditionally quantum steering can be used to derive similar monogamy re- create Wigner negativity, one must comprehend what it means lations [202] for the created Wigner negativity volume (156). for Vg|~xf to violate Heisenberg’s inequality in terms of quantum correlations. It turns out that this condition is closely related to the original argument of the EPR paper [166]. The vi- C. Quantum Correlations through non-Gaussianity olation of Heisenberg’s inequality by the Schur complement

Vg|~xf corresponds to Gaussian quantum steering in the state In SubsectionVB, we extensively considered the use of W(~xg ⊕ ~xf). quantum correlations as a resource to create non-Gaussian ef- To understand the connection between the conditional co- fects. In this subsection, we focus on the opposite idea where variance matrix Vg|~xf and quantum steering, we first express non-Gaussian operations increase or even create quantum cor- the Wigner function obtained by conditioning on a Gaussian relations. The subject of entanglement in non-Gaussian states measurement, such that the associated POVM element has a is generally difficult to study, for some states it may be suf- Wigner function WG(~xf): ficient to evaluate lower order moments [206] and when the R density matrix in the Fock representation is available one 2l d~xfWG(~xf)W(~xf | ~xg) W (~x ) = R W (~x ). (251) can apply DV approaches to characterise entanglement [207]. g|G g R g g However, these methods cannot always be applied and there R2l d~xfWG(~xf)Wf(~xf) are no universally applicable entanglement criteria that are In a very similar way, we can also show that practical to evaluate for arbitrary CV quantum states. Z WG(~xf)Wf(~xf) Wg|G(~xg) = d~xf R W(~xg | ~xf). (252) R2l 1. Entanglement measures on phase space R2l d~xfWG(~xf)Wf(~xf)

Hence, when W(~xg | ~xf) is a bona fide Wigner function for In Subsection VA2, we argued that any pure state that every ~xf this expression is an explicit manifestation of the lo- manifests correlations between subsystems contains entangle- cal hidden variable model (230). In other words, whenever ment. Measuring entanglement in this case becomes equiv- W(~xg | ~xf) describes a quantum state, the modes in g cannot alent to measuring the amount of correlation within the pure be steered by Gaussian measurements on the modes f. Note state. In particular for pure states, one finds a wide range of that we can generalise Gaussian measurements to any mea- entanglement measures in literature [155]. In the case of CV surement with a positive Wigner function. systems, some measures are more appropriate than others, and The remarkable feature of EPR steering is that the inverse here we will focus on one particularly intuitive measure that statement also holds: when W(~xg | ~xf) is not a bona fide is based on purity. Wigner function Gaussian measurements can steer the state. When we consider an arbitrary bi-partite pure quantum 2l Let us assume that (230) holds for Gaussian measurements. state with Wigner function W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) (with ~xf ∈ R and 2l0 It then follows that a well-defined covariance matrix U exists ~xg ∈ R ), we find that its purity is µ = 1 by definition. How- such that the covariance matrix Vg|G of the conditional state ever, this is not necessarily true for the subsystems f and g. Wg|G(~xg) satisfies Vg|G > U for all Gaussian measurements. We can use (94) to evaluate the purity of any state based on its Furthermore, U is physical and satisfies the Heisenberg in- Wigner function, and we define equality. Ref. [170] shows that the existence of such a U Z Z implies that the full covariance matrix of the system satisfies 2 2 µf = d~xf[Wf(~xf)] , and µg = d~xg[Wg(~xg)] , ⊕ 0 V + 0f iΩg > 0, which in turn implies that Vg|~xf , the Schur R2l R2l complement of V, satisfies the Heisenberg inequality. (253) This shows that we can only generate Wigner negativity where we again use the definition (182, 183). Because the through (190) if the initial state can be steered by Gaussian global state with Wigner function W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is pure, we al- measurements on the subsystem associated with phase space ways find that µf = µg (this is a general consequence of the R2l. Note that the creation of Wigner negativity occurs in the existence of a Schmidt decomposition for pure states). Fur- opposite direction as the steering: We can produce Wigner thermore, if the pure state is separable, we find W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) = negativity in the modes f by performing a measurement on the Wf(~xf)Wg(~xg) and as a consequence we obtain that µf = µg = 36

1. However, when µf = µg < 1 there must be correlations state is non-Gaussian. However, there are several examples of between the subsystems f and g and the smaller the purity of non-Gaussian entangled states for which no entanglement can the subsystems, the stronger these correlations are. Without be detected from the covariance matrix. Notable progress was delving into the details, we stress that the opposite notion also made by developing entanglement witnesses for non-Gaussian holds: when there is a correlation between the subsystems, the states with specific structure in their Wigner function [215]. purity of the subsystems is smaller than one. It is noteworthy to emphasise that the positive-partial trans- To convert this quantity into an entanglement measure pose (PPT) criterion of [210] can in principle be implemented [208], it is useful to define the Renyi-2´ entropy for subsystem on the level of Wigner functions. To make this apparent, let f us first define the transposition operator T that implements ρˆ 7→ ρˆT . When W(~x) with ~x ∈ R2m denotes the Wigner func- T S R B − log µf. (254) tion of the stateρ ˆ, we can write the Wigner function ofρ ˆ as W(T~x). The matrix T can be written as We then find that S R > 0 and S R = 0 if and only if the state is m ! separable. Furthermore, it should be clear that S R cannot be M 1 0 T = , (257) increased by local unitary operations on the subsystems f and 0 −1 g. We can thus define an entanglement measure for the pure state |Ψi with Wigner function W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) by setting which can be derived from the definition of the Wigner function [216]. The concept of partial transposition in entan- ER(|Ψi) B S R. (255) glement theory relies on the simple idea that one can apply a transpose only on one of the two subsystems in the bi- This constitutes a well-defined entanglement measure for any partition. In our context, this means that the Wigner function chosen bi-partition and any pure state on the phase space. changes as W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) 7→ W(~xf ⊕ T~xg) (where T is now taken To extend this measure to mixed states, we follow only on the l0 modes of subsystem g). The PPT criterion is Ref. [208] and construct a convex roof. Any mixed based on the idea that, in absence of entanglement, the func- stateρ ˆ can be decomposed in pure states asρ ˆ = R ED tion W(~xf ⊕T~xg) still gives a well-defined Wigner function of a dγ p(γ) Ψ(γ) Ψ(γ) , we abbreviate this decomposition as quantum state. However, there are entangled states for which E the ensemble {p(γ), Ψ(γ) }. For each pure state in this en- this is no longer true and W(~xf ⊕ T~xg) becomes unphysical. E This lack of physicality is expressed by the fact there exist E (γ) semble, we can evaluate the entanglement R( Ψ ) and sub- positive semidefinite operators Aˆ for which sequently average all of these values according to p(γ). How- ever, the decomposition ofρ ˆ in pure states is far from unique Z E m (γ) (4π) d~x WA(~x)W(~xf ⊕ T~xg) < 0. (258) and different ensembles {p(γ), Ψ } generally lead to a dif- R2m ferent value of entanglement even though they are all constrained to produce the same stateρ ˆ. Therefore, it is common Finding such observables Aˆ > 0 for a non-Gaussian state to define W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is generally a very hard task. For Gaussian states, Z on the other hand, the physicality of W(~xf ⊕ T~xg) is simply (γ)E checked through Heisenberg’s inequality. For more general ER(ˆρ) B inf dγ p(γ)ER Ψ (256) {p(γ),|Ψ(γ)i} non-Gaussian states, this is insufficient and one should check a full hierarchy of inequalities instead [206]. Nevertheless, as the general “Renyi-2´ entanglement” of the stateρ ˆ. one may yet uncover more direct methods to check the prop- Formally, this is an elegant definition that can in principle erties of W(~xf ⊕ T~xg). be calculated directly from the Wigner function. However, in practice it is nearly impossible to actually identify all E possible decompositions {p(γ), Ψ(γ) } which makes this 2. Entanglement increase measure notoriously hard to evaluate for mixed states. This has sparked some alternative definitions of entanglement One of the most well-known protocols for increasing entan- measures for Gaussian states, where any Gaussian state can glement is entanglement distillation. In this protocol, one acts be decomposed in an ensemble of Gaussian states (103). with local operations on a large number of mixed entangled Thus, one can define “Gaussian Renyi-2´ entanglement” by states that are shared by two parties and concentrate the en- restricting (256) to only Gaussian decompositions [209]. In tanglement in a smaller number of maximally entangled pairs this sense, Gaussian Renyi-2´ entanglement is by construction [217]. When the initial states are pure and the local operation an upper bound to the general Renyi-2´ entanglement. only serves to increase the entanglement and not the purity, we speak of entanglement concentration [218]. Conditional As an alternative to entanglement measures, it is common operations play an important role in these protocols, and we to use entanglement witnesses. These have been particularly can alternatively think of entanglement distillation as the idea successful for Gaussian states [140, 210–214], where one that a conditional operation can increase the entanglement of a commonly applies methods based on the covariance matrix state. For Gaussian quantum states, there is a notorious no-go of the state. Due to the extremality of Gaussian states [12] theorem that states that Gaussian measurements (or Gaussian these results also provide witnesses for entanglement if the operations in general) cannot increase bi-partite entanglement 37

[219–221]. It was quickly realised that these no-go results either of the two modes. When we focus on the mode b where can be circumvented by even the most basics non-Gaussian the photon is subtracted, we can simply obtain the reduced − states: those created through a non-Gaussian noise process photon subtracted state Wb (~xb) by subtracting a photon from [222, 223]. On the other hand, if one wants to distill entan- the reduced Gaussian state Wb(~xb). As such, we obtain glement in a CV system starting from initial Gaussian states h i one really requires non-Gaussian operations. One such exam- k(1 − V−1)~x + V−1~ξ k2 + tr 1 − V−1 − b b b b b ple is given in [224, 225], where the authors propose to use a W (~xb) = Wb(~xb). b 1 ~ 2 Kerr-nonlinearity to distill entanglement for mixed Gaussian tr (Vb − ) + kξbk states. In contrast, conditional schemes have also been pro- (261) posed [141, 226, 227], avoiding the need for optical nonlinearities. In those protocols, one first uses conditional operations This is now a single-mode photon subtracted state, but it is to create non-Gaussian states and subsequently uses Gaussifi- no longer pure. This lack of purity is notably reflected by Vb cation to obtain states with higher entanglement. A narrowly which is no longer symplectic. Nevertheless, we can use the related protocol [228] relies on the implementation of noise- Williamson decomposition (92) and write less linear amplification [229], where the non-Gaussian ele- ! r 0 ment is injected in the form of auxiliary Fock states. Vb = ν −1 , (262) The realisation that photon subtraction and addition can 0 r be used to increase the entanglement of a Gaussian input state was developed reasonably early [230–232] and was where we set the phase such that the squeezing coincides with further formalised in works such as [233–235]. Remarkably, one of the axes of phase space. What remains is for us to all of these works explicitly assume that the initial state calculate the purity under consideration is a two-mode squeezed state and the Z − − 2 approach strongly relies on the structure of this type of state µb = 4π d~xb[Wb (~xb)] . (263) in the Fock basis. Beyond the two mode setting, the class R2 of CV graph states has also been studied in the context of The final expression for the purity is not very insightful. When entanglement increase [236, 237]. Here we will provide an on top we use that the purity µ of the Gaussian state W (~x ) alternative approach, based on phase-space representations to b b b is given by µ = 1/ν, an explicit calculation of µ− makes it understand entanglement increase due to the subtraction of a b b possible to prove (the motivated reader can use a combination single photon. of patience and software for symbolic algebra to do so) that

Our approach relies on the fact that we can easily ap- − µ 1 ply the entanglement measure (256) when the global state is b 6 . (264) pure. This means that we are focusing on a context of en- µb 2 tanglement concentration. Furthermore, when we perform In other words, photon subtraction reduces the purity at most photon subtraction on a pure Gaussian state, the resulting by a factor of two. photon-subtracted state is also pure, as we saw in Subsec- When we use (256) to define the entanglement of the two- tion IV B 2. The starting point is the Wigner function of the mode photon-subtracted state (259), we find that it is given photon-subtracted state (214) which we rewrite as by W(~x) − T 1 −1 ~ ~ 2 − − W (~x) = kB ( − V )(~x − ξ) + ξbk ER( Ψ ) = − log µ , (265) 2 b tr (Vb − 1) + k~ξbk h i + tr 1 − BT V−1B . because the two-mode state is pure. The entanglement of the (259) initial Gaussian state is given by ER(|ΨGi) = − log µb, such that we can use (264) to find that The state W−(~x) is thus obtained by subtracting a photon from − the Gaussian state W(~x). As we consider a pure two-mode ∆ER B ER( Ψ ) − ER(|ΨGi) 6 log 2. (266) state we assume that the state has a 4 × 4 covariance matrix of the form V = S T S , where S is a symplectic matrix. We as- In other words, photon subtraction can increase the Renyi-2´ sume that the photon is locally subtracted in one of the modes entanglement of an arbitrary Gaussian state, but at most by an of the mode basis, such that amount log 2. It turns out that this result can be generalised to all bipartitions of Gaussian pure states of an arbitrary number 0 0 of modes [238]. Furthermore, the same work shows that   0 0 when the entanglement measure ER(|ΨGi) is replaced with B =   . (260) 1 0 the Gaussian Renyi-2´ entropy of [209], the result holds for all   0 1 bipartitions of all Gaussian states (including mixed ones).

However, to assess the entanglement in the system, we must For the particular case of a two-mode pure Gaussian state, obtain the Wigner function for the reduced state associated to we can directly evaluate ∆ER for some important examples. 38

AAAB/3icbVDLSsNAFJ3UV62vqODGzWARKkhJiqgboejGZYW+oIllMp20QyeTMDMpltiFv+LGhSJu/Q13/o3TNAttPZcLh3PuZe4cL2JUKsv6NnJLyyura/n1wsbm1vaOubvXlGEsMGngkIWi7SFJGOWkoahipB0JggKPkZY3vJn6rRERkoa8rsYRcQPU59SnGCktdc0DZ0QwdB4ovIIl6zStk/t61yxaZSsFXCR2RoogQ61rfjm9EMcB4QozJGXHtiLlJkgoihmZFJxYkgjhIeqTjqYcBUS6SXr/BB5rpQf9UOjmCqbq740EBVKOA09PBkgN5Lw3Ff/zOrHyL92E8ihWhOPZQ37MoArhNAzYo4JgxcaaICyovhXiARIIKx1ZQYdgz395kTQrZfu8XLk7K1avszjy4BAcgRKwwQWogltQAw2AwSN4Bq/gzXgyXox342M2mjOynX3wB8bnD6c8k0k= Say, for example, that we consider the EPR state that is ob- AAAB/3icbVDLSsNAFJ3UV62vqODGzWARKkhJiqgboejGZYW+oIllMp20QyeTMDMpltiFv+LGhSJu/Q13/o2TNgttPZcLh3PuZe4cL2JUKsv6NnJLyyura/n1wsbm1vaOubvXlGEsMGngkIWi7SFJGOWkoahipB0JggKPkZY3vEn91ogISUNeV+OIuAHqc+pTjJSWuuaBMyIYOg8UXsGSdZqWfXJf75pFq2xNAReJnZEiyFDrml9OL8RxQLjCDEnZsa1IuQkSimJGJgUnliRCeIj6pKMpRwGRbjK9fwKPtdKDfih0cwWn6u+NBAVSjgNPTwZIDeS8l4r/eZ1Y+ZduQnkUK8Lx7CE/ZlCFMA0D9qggWLGxJggLqm+FeIAEwkpHVtAh2PNfXiTNStk+L1fuzorV6yyOPDgER6AEbHABquAW1EADYPAInsEreDOejBfj3fiYjeaMbGcf/IHx+QOow5NK ~ T ~ T tained by mixing two oppositely squeezed vacuum states on a ⇠ =(0, 0, 0, 0) ⇠ =(0, 0, 0, 1)

AAAB+nicbVDLSsNAFL3xWesr1aWbwSK4KkkRdVl8gMsq9gFNCJPptB06mYSZiVJiP8WNC0Xc+iXu/BunbRbaeuDC4Zx7ufeeMOFMacf5tpaWV1bX1gsbxc2t7Z1du7TXVHEqCW2QmMeyHWJFORO0oZnmtJ1IiqOQ01Y4vJz4rQcqFYvFvR4l1I9wX7AeI1gbKbBL3hXlGqPMI5ij63FwF9hlp+JMgRaJm5My5KgH9pfXjUkaUaEJx0p1XCfRfoalZoTTcdFLFU0wGeI+7RgqcESVn01PH6Mjo3RRL5amhEZT9fdEhiOlRlFoOiOsB2rem4j/eZ1U9879jIkk1VSQ2aJeypGO0SQH1GWSEs1HhmAimbkVkQGWmGiTVtGE4M6/vEia1Yp7WqnenpRrF3kcBTiAQzgGF86gBjdQhwYQeIRneIU368l6sd6tj1nrkpXP7MMfWJ8/QwWTXA== balanced beamsplitter. In this case ~ξ = 0 and V is given by R E  1 0 1 0T s   1 0 1 0 ��       1  0 1 0 1  s−1   0 1 0 1 V =       −1 0 1 0  −1  −1 0 1 0 �� 2    s     0 −1 0 1  s  0 −1 0 1 (267) �� s2 + 1 0 s2 − 1 0    1  0 s2 + 1 0 1 − s2 =   . ��  2 − 2  2s s 1 0 s + 1 0   0 1 − s2 0 s2 + 1 � � � � �� Squeezing (dB) We then extract directly that s2 + 1 Figure 6. Entanglement increase (266) through photon subtraction in Vb = 1, (268) one mode of a pair of entangled modes. The initial Gaussian states 2s are obtained by mixing either two equally squeezed modes (yellow such that we find that the parameters in (262) are set to r = 1 curves) or one squeezed mode and one vacuum mode (red curves) and ν = (s2 + 1)/(2s). And thus we directly obtain on a beam splitter (see also sketches on the right). We show how a   variation of squeezing (in dB compared to shot noise level) in these  s4 + 6s2 + 1 ∆E = log(2) − log   . (269) initial squeezed vacuum states influences the entanglement increase R  2  s2 + 1 due to photon subtraction. We consider cases without mean field (solid curves) and with a mean field ~ξ = (0, 0, 0, 1)T (dashed curves). We clearly see that the entanglement increase vanishes in absence of squeezing, whereas we achieve the log(2) limit for s → ∞. Adding a mean field with ~ξ 0 immediately com- b , such√ that we find that we identify the√ parameters of (262) as plicates the problem. As can be in Fig.6, where we plot the ν = 2 + s + s−1/2 and r = (1 + s)/ 2 + s + s−1. In absence ~ T case ξb = (0, 1) , the presence of a mean field in the mode of any mean field, i.e. with ~ξ = 0, we then find an entangle- of photon subtraction lowers the entanglement increase ∆ER. ment gain given by Nevertheless, in the limit s → ∞ we reach the limit log(2) ! regardless of the displacement. 3 + 2s + 3s2 ∆E = log(2) − log . (272) This example clearly shows that photon subtraction can R 2(s + 1)2 be used as a tool to increase entanglement. The setting corresponds to the case that is typically studied in most Interestingly, in this case we reach the maximal entanglement works on CV entanglement distillation such as [233–235]. It gain for vanishing squeezing s → 1, where we reach ∆ER → turns out that one can further increase entanglement in such log(2). This case may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but it systems by subtracting more photons. Furthermore, photon should be emphasised that the success probability of photon addition and the combination of addition and subtraction subtraction also vanishes in this case. Yet, our conditional on both modes have also been considered. The methods approach assumes that we are in the scenario where a photon we use in this Tutorial are not easily generalised to the was subtracted and the negligible fraction of the state that is subtraction and addition of many photons, but in return they not in vacuum is enhance. In the limit of vanishing squeezing, can be applied to a much wider class of initial Gaussian states. the photon√ subtracted state converges to the Bell state (|1, 0i + |0, 1i)/ 2. On the other hand, in the limit where squeezing As a second example, we consider a single-mode squeezed is high we still find a finite entanglement increase as ∆ER → state that is split in two on a balanced beamsplitter. This log(4/3). means that the Gaussian state is given by When we add a mean field given by ~ξb , 0, there is an  T     importance of the phase because our state locally has some  1 0 1 0 s   1 0 1 0    −1    remaining asymmetry (which can be seen from r , 1). In 1  0 1 0 1  s   0 1 0 1 T V =       Fig.6 we particularly show the case where ~ξb = (0, 1) 2 −1 0 1 0  1  −1 0 1 0       such that the direction of the displacement coincides with  0 −1 0 1  1  0 −1 0 1 the quadrature where the noise is minimal. In this case   (270) s + 1 0 s − 1 0  we observe that for some values of initial squeezing, the  s+1 1  1  0 0 − 1 entanglement decreases due to photon subtraction. Note =  s s  , 2 s − 1 0 s + 1 0  that this quite remarkably implies that in some cases photon  1 s+1  0 s − 1 0 s subtraction can actually be used to increase the purity of a such that we get state. ! 1 s + 1 0 We thus showed that photon subtraction is a useful non- Vb = s+1 , (271) 2 0 s Gaussian operation to increase entanglement. However, in the 39

presence of a mean field in the subtraction mode, it is also First of all, note that Wf1 (~xf1 ) and Wf2 (~xf2 ) are generally possible to decrease entanglement. Even though this subject not pure states and as a consequence Wf|A(~xf1 ⊕ ~xf2 ) is not a has been studied for nearly two decades, for arbitrary Gaus- pure state either. Even though the specific structure of the sian input states, there are still many open questions. Notably, Wigner function makes it a suitable case to apply the methods there has not been much work on the effect of photon sub- of [215], we follow a different route in this Tutorial by fo- traction on multipartite entanglement, nor on stronger types cusing on a particular example for which we can assume that of quantum correlations. Our discussion in SubsectionVB2 Wf1 (~xf1 ) and Wf2 (~xf2 ) are pure. suggests an important interplay between EPR steering and Just as in SubsectionVC2, we concentrate on photon sub- Wigner negativity, and thus it is intriguing to wonder whether traction. To get a conceptual idea of such a setup in this spe- well-chosen non-Gaussian operations can increase quantum cific scenario, we present two equivalent schemes in Panels steering. Since all steerable states are also entangled, it is (a) and (b) of Fig.7. Note that the equivalence stems from the reasonable some of the protocols that can increase quantum fact that the beamsplitters that subtract the light from the sig- entanglement should also increase quantum steering. nal beams to send it to the photodetector are of extremely low We have followed the terminology found in literature and reflectivity. In this limit, we can be sure that there is at most referred to this process as entanglement distillation, because one photon in the path and when it is detected, we herald a our conditional operation has only a finite success probabil- single-photon-subtracted state. In Fig.7(a), the combination ity. This implies that we can use a large number of Gaus- of this heralding process and the presence of at most one pho- sian entangled states and use photon subtraction to obtain a ton avoids that the unmeasured output causes any losses or much smaller number of more entangled states. Yet, it must impurities. Nevertheless, the unmeasured output will practi- be stressed that there is a more subtle process happening: the cally change the success probability of the heralding process, entanglement is increased by adding non-Gaussian entangle- such that for practical implementations Fig.7(b) may be the ment on top of the existing Gaussian entanglement. To get a preferential setup. Recall that the Wigner function for a state better grasp of this non-Gaussian entanglement, it is useful to with a photon subtracted in a particular mode b was given by go to a setting where no other type of entanglement is present (259), which here becomes as we do in SubsectionVC3.

− Wf1 (~xf1 )Wf2 (~xf2 ) W (~xf ⊕ ~xf ) = 1 2 2 tr (Vb − 1) + k~ξbk 3. Purely non-Gaussian quantum entanglement kBT (1 − V−1 ⊕ V−1)(~x ⊕ ~x − ~ξ ⊕ ~ξ ) + ~ξ k2 f1 f2 f1 f2 1 2 b h i In this subsection, we explore an idea that is in many ways + tr 1 − BT (V−1 ⊕ V−1)B . complementary to the previous subsection: rather than using a f1 f2 local non-Gaussian operation to increase already existing en- (275) tanglement, we now use a non-local non-Gaussian operation Because we consider a limit where the state is completely to create entanglement between unentangled modes. transmitted by the beamsplitter and only a negligible amount Let us again assume that our state is initially Gaussian as is sent to the photon counter to subtract the photon, we can described by (85), and we will induce the non-Gaussian fea- indeed assume that the state is pure. For simplicity, we also tures through the conditional methods of SubsectionIVB. assume that f and f are single modes. As we did before, we ~ ~ ⊕ ~ 1 2 The mean field of the initial state is given by ξ = ξf ξg, now calculate the reduced state and ! Z Vf Vfg − − W (~xf ) = d~xf W (~xf ⊕ ~xf ). (276) V = , with Vf = Vf1 ⊕ Vf2 . (273) 1 1 2 1 2 Vgf Vg R2 Here, we have introduced the modes of interest, labeled by f The integral is rather tedious to evaluate, therefore we imme- and a set of auxiliary modes g upon which a measurement will diately jump to the result (see [147] for an alternative method be performed to induce non-Gaussian features in the modes f. that circumvents the explicit calculation of integrals): In the initial state, we consider a bi-partition in the modes − f without any direct correlations, hence Vf = Vf ⊕ Vf . In 1 2 W1 (~xf1 ) = other words, the modes in f1 are completely uncorrelated to Wf1 (~xf1 ) T −1 2 the modes in f2. kB F1(1 − V )(~xf − ~ξ1) + ~ξbk 2 f1 1 To induce non-Gaussian effects, we resort to the conditional tr (Vb − 1) + k~ξbk framework by acting with a POVM element Aˆ upon the auxil- h T −1 T i h T T i + tr B F1(1 − V )F B + tr B F2(Vf − 1)F B , iary modes g, and we rewrite (190) as f1 1 2 2 (277) hAî | ⊕ g ~xf1 ~xf2 Wf|A(~xf1 ⊕ ~xf2 ) = Wf1 (~xf1 )Wf2 (~xf2 ), (274) where we introduce the matrices F , given by hAî k ˆ  | |  and the conditional expectation value hAig|~xf ⊕~xf is again given   1 2   by (192). The entanglement in the resulting state thus cru- F =  f~ Ω f~  , (278) k  k k cially depends on the exact properties of hAî | ⊕ .  | |  g ~xf1 ~xf2 40

AAAB83icbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4KokoehGKXjxWsB/QhLLZTtqlm03Y3RRL6d/w4kERr/4Zb/4bt20O2vpg4PHeDDPzwlRwbVz321lZXVvf2CxsFbd3dvf2SweHDZ1kimGdJSJRrZBqFFxi3XAjsJUqpHEosBkO7qZ+c4hK80Q+mlGKQUx7kkecUWMl3x8iI/4TJzfE7ZTKbsWdgSwTLydlyFHrlL78bsKyGKVhgmrd9tzUBGOqDGcCJ0U/05hSNqA9bFsqaYw6GM9unpBTq3RJlChb0pCZ+ntiTGOtR3FoO2Nq+nrRm4r/ee3MRNfBmMs0MyjZfFGUCWISMg2AdLlCZsTIEsoUt7cS1qeKMmNjKtoQvMWXl0njvOJdVtyHi3L1No+jAMdwAmfgwRVU4R5qUAcGKTzDK7w5mfPivDsf89YVJ585gj9wPn8AZBGQmg==

AAAB/3icbVDLSgMxFL1TX7W+RgU3boJFqCBlRhTdCEU3Liv0BZ2xZNJMG5p5kGSKpXbhr7hxoYhbf8Odf2OmnYVWz+XC4Zx7yc3xYs6ksqwvI7ewuLS8kl8trK1vbG6Z2zsNGSWC0DqJeCRaHpaUs5DWFVOctmJBceBx2vQG16nfHFIhWRTW1CimboB7IfMZwUpLHXPPGVKCnHuGLlHJPrbSOrqrdcyiVbamQH+JnZEiZKh2zE+nG5EkoKEiHEvZtq1YuWMsFCOcTgpOImmMyQD3aFvTEAdUuuPp/RN0qJUu8iOhO1Roqv7cGONAylHg6ckAq76c91LxP6+dKP/CHbMwThQNyewhP+FIRSgNA3WZoETxkSaYCKZvRaSPBSZKR1bQIdjzX/5LGidl+6xs3Z4WK1dZHHnYhwMogQ3nUIEbqEIdCDzAE7zAq/FoPBtvxvtsNGdkO7vwC8bHN6fRk0c= such that we can use the properties of the symplectic form Ω ⇠~ =0 ⇠~ =(1, 0, 0, 0)T (a)

AAAB8HicbVA9SwNBEJ2LXzF+RS1tFoNgFe5E0TJoYxnBxEgSwt5mLlmyu3fs7gnhyK+wsVDE1p9j579xk1yhiQ8GHu/NMDMvTAQ31ve/vcLK6tr6RnGztLW9s7tX3j9omjjVDBssFrFuhdSg4AoblluBrUQjlaHAh3B0M/UfnlAbHqt7O06wK+lA8Ygzap30mHXCiES9YNIrV/yqPwNZJkFOKpCj3it/dfoxSyUqywQ1ph34ie1mVFvOBE5KndRgQtmIDrDtqKISTTebHTwhJ07pkyjWrpQlM/X3REalMWMZuk5J7dAselPxP6+d2uiqm3GVpBYVmy+KUkFsTKbfkz7XyKwYO0KZ5u5WwoZUU2ZdRiUXQrD48jJpnlWDi6p/d16pXedxFOEIjuEUAriEGtxCHRrAQMIzvMKbp70X7937mLcWvHzmEP7A+/wBPmyQCg==

AAAB+XicbZDLSsNAFIZP6q3WW9Slm8EiuJCSlBbdCEU3LivYC7QhTKaTduhkEmYmhRL6Jm5cKOLWN3Hn2zhts9DWHwY+/nMO58wfJJwp7TjfVmFjc2t7p7hb2ts/ODyyj0/aKk4loS0S81h2A6woZ4K2NNOcdhNJcRRw2gnG9/N6Z0KlYrF40tOEehEeChYygrWxfNtWvotuUe0KKb9qoOrbZafiLITWwc2hDLmavv3VH8QkjajQhGOleq6TaC/DUjPC6azUTxVNMBnjIe0ZFDiiyssWl8/QhXEGKIyleUKjhft7IsORUtMoMJ0R1iO1Wpub/9V6qQ5vvIyJJNVUkOWiMOVIx2geAxowSYnmUwOYSGZuRWSEJSbahFUyIbirX16HdrXi1ivOY63cuMvjKMIZnMMluHANDXiAJrSAwASe4RXerMx6sd6tj2VrwcpnTuGPrM8fjZ+RAg== to obtain (c) AAAB9HicbVDLSgMxFL1TX7W+qi7dBIvgqswURTdC0Y3LCvYB7TBk0kwbmknGJFMoQ7/DjQtF3Pox7vwb03YW2nrgXg7n3EtuTphwpo3rfjuFtfWNza3idmlnd2//oHx41NIyVYQ2ieRSdUKsKWeCNg0znHYSRXEcctoOR3czvz2mSjMpHs0koX6MB4JFjGBjJV8HHrpBOqjZXgvKFbfqzoFWiZeTCuRoBOWvXl+SNKbCEI617npuYvwMK8MIp9NSL9U0wWSEB7RrqcAx1X42P3qKzqzSR5FUtoRBc/X3RoZjrSdxaCdjbIZ62ZuJ/3nd1ETXfsZEkhoqyOKhKOXISDRLAPWZosTwiSWYKGZvRWSIFSbG5lSyIXjLX14lrVrVu6y6DxeV+m0eRxFO4BTOwYMrqMM9NKAJBJ7gGV7hzRk7L86787EYLTj5zjH8gfP5A9wfkDM= (d) f1 �� s1 = s2 =2 �� s1 =4,s2 =2

~ ~ ~ ~ AAAB8HicbVBNSwMxEJ3Ur1q/qh69BIvgqewWRY9FLx4r2A9pl5JNs21okl2SrFCW/govHhTx6s/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvTAQ31vO+UWFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61TJxqypo0FrHuhMQwwRVrWm4F6ySaERkK1g7HtzO//cS04bF6sJOEBZIMFY84JdZJj1kvjHDUr0375YpX9ebAq8TPSQVyNPrlr94gpqlkylJBjOn6XmKDjGjLqWDTUi81LCF0TIas66gikpkgmx88xWdOGeAo1q6UxXP190RGpDETGbpOSezILHsz8T+vm9roOsi4SlLLFF0silKBbYxn3+MB14xaMXGEUM3drZiOiCbUuoxKLgR/+eVV0qpV/cuqd39Rqd/kcRThBE7hHHy4gjrcQQOaQEHCM7zCG9LoBb2jj0VrAeUzx/AH6PMHP/GQCw== R R −b Ω fk b fk �� f2 E E (b) ��

If the mode b is orthogonal to the mode f1, we ﬁnd that AAAB8HicbVA9SwNBEJ2LXzF+RS1tFoNgFe5E0TJoYxnBxEgSwt5mLlmyu3fs7gnhyK+wsVDE1p9j579xk1yhiQ8GHu/NMDMvTAQ31ve/vcLK6tr6RnGztLW9s7tX3j9omjjVDBssFrFuhdSg4AoblluBrUQjlaHAh3B0M/UfnlAbHqt7O06wK+lA8Ygzap30mHXCiES9YNIrV/yqPwNZJkFOKpCj3it/dfoxSyUqywQ1ph34ie1mVFvOBE5KndRgQtmIDrDtqKISTTebHTwhJ07pkyjWrpQlM/X3REalMWMZuk5J7dAselPxP6+d2uiqm3GVpBYVmy+KUkFsTKbfkz7XyKwYO0KZ5u5WwoZUU2ZdRiUXQrD48jJpnlWDi6p/d16pXedxFOEIjuEUAriEGtxCHRrAQMIzvMKbp70X7937mLcWvHzmEP7A+/wBPmyQCg== f1 ��

T − AAAB7XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hV1R9Bj04jGCeUCyhNnJbDJmdmaZ6RVCyD948aCIV//Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFqRQWff/bW1ldW9/YLGwVt3d29/ZLB4cNqzPDeJ1pqU0ropZLoXgdBUreSg2nSSR5MxreTv3mEzdWaPWAo5SHCe0rEQtG0UmNDg440m6p7Ff8GcgyCXJShhy1bumr09MsS7hCJqm17cBPMRxTg4JJPil2MstTyoa0z9uOKppwG45n107IqVN6JNbGlUIyU39PjGli7SiJXGdCcWAXvan4n9fOML4Ox0KlGXLF5oviTBLUZPo66QnDGcqRI5QZ4W4lbEANZegCKroQgsWXl0njvBJcVvz7i3L1Jo+jAMdwAmcQwBVU4Q5qUAcGj/AMr/Dmae/Fe/c+5q0rXj5zBH/gff4ApUmPLA== AAAB7XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hV1R9Bj04jGCeUCyhNnJbDJmdmaZ6RVCyD948aCIV//Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFqRQWff/bW1ldW9/YLGwVt3d29/ZLB4cNqzPDeJ1pqU0ropZLoXgdBUreSg2nSSR5MxreTv3mEzdWaPWAo5SHCe0rEQtG0UmNDg440m6p7Ff8GcgyCXJShhy1bumr09MsS7hCJqm17cBPMRxTg4JJPil2MstTyoa0z9uOKppwG45n107IqVN6JNbGlUIyU39PjGli7SiJXGdCcWAXvan4n9fOML4Ox0KlGXLF5oviTBLUZPo66QnDGcqRI5QZ4W4lbEANZegCKroQgsWXl0njvBJcVvz7i3L1Jo+jAMdwAmcQwBVU4Q5qUAcGj/AMr/Dmae/Fe/c+5q0rXj5zBH/gff4ApUmPLA== B F1 = 0 such that W1 (~xf1 ) = Wf1 (~xf1 ). On the other ✓ ✓ �� hand, when the mode b is exactly the same as f we ﬁnd that ��

1 AAAB8HicbVBNSwMxEJ3Ur1q/qh69BIvgqewWRY9FLx4r2A9pl5JNs21okl2SrFCW/govHhTx6s/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvTAQ31vO+UWFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61TJxqypo0FrHuhMQwwRVrWm4F6ySaERkK1g7HtzO//cS04bF6sJOEBZIMFY84JdZJj1kvjHDUr0375YpX9ebAq8TPSQVyNPrlr94gpqlkylJBjOn6XmKDjGjLqWDTUi81LCF0TIas66gikpkgmx88xWdOGeAo1q6UxXP190RGpDETGbpOSezILHsz8T+vm9roOsi4SlLLFF0silKBbYxn3+MB14xaMXGEUM3drZiOiCbUuoxKLgR/+eVV0qpV/cuqd39Rqd/kcRThBE7hHHy4gjrcQQOaQEHCM7zCG9LoBb2jj0VrAeUzx/AH6PMHP/GQCw== T f2 � π/� π/� � π/� π/�

AAAB7XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hV1R9Bj04jGCeUCyhNnJbDJmdmaZ6RVCyD948aCIV//Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFqRQWff/bW1ldW9/YLGwVt3d29/ZLB4cNqzPDeJ1pqU0ropZLoXgdBUreSg2nSSR5MxreTv3mEzdWaPWAo5SHCe0rEQtG0UmNDg440m6p7Ff8GcgyCXJShhy1bumr09MsS7hCJqm17cBPMRxTg4JJPil2MstTyoa0z9uOKppwG45n107IqVN6JNbGlUIyU39PjGli7SiJXGdCcWAXvan4n9fOML4Ox0KlGXLF5oviTBLUZPo66QnDGcqRI5QZ4W4lbEANZegCKroQgsWXl0njvBJcVvz7i3L1Jo+jAMdwAmcQwBVU4Q5qUAcGj/AMr/Dmae/Fe/c+5q0rXj5zBH/gff4ApUmPLA== B F1 = 1 such that the photon is only subtracted there. In this AAAB7XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hV1R9Bj04jGCeUCyhNnJbDJmdmaZ6RVCyD948aCIV//Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFqRQWff/bW1ldW9/YLGwVt3d29/ZLB4cNqzPDeJ1pqU0ropZLoXgdBUreSg2nSSR5MxreTv3mEzdWaPWAo5SHCe0rEQtG0UmNDg440m6p7Ff8GcgyCXJShhy1bumr09MsS7hCJqm17cBPMRxTg4JJPil2MstTyoa0z9uOKppwG45n107IqVN6JNbGlUIyU39PjGli7SiJXGdCcWAXvan4n9fOML4Ox0KlGXLF5oviTBLUZPo66QnDGcqRI5QZ4W4lbEANZegCKroQgsWXl0njvBJcVvz7i3L1Jo+jAMdwAmcQwBVU4Q5qUAcGj/AMr/Dmae/Fe/c+5q0rXj5zBH/gff4ApUmPLA== − ✓ ✓ case W1 (~xf1 ) is a pure state and no entanglement is created. In this case, one can check that W−(~x ) = W (~x ). 2 f2 2 f2 Figure 7. Entanglement creation through photon subtraction in a super- To create entanglement, we are thus interested in the case position of uncorrelated modes f1 and f2. Panels (a) and (b) sketch two where b is a superposition of the two modes f1 and f2. To equivalent setups to implement a photon subtraction in the mode b, with ~ ~ ~ keep things simple, let us assume that ~b = cos θ f~1 + sin θ f~2. b = cos θ f1 +sin θ f2. In panels (c) and (d), we show the created entanglement, Because the modes f and f are orthogonal, we can use that as measure through the Renyi´ entropy (256) for varying values of θ. The ini- 1 2 tial Gaussian states are pure, with covariance matrices V = diag[s , 1/s ] T T T f1 1 1 f~ f~2 = 0 and thus we find that B F1 = cos θ 1 and B F2 = 1 and Vf2 = diag[s2, 1/s2] for modes f1 and f2, respectively. The global mean 1 − T sin θ . Nevertheless, the general expression for W1 (~xf1 ) does field, i.e., displacement, is varied ~ξ = 0 (solid curves), ~ξ = (1, 0, 0, 0) (dotted not simplify much. curves), and ~ξ = (0, 0, 1, 0)T (dotted curves). Panel (c) shows the particular To acquire additional insight, let us now assume that both case where the squeezing is balanced, i.e., s1 = s2 = 2. Panel (d) shows an modes f and f have exactly the same squeezing in the same unbalanced example where s1 = 4 and s2 = 2. All squeezing values s1 and 1 2 s are measured in units of vacuum noise. quadrature: 2 ! s 0 V = V = . (280) ~ T f1 f2 0 1 in mode f2 with ξ = (0, 0, 1, 0) . Generally speaking, we s observe that the mean field reduces the created entanglement. Furthermore, let us assume that there is no mean field, such Nevertheless, the unbalance of squeezing (s1 , s2) also that ~ξ = 0. In this particular case, we find the expression unbalances the effect of the mean field. The higher squeezing in mode f1 makes the entanglement creation more resilient − W1 (xf1 , pf1 ) = W1(xf1 , pf1 )× to displacements, but a mean field in mode f2 will reduce the  2  2  maximal attainable amount of entanglement to the same level  xf  xf  (281) p2 s + 1 + cos(2θ) p2 s + 1 − 2 . as in the balanced case (because in both panels (c) and (d) the  f1 s  f1 s  mode f2 is squeezed with s2 = 2). In the presence of a mean field, we also find that unbalanced squeezing shifts the value In particular, it turns out that the purity takes a simple form, θ for which most entanglement is created. In other words, to such that we can quantify the entanglement for this state as achieve maximal entanglement upon photon subtraction in ! cos(4θ) + 3 two modes with unequal squeezing, one must subtract in an E = log(2) − log . (282) unbalanced superposition of these modes. R 2 This shows that the maximal entanglement is reached for θ = Through this example, we showed that entanglement be- π/4 and –as expected– the entanglement vanishes when θ = 0 tween previously uncorrelated Gaussian states can be cre- and θ = π/2, i.e., when we subtract entirely in either mode f1 ated by a non-Gaussian operation. This entanglement has and f2. some additional peculiarities. For example, a quick glance More general settings are shown in Fig.7, where we show at how this procedure affects (190) shows that we can split the entanglement creation for unbalanced squeezing, by set- the state in a Gaussian, i.e., Wf(~xf), and a non-Gaussian part, h î h î ting i.e., A g|~xf / A . In this case of (259) the Gaussian part of the state clearly remains fully separable. This means that, in this ! ! s1 0 s2 0 representation, all entanglement is originating from the non- Vf1 = 1 , and Vf2 = 1 . (283) 0 s 0 s Gaussian part of the state. Nevertheless, the decomposition 1 2 (190) of the state into a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian part We compare the case with s1 = s2 to the case with s1 , s2 and most probably not unique for mixed states, making it chal- find that in absence of a mean field one can reach the same lenging to study such non-Gaussian entanglement in its most maximal amount of entanglement. However, the maximum is general sense. attained at a different value of θ when the squeezing is unbal- Yet, common tools that rely on the covariance matrix, such anced. From (282) we know that in absence of a mean field, as [210, 211], to characterise entanglement in the photon sub- the curve for s1 = s2 does not depend on the actual value of tracted states (259) are doomed to fail. In [146] it is explicitly squeezing. shown that the covariance matrix of a photon-subtracted state Fig.7 also shows the e ffect of an existing mean field, by is given by the covariance matrix of the initial Gaussian state T probing a mean field in mode f1 with ~ξ = (1, 0, 0, 0) and with a positive matrix added to it. This means that photon 41 subtraction just adds correlated noise to the covariance matrix and if we consider a Gaussian state that has exactly this covari- The general setup for studying non-locality in CV revolves ance matrix we can decompose it using (103). In other words, around a multimode state with Wigner function W(~xf ⊕~xg) de- 0 when there is no entanglement visible in the covariance matrix fined on a phase space R2m = R2l ⊕ R2l . Bell non-locality en- of the initial Gaussian state, we will not witness any entangle- tails that some measurements on this state cannot be described ment based on the covariance matrix of the photon subtracted by a local hidden variable model of the type (238). In a quan- state. In this case, the non-Gaussian entanglement is thus gen- tum framework, the local measurements with POVM elements uinely non-Gaussian in the sense that it cannot be detected {Aˆ j} (on the modes in f) and {Bˆ j} (on the modes in g) can also through Gaussian witnesses. Hence, rather than decomposing be described by Wigner functions WA j (~xf) and WB j (~xg). Be- the states in a Gaussian and non-Gaussian part, as was done cause we are dealing with a POVM, we find that in (190), it may be more fruitful to define non-Gaussian en- l X l0 X tanglement as any entanglement that cannot be witness based (4π) WA j (~xf) = (4π) WB j (~xg) = 1. (284) solely on the covariance matrix of the state. This approach j j also offers a natural connection to the framework of Gaussian passivity on quantum thermodynamics [239]. Note that this equality holds for all possible coordinates ~xf Another peculiarity that was presented in [146, 147] is the and ~xg. Here we assume that the measurement outcomes A j intrinsic nature of this non-Gaussian entanglement. When we and B j are discrete, but by correctly defining resolutions of transform the system into a different mode basis, there will the identity we can also deal with more general probability still be entanglement in the system. The entanglement is said distributions, e.g., homodyne measurements. to be intrinsic because the state is entangled in every possi- The probability to get the joint measurement result (A j, Bk) ble mode basis. As we saw in (249) Gaussian entanglement is is given by never intrinsic as there always exists a basis in which a Gaus- sian state is separable. P(A j, Bk) = Z Z Panel (b) of Fig.7 gives a rather interesting approach to m (285) (4π) d~xfd~xgW(~xf ⊕ ~xg)WA j (~xf)WBk (~xg) understanding the intrinsic nature of non-Gaussian entangle- R2l R2l0 ment. In this sketch, the second beam splitter is intended to undo the superposition θ and return to the initial mode basis Now let us assume that all these Wigner functions are posi- with modes f1 and f2. Changing this beam splitter thus implies tive. Because they are normalised, this implies that W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) a basis change. If we remove this beam splitter entirely, we is a probability distribution on the entire phase space R2m,

find ourselves in the entanglement distillation scenario of Sub- and WA j (~xf) and WB j (~xg) are probability distributions on the 0 sectionVC2. In this case, the photon subtraction is fully lo- reduced phase spaces R2l and R2l , respectively. However, cal, but it happens on a state with Gaussian entanglement. The the model (238) does not require probability distributions on photon subtraction can then increase the Renyi´ entanglement phase space, but rather on the possible measurement out- by a maximal amount of log 2. When we change to a mode comes. basis where there is no Gaussian entanglement and the en- This is where (284) comes into play. Because WA j (~xf) and tanglement is created through a non-local photon subtraction, WB j (~xg) are positive, more than just treat them as probability we create a maximal amount of Renyi´ entanglement given by distributions in phase space we can also consider P~xf (A j) = l l0 log 2. Changing the mode basis in a different way will com- (4π) WA j (~xf) and P~xg (B j) = (4π) WB j (~xg) as the probability bine the physics of these two extreme case such that there will of getting the measurement outcomes A j and Bk, respectively. always be entanglement, regardless of the basis. Because of (284) we find that these probabilities are correctly Extending these ideas to more general non-Gaussian opera- normalised tions on more general Gaussian mixed states is a hard and cur- X X rently open problem. This reflects the general status of entan- P~xf (A j) = P~xg (B j) = 1, (286) glement theory in CV systems: we lack a structured theoret- j j ical understanding of this phenomenon and as a consequence we also lack good tools to detect it. and because the Wigner functions are positive, we also find that P~xf (A j), P~xg (B j) > 0. Note that the phase space coordinates ~xf and ~xg are no longer treated as the variable, but rather as a label. The set {P (A ) | ~x ∈ R2l} denotes a family of dif- D. Non-Gaussianity and Bell inequalities ~xf j f ferent probability distributions on the space of measurement 2l0 outcomes {A1, A2,... }. The set {P~xg (B j) | ~xg ∈ R } can be In this final Subsection of our study of quantum corre- interpreted analogously. lations in non-Gaussian states, we study Bell inequalities. We can thus recast (285) in the following form First of all, we argue that it is impossible to violate Bell inequalities when both all the states and all the measurements Z P(A , B ) = d~x d~x W(~x ⊕ ~x )P (A )P (B ). (287) involved can be described by positive Wigner functions. j k f g f g ~xf j ~xg k Then, we show that the Wigner function of the state can itself be used to formulate a Bell inequality when we allow for Because W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is a positive and normalised Wigner func- non-positive Wigner functions. tion, it is a joint probability distribution on the coordinates ~xf 42 and ~xg. These coordinates label families of probability distri- and therefore the CHSH inequality is transformed into 0 butions {P (A ) | ~x ∈ R2l} and {P (B ) | ~x ∈ R2l } for the ~xf j f ~xg j g ˆ ˆ 0 ˆ 0 ˆ 0 0 measurement outcomes. The expression (287) is thus fully h∆(~xf ⊕ ~xg)i − h∆(~xf ⊕ ~xg)i + h∆(~xf ⊕ ~xg)i + h∆(~xf ⊕ ~xg)i consistent with Bell’s local hidden variable model (238). As 6 2. a consequence, we cannot violate any Bell inequalities when (290) the system is prepared in a state with a positive Wigner function and when we only have access to POVM that have Wigner As a next step, we use (78) to write representations with positive Wigner functions. ˆ m Let us emphasise that there is generally no reason to as- h∆(~xf ⊕ ~xg)i = (2π) W(~xf ⊕ ~xg), (291) sume that the probabilities P~xf (A j) and P~xg (B j) are also consistent with quantum mechanics. In other words, there is not such that the inequality (290) can be recast as ˆ necessarily any stateρ ˆ such that P~xf (A j) = tr[ˆρA j]. However, 0 0 0 0 W(~xf ⊕ ~xg) − W(~xf ⊕ ~x ) + W(~x ⊕ ~xg) + W(~x ⊕ ~x ) because we are dealing with Bell non-locality, we do not need g f f g 2 (292) this to be the case, since (238) allows for arbitrary local prob- 6 . ability distributions. (2π)m To make a long story short, we have shown that Wigner Any state with a Wigner function that violates this inequality negativity is necessary for witnessing Bell non-locality. The for some choice of coordinates ~x , ~x0, ~x , and ~x0 possesses interested reader can consult works such as [59] that relate f f g g some form of Bell non-locality. In the works [245, 246] it is Wigner negativity to the more general concept of quantum argued that the inequality (292) can be violated by sending contextuality. However, the topic of contextuality in CV a single photon through a beam splitter, but also by an EPR systems is still a matter of scientific debate [240]. state. The fact that a Gaussian Wigner function suffices to violate (292) sometimes comes as a surprise, because There has been a significant body of work about the viola- we previously argued that one needs Wigner negativity to tion of Bell inequalities in CV setups [241–243]. It is evident violated Bell inequalities. The reason why one can detect that this is an arduous task once one approaches a realistic Bell non-locality with this inequality even when the Wigner experimental setting [244]. Here, we focus on one particular function is positive stems from our choice of observable suggestion to test Bell non-locality based on a state’s Wigner ∆ˆ (~x ⊕ ~x ). The POVM elements that correspond to the function [245, 246]. f g measurement outcomes 1 and −1 have Wigner functions that The starting point of this approach is the CHSH inequality are strongly Wigner negative. As a consequence the necessary 0 0 0 0 hXˆYî − hXˆYˆ i + hXˆ Yî + hXˆ Yˆ i 6 2. (239) Wigner negativity is baked into (292) by construction. As we discussed in SubsectionVA4, this inequality relies on 0 0 In practice, the inequality (292) is highly sensitive to im- some assumptions for the observables X, X , Y, and Y . In par- purities and can often be hard to violate with experimentally ticular, we must assume that the measurement outcomes are reconstructed Wigner functions. The hunt for good new tech- − either 1 or 1. In a CV setting, where we generally deal with niques to show Bell non-locality in CV systems is therefore a continuum of possible measurement outcomes, this seems still open. However, this Subsection clearly showed us that like a serious constraint. Nevertheless, we have already en- Wigner negativity is necessary to observe one of the most countered some natural examples during this Tutorial. For exotic features in quantum physics. This negativity might example, photon counters yield a discrete number of possible be baked into the state, but it could just as well be induced measurement outcomes. Here, we choose a related observ- by measurements. The conditional methods of Subsection able that takes us all the way back SubsectionIIB, where we IV B also highlight this duality, where Wigner negativity in encountered the observable the measurement is used to induce Wigner negativity in the ∆ˆ (~x) = Dˆ (−~x)(−1)Nˆ Dˆ (~x). (83) state. It should come a no surprise that Wigner negativity is also a necessary ingredient for the most exotic quantum pro- This displaced parity operator has a rich structure, but when tocols. However, it should also be highlighted that even with it comes to actual measurement outcomes is will return either 0 0 a little extra trust, it is possible to design protocols that do −1 or 1. This means that we can choose X, X , Y, and Y to be not require Wigner-negativity to witness quantum correlations parity operators. First of all, let us note that [195]. In the next section, we discuss its importance for reach-

∆ˆ (~xf ⊕ ~xg) = ∆ˆ (~xf) ⊗ ∆ˆ (~xg). (288) ing a quantum advantage with CV systems. ˆ ˆ ˆ To see this, one can first show that (−1)Nm = (−1)Nl+Nl0 = Nˆ Nˆ 0 (−1) l ⊗ (−1) l and subsequently use Dˆ (~xf ⊕ ~xg) = Dˆ (~xf) ⊗ VI. NON-GAUSSIAN QUANTUM ADVANTAGES Dˆ (~xg) (displacements in different modes are independent from each other). It has been long known that systems that are entirely built Now we can identify the observables as follows: with Gaussian building blocks are easy to simulate [25]. It 0 0 should perhaps not come as a surprise that efficient numerical X = ∆ˆ (~xf), X = ∆ˆ (~x ) f (289) tools exist to sample numbers from a multivariate Gaussian ˆ 0 ˆ 0 Y = ∆(~xg), Y = ∆(~xg) distribution. The discrete variable analog of this result comes 43 across as less intuitive and goes by the name “Gottesman- a real average, unless the Wigner function W(~x) of the state Knill theorem” [247]. Yet, it turns out that something stronger is an actual probability distribution on phase space. The lat- than mere non-Gaussian elements is required to render a sys- ter is exactly the case when W(~x) is positive. Then, we can tem hard to simulate. simply think of the probability p j for obtaining event e j as In SubsectionVD, we encountered the power of Wigner p j = EW [P~x(e j)], where EW is the expectation value over the negativity by realising that it is a necessary requirement for probability distribution W(~x). Bell non-locality. This connection between Wigner negativity Hence, when all Wigner functions are positive, the algo- and the most exotic types of quantum correlations shows us rithm to simulate our relevant quantum process can simply be that Wigner negativity is key to giving CV systems their most expressed by the following steps: prominent quantum features. It is then perhaps not a surprise that such Wigner negativity is also a necessary requirement 1. Sample a phase space coordinate ~x from the probability for implementing any type of protocol that cannot be effi- distribution W(~x). ciently simulated by a classical computer [33, 248, 249]. 2. Construct the probability distribution P (e ) for the We thus start our discussion of quantum advantages by ~x j sampled value ~x. explaining the result of [33]. To show the necessity of Wigner negativity, we show an explicitly simulation algorithm for 3. Sample an outcome e j from the probability distribution general quantum protocols without Wigner negativity. P~x(e j). Any quantum protocol ultimately relies on the measure- Even though this is the general idea behind our sampling ment of a certain set of measurement operators {Eˆ j} (typically protocol, there are some major hidden assumptions. First, we a POVM) of a system prepared on a stateρ ˆ. In a Wigner func- assume here that the Wigner function for the state and the tion formalism, we then find measurement are known. Furthermore, we also assume that Z we can simply sample points from any distribution on phase m space and from any distribution of measurement outcomes p j = (4π) d~x WE j (~x)W(~x). (293) R2m P~x(e j). In particular for the sampling aspects it is not at all clear that these are reasonable assumptions to make. Standard ˆ Furthermore, the fact that the set {E j} forms a POVM implies sampling protocols for multivariate probability distributions that tend to get highly inefficient once the probability distributions X (4π)m W (~x) = 1. (294) become too exotic such that it is dangerous to assume that we E j can “just sample”. j As we already discussed in SubsectionVD, surrounding To address this point Ref. [33] makes more assumptions on eq. (284), it is crucial that the normalisation condition (294) the exact setup we are trying to simulate. First, we assume holds for any phase space coordinate ~x. In the present context, that the detection is done by a series of single-mode detectors, we want to show that there is an efficient method for a clas- such that our label j now become a tuple j = ( j1, j2,..., jm) sical device to sample values from the probability distribution where j denotes the outcome e(k) for the detector on the kth k jk {p j} when all involved Wigner functions are positive. (1) mode. We can thus write the POVM element as Eˆj = Eˆ ⊗ Let us start by assuming that the Wigner functions that j1 · · · ⊗ Eˆ(m), such that describe the POVM elements are all positive. When com- jm bined with the POVM condition (294), this implies that we m (1) (2) (m) can identify a set of probabilities P (e ) = (4π) W (~x) as WEj (~x) = WE (x1, p1)WE (x2, p2) ... WE (xm, pm). (296) ~x j E j j1 j2 jm the probability to obtain the measurement outcome e j, associated with the POVM element Eˆ j. These P~x(e j) depend on We assume that each detector has been accurately cali- a parameter ~x, we can thus form a family of probability dis- brated, such that all the individual Wigner functions are 2m tributions {P~x(e j) | ~x ∈ R } that describe the probability of known. This implies that for a given point in phase space T obtaining the different results e j, depending on a chosen phase ~x = (x1, p1,..., xm, pm) , we can simply evaluate the prob- space point. The normalisation condition (294) now states abilities for each detector to produce a certain outcome. P (k) that j P~x(e j) = 1 for all ~x. Let us emphasise that this family Thus, we calculate the probability distributions P(xk,pk)(e j ) = (k) of probabilities would not be well-defined if WE j (~x) were not 4πW (xk, pk) for all the possible measurement outcomes for E j positive Wigner functions, as some of the probabilities would that specific mode. We will assume that sampling outcomes be negative. (k) (k) e from these probability distributions P x ,p (e ) is a feasi- Going back to the initial equation (293), we now find that j ( k k) j ble task. For typical detectors in quantum optics experiments Z this is a very reasonable assumption. p j = d~x P~x(e j)W(~x). (295) The Wigner function W(~x) that describes the state is more 2m R subtle as it also includes all correlations between modes. If To find the actual probability of getting the jth outcome is thus the state is Gaussian, a measurement of the covariance ma- given by “averaging” the probabilities P~x(e j) over the differ- trix would be sufficient to know the full Wigner function. ent phase space coordinates. Generally speaking, this is not Because of its Gaussian features, there are efficient tools to 44

~x ~xl ⊕ ~xl0 ~x ~xl ⊕ ~xl0 directly sample phase space points. Yet, for more general to split tk−1 = tk−1 tk−1 and tk = tk tk , such that non-Gaussian positive Wigner functions this sampling may be 0 0 (4π)mW (~x ⊕ T~x ) = (4π)lW (~x l ⊕ T~x l )δ(~xl − ~xl ). much harder. Therefore, Ref. [33] makes an essential assump- Ξtk tk−1 tk Ξtk tk−1 tk tk−1 tk tion: it assumes that we know a protocol that combines local (301) operations to design the state W(~x) from a known initial state Even though the notation is complicated, it simply describes with no correlations between the modes. The notion of “lo- that we act on an l-mode subspace with the operation Ξtk and cality” should here be understood in the sense of acting on a leave the other l0 modes untouched. small set of modes while leaving the others fully untouched. The normalisation condition (298) now has an important These local operations are also supposed to be represented by consequence, since it allows us to identify a probability dis- m tribution on phase space P (~xt ) = (4π) W (~xt ⊕ T~xt ). positive Wigner functions which only depend on the phase ~xtk−1 k Ξtk k−1 k space coordinates of the subset of modes on which they act. It gives us the probability of choosing a phase space value ~xtk ,

Generally speaking, such Wigner positive operations Ξ : given that we know ~xtk−1 . Because the operations are local, H in → Hout map a stateρ ˆ to a new state Ξ[ˆρ]. In Ref. [33], (301) allows us to keep most of the phase space coordinates the Choi representation [250, 251] is used to represent Ξ as a constant from step to step. Furthermore, the ﬁrst step is sim- in out state on a larger Hilbert space H ⊗ H . This becomes par- ple. Every pair (xk, pk) of the initial coordinate ~xin can be ticularly appealing when we go to a Wigner representation, sampled independently because Win(~xin) factorises. This now where the Choi representation of Ξ is given by a Wigner func- gives us the following new algorithm: tion W (~x in ⊕ ~x out). The action of Ξ on a state with Wigner Ξ 1. Take the initial Wigner function W (~x in) = function W(~x in) is then given by in W(1)(x , p )W(2)(x , p ) ... W(m)(x , p ) and sam- Z in 1 1 in 2 2 in m m out m in in out in ple a pair (xk, pk) from every single-mode probability Wout(~x ) = (4π) d~x WΞ(~x ⊕ T~x )W(~x ), (297) (k) R2m distribution Win (xk, pk). Put all these pairs together to obtain ~x in = (x , p ,..., x , p ). where m is the number of modes of the input state. For tech- 1 1 m m nical reasons, we must include the transposition operator T 2. Update the coordinate by sampling new coordinates m (257) in the action of the channel. Because this operation must based on P (~xt ) = (4π) W (~xt ⊕ T~xt ). Be- ~xtk−1 k Ξtk k−1 k be trace-preserving, we on top get the property that cause Ξtk are local operations, it suﬃces to only Z locally update coordinates. Let us make this m out in out (4π) d~x WΞ(~x ⊕ T~x ) = 1. (298) clear through an example. Say we have ~xtk−1 = R2m (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) T (x1 , p1 ,..., xm , pm ) and operation Ξtk acts , ~x l When we now assume that the operation Ξ has a Wigner-Choi locally on modes with labels 2 5, and 7. Take tk−1 = in out (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) (k−1) representation WΞ(~x ⊕ ~x ) which is a positive function, it (x2 , p2 , x5 , p5 , x7 , p7 ) and use it to immediately follows that the operation Ξ turns a Wigner pos- l l l l evaluate P (~x ) = (4π) WΞ (~x ⊕ T~x ). Now sam- in ~xtk−1 tk tk tk−1 tk itive initial state W(~x ) into a Wigner positive output state l (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) out ple a new vector ~x = (x , p , x , p , x , p ) from Wout(~x ). tk 2 2 5 5 7 7 It is useful to note that such operations (297) can be trivially this probability distribution. Then construct the new vector ~x by taking ~x and updating the coordinates embedded in a larger space. Let us assume that we consider tk tk−1 associated to modes 2, 5, and 7 to the newly sampled a state W(~xf ⊕ ~xg), we can simply let the operation act on the modes g by taking coordinates

Z 3. After the operations Ξ1,..., Ξt have been implemented out l0 in in out in Wout(~xf ⊕ ~xg ) = (4π) d~xg WΞ(~xg ⊕ T~xg )W(~xf ⊕ ~xg ), by updating the phase space coordinate, take the final R2l0 T (299) phase space coordinate ~x = (x1, p1,..., xm, pm) and the Wigner function describing the detectors W (~x) = Notationally, this may seem a little complicated, but, in Ej WE(1) (x1, p1)WE(2) (x2, p2) ... WE(m) (xm, pm). For each de- essence, we just carry out the integration over a subset of the j1 j2 jm full phase space. We will call these operations local Wigner tector k, use the phase space coordinate ~x to generate the (k) positive operations. (k) probability distribution P(xk,pk)(e j ) = WE (xk, pk). In our simulation protocol, we thus assume that W(~x) is j created by a series of such local Wigner positive opera- (k) 4. Sample an outcome e j from the distribution tions of Ξ1,..., Ξt on a non-correlated input state Win(~xin) = (k) (1) (2) (m) P(xk,pk)(e j ) for every detector. Win (x1, p1)Win (x2, p2) ... Win (xm, pm). Z Z Sampling the final phase space coordinate ~x by using a mt Monte-Carlo-style update rule is time consuming, but if the W(~x) = (4π) d~xt··· d~xtWΞt (~xt ⊕ T~x) ... R2m R2l operations are local it can be done efficiently. This procedure (300) × WΞ2 (~x1 ⊕ T~x2)WΞ1 (~xin ⊕ T~x1) implicitly assumes that we do not just know the state we are sampling from, but that we know the circuit of local opera- × Win(~xin). tions that is used to create the state from local resources. Ulti- We assume on top that each operation is local over a small mately, when one considers the circuit representation of quan- number of modes l m. To model this with (299), it suffices tum algorithms, this is also how a quantum algorithm works. 45

For example, SubsectionIVA exactly shows that any unitary and beam splitters, is a Gaussian transformation the output CV circuit can be built with single- and two-mode gates. The state will remain Gaussian. We can thus effectively say that algorithm outlined in this section shows that we can efficiently we are sampling photons from a state with Wigner function simulate any protocol where the local input state, the circuit’s WG(~x). In addition, there is no mean field in the setup such operations, and the measurements are described by positive that the entire state is characterised by its covariance matrix Wigner functions. V. One may wonder whether any positive Wigner function When we assume that the detectors resolve photon num- W(~x) can be constructed through such a circuit and, if so, bers, the probability to detect a string of counts n = whether there is an efficient way to design such a circuit when (n1,..., nm) can we written as we know the Wigner function. If we assume that not only the Z m state W(~x) but also all its marginals are known, it is possible P(n) = (4π) d~x Wn(~x)WG(~x). (303) to construct a step-wise sampling procedure through the chain R2m rule of probability theory: We can then use (118) to write

W(~x) = Wn(~x) = Wn1 (x1, p1) ... Wnm (xm, pm). (304)

W(xm, pm | xm−1, pm−1,... x1, p1) × ... Even though the integral (303) is hard to compute, it is in- W(x3, p3 | x2, p2, x1, p1)W(x2, p2 | x1, p1)W(x1, p1). sightful in the light of (295) and our discussion regarding (302) the necessity of Wigner negativity. Indeed, we see immediately that the detectors form a crucial element in rendering This process effectively executes a type of random walk with the setup hard to simulate. The same holds when we replace memory. In each step of this walk, we then sample the phase the number-resolving detectors with their on-off counterparts space coordinates for one mode. Nevertheless, this process [257] such that nk = {0, 1} and the Wigner functions are given − − 2 2 only works when we have access to all these conditional by Wnk (xk, pk) = (1 2 exp[ (xk + pk)/2])/(4π). probabilities, which practically implies having access to all When we stick with number-resolving detectors that project the marginals of the distribution. In practical setups, this will on Fock states, it is practical to reformulate the problem in often not be the case. Nevertheless, it is quickly seen that terms of P-functions and Q-functions, such that this setup can be efficiently used to sample from Gaussian Z Wigner functions where these conditional distributions have P(n) = d~x Pn(~x)QG(~x). (305) a particularly simple form. R2m For the detailed calculation, we refer to Ref. [253]. It turns Thus, we have shown that it is impossible to obtain a quan- out that the probabilities P(n) can be expressed in terms of tum computational advantage by using only local states, mea- the Hafnian of a matrix [258], which establishes a connection surements, and operations with positive Wigner functions. to the problem of finding perfect matchings in graph theory. This means that Wigner negativity is necessary to reach a This connection has lead to several suggested applications for quantum advantage in such setups. However, Wigner nega- Gaussian Boson Sampling [259–261]. tivity is certainly not sufficient since there are many setups In the light of this Tutorial, the most interesting application of quantum systems that involve negative Wigner functions of Gaussian Boson Sampling is its potential role in quantum that can be efficiently simulated [252]. It is thus interest- state engineering [262]. When only a subset of modes are ing to take the opposite approach and explore a setup that is measured, we can see Gaussian Boson Sampling as a general- known to lead to a quantum advantage. In the spirit of CV isation of photon subtraction (and even as a generalisation of setups, the most logical choice for such a discussion is Gaus- “generalised photon subtraction” [151]). The idea is reason- sian boson sampling [253]. In literature, this setup has been ably simply explained in the light of SubsectionIVB: when 0 studied mainly from the point of view of complexity theory we split the system in two parts R2m = R2l ⊕ R2l , such that [254, 255], but here we rather focus on its physical building the Gaussian state that comes out of the interferometer now blocks. takes the form WG(~xf ⊕ ~xg), we can post-select on a measure- Boson sampling [256] is a problem in which one injects ment outcome n = (n1,... nl0 ) for the second subsystem. We 0 a set of N bosons (generally photons) into an m-mode inter- thus project on a state Wn(~xg), which is a product of l Fock ferometer. On the output ports of this interferometer, pho- states, and from (190), we obtain that the conditional state on todetectors are mounted to count the particles at the output. the remaining modes is given by

Simulating this type of quantum Galton board is a computa- 0 0 h[|n1i hn1| ⊗ · · · ⊗ |nl i hnl |]ig|~xf tionally hard task, implying that a quantum advantage could Wf|n(~xf) = Wf(~xf), (306) be reached by implementing the setup in a quantum optics ex- h[|n1i hn1| ⊗ · · · ⊗ |nl0 i hnl0 |]i periment. On the other hand, it turns out that the required with Wf(~xf) defined by (182). From (192) we recall the ex- number of photons to implement such an experiment is also pression hard to come by. This was the motivation for developing h | i h | ⊗ · · · ⊗ | 0 i h 0 | i a new approach, where the input photons are replaced by [ n1 n1 nl nl ] g|~xf Z squeezed states that are injected in each of the interferometer l0 (307) = (4π) d~xg Wn(~xg)WG(~xg | ~xf), inputs. Because an interferometer, built out of phase shifters R2l0 46 and because the initial state WG(~xf ⊕ ~xg) is Gaussian, we VII. EXPERIMENTAL REALISATIONS find that the conditional probability distribution WG(~xg | ~xf) is given by (193). Ironically, to evaluate h[|n1i hn1| ⊗ · · · ⊗ Now that we have provided an overview of some theoreti- | 0 i h 0 | i h | i h | ⊗ · · · ⊗ | 0 i h 0 | i nl nl ] g|~xf and [ n1 n1 nl nl ] we must essen- cal aspects of non-Gaussian quantum states, we interpret the tially solve the same hard problem as for the implementation “where to find them” part of the title in a very literal sense. of Gaussian Boson Sampling itself. Therefore, the exact de- Non-Gaussian states are generally rather fragile, as one should scription of the resulting states is generally complicated. expect from quantum central limit theorem and the fact that Nevertheless, in idealised scenarios, even small Gaussian thermal states in free bosonic theories are Gaussian. Produc- Boson Sampling circuits can be used to prepare interesting ing and analysing non-Gaussian states in a laboratory setting non-Gaussian states [262]. In particular the capacity of Gaus- is indeed challenging, but nevertheless it has been done nu- sian Boson Sampling to produce GKP states has taken up merous times. Our main focus in Subsection VII A will be a prominent place in a recent blueprint for photonic quan- quantum optics, which is the historical testbed for CV quantum computation [24]. Furthermore, the results in Subsection tum physics. However, in recent years there has been in- VC suggest that states created by performing Gaussian Bo- creased attention for CV approaches in other setting such as son Sampling on a subset of modes can have additional non- optomechanics, superconducting circuits, and trapped ions. Gaussian entanglement. Yet, to be able to use this procedure to produce highly resourceful Wigner negative states, Subsec- tionVB2 highlights that the initial Gaussian state needs to A. Quantum optics experiments be such that the modes in f can steer the modes in g. This condition can be seen as a basic quality requirement for the This section provides an overview of some of the most Gaussian Boson Samplers that are used in [24]. important milestones in the generation of non-Gaussian states in optics. For more details, we refer the reader to a Finally, the experimental imperfections are also detrimen- specialised review [76]. tal for the quantum advantage that is produced in Gaussian Boson Sampling. Clearly, when the Gaussian state W (~x) G Historically, one might argue that the first experimental re- can be written as a Gaussian mixture of coherent states alisations of non-Gaussian states in optical setups relied on (meaning that no mode basis exists in which the quadrature sufficiently sensitive photon detectors. Initial demonstrations noise is below vacuum noise), the sampling can be simulated primarily used photoemission of atoms [264, 265] which are efficiently. Because multimode coherent states are always just prepared in excited states (e.g. by electron bombardment) or a tensor product of single-mode coherent states, it suffices via resonance fluorescence in ions [266]. The development to sample a coherent state from the mixture, calculate all of spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC) made it the individual probabilities for the output detectors, and possible to create a single-photon state using only bulk optical sample independent detector outputs according to these elements [196]. However, all these early non-Gaussian states probabilities. The presence of entanglement in the Gaussian were characterised through counting statistics, which means state from which we sample is thus crucial. In addition, that we generally classify them as DV experiments. detector efficiencies must be sufficiently high such that their It is perhaps intriguing to note that SPDC is also the process Wigner functions remain non-positive, otherwise the protocol that lies at the basis of the creation of squeezed states of light of [33] renders the setup easy to simulate (as explained in [267] which are Gaussian. These states play a key role in the the first part of this section). A more thorough analysis of generation of single-photon states, simply because a weakly how different experimental imperfections render Gaussian squeezed vacuum is mainly a superposition of vacuum and a Boson Sampling easier to simulate can be found in Ref. [263]. photon pair. By detecting one photon of the pair, the presence of the second photon is heralded. Hence, the approach There are clearly still many aspects of the relation between of [196] is a basic implementation of a conditional scheme for non-Gaussian features of quantum states on the one hand, and the generation of non-Gaussian states as presented in Subsec- the ability to achieve a quantum computational advantage on tionIVB. the other hand, that are not yet fully understood. The Gaus- A genuine CV treatment of such non-Gaussian states would sian Boson Sampling setup clearly emphasises the importance only be achieved much later in a work that presents the first of entanglement in combination with Wigner negativity. Fur- tomographic reconstruction of a state with Wigner negativity thermore, there is the implicit fact that a simulation scheme in optics [268]. Due to the developments of an easily imple- such as [33] requires knowledge of the actual circuit of lo- mentable maximum-likelihood algorithm for state reconstruc- cal operations that was used to create the state. It does make tion, homodyne tomography became one of the main tools to sense to assume that we actually have some ideas of the quan- study non-Gaussian states in CV quantum optics [269]. It did tum protocol that we are attempting to simulate, but yet one not take long before this also led to the reconstruction of a may wonder whether there could be a reasonable setting (in displaced single-photon Fock state [270] and a two-photon the sense that we are actually implementing a well-controlled Fock state [271]. The combination of increased squeezing protocol) in which the assumptions of [33] do not hold. This with type-II SPDC and an array of photon detectors to in- clearly shows that many fundamental theoretical aspects of crease the number of heralded photons more recently made CV quantum computation remain to be uncovered. it possible to resolve the Wigner function of a three photon 47

Fock state [272]. Similar ideas of multiplexed photon detec- atom [281]. The presence of entanglement between the tion have also been used the generate superpositions of Fock “macroscopic” coherent state and the “microscopic” atomic states [273]. degrees of freedom make for an experiment that resembles For non-Gaussian states beyond Fock states, photon sub- Schrodinger’s¨ original though experiment [101]. Once the traction, as described in Subsection IV B 2, is a common ex- atom and the coherent light are entangled, a spin rotation of perimental tool. Its first experimental implementation suc- the atom is followed by a measurement to project the state cessfully showed the capability of generating non-Gaussian of the light field in either an even or an odd cat state. This statistics in the homodyne measurements, but it failed to reflects the general idea that atoms still induce much larger demonstrate Wigner negativity [142]. Later experiments im- nonlinearities than nonlinear crystals. These nonlinearities proved the quality of the generated states, demonstrating are the direct source of non-Gaussian effect, but they are also Wigner negativity and creating so-called “Schrodinger¨ kit- much harder to control. At present, experiments that rely on tens” [124, 274, 275]. The terminology is chosen because such higher order nonlinearities to create non-Gaussian states these states resemble cat states ∼ |αi − |−αi for small values remain rare in the optical regime. of the mean field α. Even though such Schrodinger¨ kittens are ultimately not very different from squeezed single photon The above methods all focus on the creation of single-mode states, the nomenclature makes more sense in the context of non-Gaussian states. For multimode systems, much of the ex- experiments that “breed” cat states [276]. Here, one mixes perimental progress has concentrated on two-mode systems. two Schrodinger¨ kittens on a beamsplitter and performs ho- As we extensively discussed throughout this tutorial, an im- modyne detection on one output port. By conditioning on in- portant feature in such multimode systems are quantum cor- stances where this homodyne detector registers values close relations. Some of the first experimental demonstrations of to zero, one effectively heralds a larger cat state (the value of non-Gaussian quantum correlations were based on the Bell α has increased). A variation of photon subtraction has also inequality (292). Homodyne tomography and a single pho- been used to create a type of CV qubits [277]. ton, delocalised over two modes by a beam splitter, suffices to As an alternative to photon subtraction, one can also add violate the inequality [282, 283]. However, these works also a photon [153]. Even though this operation theoretically teach us that extreme high purities are required to do so. equates to applying a creation operator on the state, it is exper- Motivated by photon subtraction experiments and chal- imentally much harder to implement than photon subtraction lenged by the no-go theorem of [219–221], entanglement dis- as it requires non-linear optics. However, photon subtraction tillation soon became a new focus for non-Gaussian quantum can only produce Wigner negativity when the initial state is optics experiments. Some of these experiments have focused squeezed. Photon addition, on the other hand, provides the on adding some form of non-Gaussian noise on the initial state advantage of always creating a Wigner negative state. A sim- to circumvent the no-go theorem [222, 223]. Entanglement ple way to see this is by applying a creation operator to the distillation through local photon subtraction from the entan- state and evaluating the Q-function (70). When a photon is gled modes of a Gaussian input state would later be demon- added to the mode g, the Q-function after photon addition has strated in [284]. Earlier, it had already been shown that Gaus- + T 2 the property Q (α~) ∼ (α~ ~g) QG(α~), where QG(α~) is the Q- sian entanglement can be increased by photon subtraction in function of the initial Gaussian state. This relation implies au- a superposition of the entangled mode [285]. Interestingly, in tomatically that the Q-function will be exactly zero for α~ = ~0, the latter case, the photon is effectively subtracted in a non- and a zero of the Q-function implies Wigner negativity. This entangled mode such that the setup is essentially equivalent to means that one can apply photon addition to highly classical mixing a squeezed vacuum and a photon-subtracted squeezed states, such as a coherent state or a thermal state, and still end vacuum on a beam splitter. A similar photon subtraction in a up creating Wigner negativity. Such photon-added coherent coherent superposition of modes was later carried out to en- states were also used to experimentally measure [278] non- tangle two Schrodinger¨ kittens [286]. This can probably be Gaussianity δ(ˆρ) as defined in (110). Remarkably, combin- seen as the first realisations of purely non-Gaussian entangle- ing photon addition and photon subtraction operations in both ment in CV. possible orders provides a way to experimentally verify the Photon addition has also been considered as a tool for cre- canonical commutation relations [â, aˆ†] = 1, as was shown in ating entanglement between pairs of previously uncorrelated [154]. modes [287]. The resulting state can be seen as a hybrid The above methods are all based on Gaussian states entangled state ∼ |0i |αi + |1i |−αi, such states have also as initial resources to generate non-Gaussian states. The been produced using techniques similar to photon subtraction non-Gaussian states that are created as such can in turn serve [288]. For two modes, photon addition can be implemented in as useful resources to create more intricate non-Gaussian a mode-selective way [289]. This setup is particularly useful states. Fock states are a commonly used type of input states, to create entanglement between coherent states by adding a for example in the first demonstration of a large Schrodinger’s¨ photon in a superposition of displaced modes. cat state [279]. Intriguingly, by using non-Gaussian initial states, it suffices to use homodyne detection as the conditional Going beyond two modes has always remained a challeng- operation. This setup can then be extended to a cat breeding ing task. For mode-selective photon subtraction from a mul- scheme [280]. Another method to create large cat states timode field, one must abandon the typical implementation in optics relies on making the light field interact with an based on a beam splitter. For two modes, such an alterna- 48 tive photon subtraction scheme was for example realised in ulated through interactions with atoms [299] and the Rabi- the time-frequency domain, by subtracting a photon from a oscillations of the injected Rydberg atoms can in turn be used side-band [290]. Yet, going to a genuine multimode scenario to probe the field within the cavity [300]. These methods required the design of a whole new photon subtractor based would then be combined to experimentally generate a single- on sum-frequency generation [291, 292]. This finally permit- photon Fock state of the microwave field in a cavity [301], ted the first demonstration of multimode non-Gaussian state confirm its Wigner negativity [74], and probe its full Wigner in a CV setting, demonstrating non-Gaussian features in up to function [75]. A few years later, similar techniques were used four entangled modes [293]. to finally generate Schrodinger¨ cat states and higher order Such highly multimode states of more than two modes Fock states [302]. are confronted with a considerable problem: the exponential A third setup with very similar physics is found in cir- scaling of the required number of measurements for a full cuit QED. In this field, the macroscopic microwave cavities state tomography. This makes it highly challenging to demon- are replaced by superconducting circuits, and nonlinearities strate non-Gaussian features such as Wigner negativity in are induced by Josephson junctions rather than atoms [134]. multimode non-Gaussian states. For single-photon-subtracted Even though these setups are often used in a DV approach, states, it has been pointed out that good analytical models the microwave fields involved can equally be treated in a can be used to train machine learning algorithms to recognise CV approach. The large nonlinearities rather naturally cre- Wigner negativity based on single-mode measurements ate non-Gaussian states, but getting a good sense of control [294]. Furthermore, the techniques of [123] combined with over them can be challenging. Nevertheless, a wide range [295] should also make it possible to use multiplexed double of non-Gaussian states such as Fock state [303] and large homodyne detection to witness Wigner negativity in certain Schrodinger’s¨ cat states [304] have been experimentally re- classes of multimode states. alised. The latter have furthermore been stabilised by engineering the decoherence processes in the system [305]. Very In multimode systems, we are confronted with the limita- recently these systems have also been used to demonstrate the tions of homodyne tomography. Recently, it has been shown deterministic generation of photon triplets [136]. that machine learning techniques can be used to implement an In recent years, both, trapped ions [306] and supercon- improved form of CV tomography based on homodyne mea- ducting circuits [307] were used to achieve another important surements [296]. Even though this setup is computationally milestone in CV quantum computing: the experimental gen- heavy in single mode setups, it uses a smaller set of states as eration of a GKP state. These highly non-Gaussian states are a basis for state reconstruction which might make multimode useful for encoding a fault-tolerant qubit in a CV degree of versions of the protocol more scalable. Alternatively, one can freedom. By exploiting the redundancy that is offered by the also bypass homodyne measurements all together. Photon- infinite dimension Hilbert space of a CV system, one can cre- number-resolving detectors such as transition edge sensors ate a qubit with a certain degree of robustness. This effectively [297] make it possible to use the identity (78) to directly mea- makes it possible to implement error correction routines, as sure the Wigner function [71]. Intriguingly, this implies that shown in Ref. [307]. In other words, these systems have man- a photon-number-resolving detector and a setup to generate aged to generate CV states that are so non-Gaussian that they displacements of the state in arbitrary modes makes it possi- can be effectively used as fault-tolerant DV states. ble to directly measure the full multimode Wigner function. A final field that has shown much potential over the last Nevertheless, such a multimode protocol has so far not been decades is cavity optomechanics. Here, an optical field is realised in any experiment. injected into a cavity with one moving mirror (more generally also other types of “dynamic cavities” can be used). The goal is to cool this mirror to its ground state to observe its quantum B. Other experimental setups features. This way, one hopes to create non-classical states of motion in reasonably large objects. A wide variety of Given all the experimental work in CV quantum optics, it such optomechanical devices exist [308]. Several theoretical is perhaps surprising that the first experimental demonstra- schemes have been proposed to generate non-Gaussian states tions of quantum states with Wigner negativity happened in in such optomechanical setup [309, 310]. Even though different fields. The very first realisation of such a state was quantum features such photon-phonon entanglement have achieved with trapped ions. Even though one often uses the been demonstrated in such systems [311, 312], it remains atomic transitions in these systems to isolate qubits for po- highly challenging to obtain good experimental control tential quantum computers, trapped ions also have interest- over the motional quantum state. Nevertheless, some CV ing motional degrees of freedom. By exploiting a Jaynes- non-Gaussian states states in the form of superpositions Cummings type interaction between the atom and the trapping between vacuum and a single-phonon Fock state have been field, it is possible to use the ions’ internal atomic degrees of experimentally realised [313]. freedom to create well-controlled non-Gaussian states such as a Fock state [73] and a Schrodinger’s¨ cat state [298] in the A common problem in these setups is the creation of motional degrees of freedom. entanglement between the CV degrees of freedom in different Mathematically, this setup is equivalent to cavity QED, modes. Some degree of such CV entanglement has been where it was shown that photons in a cavity can be manip- experimentally achieved in trapped ion [314] and circuit 49

QED setups [315]. However, the number of entangled modes which is more narrowly related to a measurement-based ap- is much lower than what has been achieved in optics [18– proach to quantum protocols. Throughout the remainder of 21, 316], where even non-Gaussian entangled states of more the Tutorial, we have largely focused on conditional opera- than two modes have been created [293]. This shows clearly tions, since it is the most commonly used approach in exper- how different experimental setups have different strengths iments. It also provides a natural avenue to start studying the and weaknesses. Optics comes with the advantage of spatial, relation between quantum correlations and non-Gaussian fea- temporal, and spectral mode manipulations, which allows tures. We show how the conditional approach requires cer- to create large entangled states. However, the resilience of tain correlations in the initial Gaussian state to be able to in- optical setups to decoherence is due to limited interaction duce certain type of non-Gaussianity in the conditional state, with the environment. The latter implies that it is also difficult as summarised in Fig.5. to find controlled ways to make these systems strongly On the other hand, non-Gaussian operations can also create non-Gaussian. On the other hand, the other setups which a type of non-Gaussian entanglement as introduced in Subsec- we discussed require much more significant shielding from tionVC. This kind of entanglement is particular as it can not environmental degrees of freedom. When this coupling to be identified with typical techniques that rely on the state’s co- other degrees of freedom can be controlled, it provides the variance matrix. Nevertheless, we use Renyi-2´ entanglement means to create non-Gaussian quantum states. In this context, as a measure to illustrate the existence of such purely non- it is appealing to combine the advantages of different regimes. Gaussian quantum correlations in photon-subtracted states. Optomechanics offers a potential pathway to achieve this Even though its existence is known from pure state exam- by converting between microwave and optical degrees of ples, it has only received limited attention in both theoretical freedom [317, 318]. and experimental work. One possible reason is the difficulty of studying this type of entanglement for mixed states, since As a last remark, it is interesting to mention that phase convex roof constructions tend to become highly intractable space descriptions and non-Gaussian states also appear in for non-Gaussian states. atomic ensembles. This framework relies on the fact that an As a final theoretical aspect of the Tutorial, we highlight the ensemble of a large number of atoms can be described by col- need of Wigner negativity to achieve some of the most strik- lective observables that behave very similar to bosonic sys- ing features in quantum technologies. On the one hand, we tems. The associated phase space behaves differently from show that Wigner negativity in either the state or the measure- the optical phase space, in the sense that it is compact. More ment is necessary to violate a Bell inequality. This observa- specifically, the phase space will cover a sphere and the radius tion can be understood in the broader context of non-locality of this sphere will depend on the number of atoms. Effec- and contextuality: Wigner negativity is often seen as a mani- tively, we would recover a bosonic system in the limit of an festation of the contextual behaviour of quantum systems, and infinite number of atoms. However, the compactness of phase non-locality can be understood as a type of contextuality of space for a finite ensemble comes with interesting side-effects: measurements on different subsystems. On the other hand, a sufficiently high amount of spin squeezing can create non- we also present results that show how Wigner negativity is a Gaussian states. We will not go into details for these systems, requirement to achieve a quantum computational advantage. but it should nevertheless be highlighted that non-Gaussian Intuitively, it is perhaps not surprising that states, operations, spin states have received considerable attention in literature and measurements that can all be described by probability dis- [319] and have been produced in a range of experiments [320– tributions on phase space can be efficiently simulated on a 323]. classical computer. However, as we showed in SectionVI, the actual simulations protocol contains many subtle points. Here, too, we conclude that there are still many open questions sur- VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK rounding the physics of quantum computational advantages in continuous-variable setups. In this Tutorial, we have presented a framework based As a last step of this Tutorial, we provided an overview on phase-space representations to study continuous-variable of the experimental realisations of non-Gaussian states with quantum systems. We then focused on the various aspects of continuous-variables. Quantum states of light are indeed the non-Gaussian states, where we first represented different ways usual suspects for continuous-variable quantum information to structure the space of continuous-variable states in a single processing, but it turns out to be remarkably challenging mode in Fig.1. Whenever possible, we generalised results to engineer highly non-Gaussian states in such setups. We from literature to a multimode setting. However, for certain highlighted how trapped ions, cavity QED, and circuit QED properties such as the stellar rank, these generalisations behave proven to be better equipped for this task, but in return come insufficient to classify all possible quantum states. they are confronted with other problems. Optomechanics We introduced two paradigms to create non-Gaussian presents itself as an ideal translator between these two states, where one is a deterministic approach based on unitary regimes, which may soon make it possible to combine the transformations, reminiscent of the circuit approach for quan- scalability of optical setups with the high nonlinearities of the tum information processing. The second approach is condi- microwave domain. tional, in the sense that it relies on conditioning one part of a state on measurement outcomes for another part of a state, In a more general sense, there are definitely many open 50 question to be resolved in the domain of continuous-variable metrological advantage that is reflected in the quantum quantum physics. In this Tutorial, we have focused exten- Fisher information [336]. On the other hand, ideas from sively on questions related to non-Gaussian features, notably quantum metrology also provide a possible approach for in multimode systems. In the greater scheme of things, this measuring non-Gaussian quantum steering [337]. The effects is only one of the many challenges in the field. The re- of non-Gaussian features on the sensitivity of the state can in cent demonstration of a quantum computational advantage principle be captured by higher moments of the quadrature with Gaussian Boson Sampling has set an important mile- operators [338]. It was recently shown that post-selected stone for continuous-variable quantum technologies [23], but measurements could, indeed, offer a quantum advantage for we are still far away from useful computational protocols as metrology [339]. This result is narrowly connected to the field set out in the roadmap of Ref. [24]. Even though the quest for of weak measurements and makes a connection to yet another Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill state [31] is one of the main ex- phase-space representation: the Kirkwood-Dirac distribution perimental priorities, there are still many open challenges in [65, 340]. Hence, we circle back to the fundamental physics designing the Gaussian operations that form the basis of such of continuous-variable systems and conclude that there are a setup [324, 325]. still many connections to be made. Beyond universal fault-tolerant quantum computers, there are many other potential applications for continuous-variable Beyond the technological applications that continuous- systems. They are widely used in quantum communications variable systems may have to offer, there is an important for quantum key distribution [326] and and secret sharing down-to-earth perspective that must be emphasised. With [327]. These protocols are largely based on Gaussian states the improvement of detectors throughout the years, we have and measurements, such that also the best possible attacks reached a point where theory and experiment can be consid- to these systems are Gaussian [328]. Nevertheless, non- ered mature to tackle single-mode problems. In multimode Gaussian protocols for quantum key distribution, based on systems, the same cannot be said. With the exponential scal- photon subtraction, have been proposed [329]. Such non- ing of standard homodyne tomography, experimental tools for Gaussian quantum computation protocols and their security studying large multimode states beyond the Gaussian regime still involve many open questions. are limited. We may have to accept that the full quantum state Continuous-variable systems also provide a natural link to is out of reach for experimental measurements. Even theo- other bosonic systems, which is why they have been suggested retically, highly multimode Wigner functions quickly become as a platform to simulate molecular vibronic spectra [330]. cumbersome to handle. Treating them with numerical inte- The continuous-variable approach also plays an important role gration techniques becomes a near-impossible task, once the in quantum algorithms for other chemistry-related problems number of modes is drastically increased. This makes even such as drug discovery through molecular docking [331] and numerical simulations challenging. How then can we under- the simulation of electron transport [332]. stand and even detect the non-Gaussian features of these sys- Furthermore, the continuous-variable setting is also suitable tems? to implement certain elements for quantum machine learning One clear and important future research goal in this field is such as quantum neural networks [333]. Even though this is to provide an answer to this question. For quantum technolo- a promising platform for tackling a wide range of problems, gies, this may provide us with new ways to benchmark our the proposal is highly ambitious on several points. In the con- systems, but more fundamentally it might teach us something text of this Tutorial, we emphasise the need of non-Gaussian new about the physics of these systems. One place where one unitary transformations. In principle, neural networks require might look for inspiration is the field of statistical mechanics, linear couplings between different “neurons” which each im- where statistical methods show that even highly complex sys- plement some form of nonlinear operation. Non-Gaussian op- tems can produce clear emergent signatures. We recently took erations play the role of this nonlinear element, making them a first step in exploring such ideas by looking at emergent net- a crucial step in the scheme. To implement such continuous- work structures for continuous-variable non-Gaussian states variable neural networks we thus require either new develop- [341]. The most exciting lesson from such preliminary work ments on the implementation of non-Gaussian operations, or is that there is still much to be learned about non-Gaussian theoretical modifications in the protocol to make it fit for im- quantum states. plementable conditional non-Gaussian operations. It should be highlighted that other machine learning approaches exist, such as reservoir computing, which can be entirely based on ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gaussian states [334]. A final quantum technology that may benefit from the First, I thank M. Genoni for several useful suggestions for use of non-Gaussian states is quantum metrology, as was this Tutorial. More generally speaking, the content of this recently demonstrated with motional Fock states of trapped text was influenced by stimulating discussions throughout the ions [335]. Even though early work has shown that there years with many colleagues, notably F. Grosshans, R. Filip, Q. is no clear benefit in using non-Gaussian operations such He, M. Gessner, and G. Ferrini. Furthermore, I am very grate- as photon subtraction for parameter-estimation [148], there ful to M. Fannes for teaching me the mathematical founda- may still be other settings where such states are beneficial. tions that lie at the basis bosonic quantum systems. This point Non-Gaussian entanglement could for example have a formal of view was complemented by colleagues in the multimode 51 quantum optics group of the Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, V. In an infinite-dimensional inner-product space, we can de- Parigi, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, who have introduced me to the fine sequences of elements in V. If we consider a sequence wonderful world of experimental quantum optics. (~v j) j∈N such that for any we can find a value N > 0 such Still, the main source of inspiration for this Tutorial are the that k~v j − ~vkk < for all j, k > N, we call the sequence a many excellent students and postdocs that I have worked with Cauchy sequence. In other words, the distance between el- in the last few years. Their questions and struggles have been ements in the Cauchy sequence shrinks as we proceed fur- essential to highlight the barriers that I try to overcome in this ther into the sequence. The fact that a Hilbert space is closed Tutorial. Among these students and postdocs, I want to ex- means that all Cauchy sequences converge in the sense that press explicit gratitude to U. Chabaud, G. Sorelli, and D. Bar- lim j→∞ ~v j = ~v ∈ V. Finite-dimensional inner product spaces ral for their careful and detailed reading of the manuscript and automatically have this property, but for infinite-dimensional for their useful comments. I also acknowledge the many use- spaces it must be imposed explicitly. ful discussions with K. Zhang, who notably made me aware of Another class of structured vector space, that is often en- the possibility of reducing entanglement through photon sub- countered in the Tutorial, is a real symplectic space. These traction (here shown in Fig.7). Last but not least, I want to spaces appear when we consider phase space, and the are express special thanks to C. Lopetegui, who started reading given by a real vector space with an additional symplectic this Tutorial as a newcomer to the field of CV quantum optics form σ instead of the usual inner product. In mathemati- and thus had the perfect point of view to help fine-tune the cal literature, one often encounters the notation (V, σ) for a content. symplectic space, where the symplectic for has the following properties: we consider ~v1.~v2 ∈ V and find that σ(~v1,~v2) ∈ R, σ is bilinear, and σ(~v1,~v2) = −σ(~v2,~v1). In all cases in this Tu- Appendix A: Mathematical remarks torial, we also consider that σ is non-degenerate, which means that σ(~v1,~v2) = 0 for all ~v1 ∈ V if and only if ~v2 = ~0. When Here we present some important well-known mathematical the symplectic space is finite-dimensional, it is often practical concepts that are regularly used in the Tutorial to make the to represent the symplectic form in terms of a matrix. In the T text more self-contained. The comments and definitions given Tutorial this is done by associating σ(~v1,~v2) = ~v1 Ω~v2. here are not very rigorous and mainly aim at giving the reader In principle, a real symplectic space is all that is needed an intuitive understanding, for a more formal introduction one to develop the mathematical framework of the CCR algebra. should consult a standard textbook [41, 342, 343]. However, it is often natural when dealing with bosonic systems to include an additional structure in the form of an inner product. In the Tutorial, this is done implicitly by also using T 1. Topological vector spaces the standard inner product ~v1 ~v2 on phase space. This allows us to ultimately get the isomorphism (44). In the quantum sta- Throughout this article, we often deal implicitly with topo- tistical mechanics literature, it is common to see references to logical vectors spaces. Vectors spaces are well-known from a “pre-Hilbert space”, rather than a phase space or a symplec- linear algebra and can be thought of as sets of mathemati- tic space. When we refer to a pre-Hilbert space, we consider cal objects called vectors, which can be added together in a an inner-product space which is not necessarily complete and commutative way and multiplied by scalars. When we con- one must consider the closure to be guaranteed to obtain a full sider a vectors space V on a field F , this means that for any Hilbert space. The reason is that phase space, as a real vector space V with an inner product, given by a bilinear form ~v1,~v2 ∈ V and any α1, α2 ∈ F the object α1~v1 + α2~v2 ∈ V. This means that the vectors space is closed under addition and s(., .), and a symplectic form σ(., .) is equivalent to a complex H scalar multiplication. In this Tutorial, the field F is either pre-Hilbert space . For finite dimensional spaces, the equiv- identified as R (for phase space) or C (for Hilbert spaces). alence between the vector spaces is obtained via isomorphism The spaces that are considered it the Tutorial have much (44): more structure than what is given by the vector space. First of E X E f~ ∈ V 7→ ψ = ( f + i f ) ϕ ∈ H, (A1) all, we generally deal with normed spaces, which means that f 2 j−1 2 j j j our vector spaces are topological vector spaces in the sense that there is a notion of distance defined upon them. Gener- E where ϕ j for a basis of H. As we are talking about an iso- ally speaking, topological vector spaces can be equipped with morphism between structured vectors spaces, we also need an exotic topologies, but here we simply deal with norms. On identity between additional structures, which is given by top, we again add an additional structure when we assume that these norms are generated by inner products (depending on hψ f | ψ f i = s( f~1, f~2) − iσ( f~1, f~2). (A2) exact properties, these inner products go by different names 1 2 such as “positive-definite sesquilinear form”, which is what This isomorphism holds very generally and can be extended we typically consider in quantum mechanics). to infinite-dimensional spaces. It provides a very formal con- As we deal with infinite dimensional spaces to describe nection between the single-particle Hilbert space for a many- bosonic quantum states and Fock space, it is important to set boson system and its phase space associated with the modes some terminology straight. When we talk about a Hilbert of the bosonic field. Technically, we note that the phase space space, there is the assumption that the space is complete. is equivalent to a pre-Hilbert space, and the closure of this 52 space is the single-particle Hilbert space. Whenever the phase all linear combinations that can be made with these vectors space (and thus the single-particle Hilbert space) is finite- dimensional, the pre-Hilbert space is closed such that phase span{~v1,...~vn} B {α1~v1 + ··· + αn~vn | α1, . . . , αn ∈ F }. (A3) space and single-particle Hilbert space really are equivalent. For a very rigorous treatment on all these points, we refer to We emphasise that there is no need for the set ~v1,...~vn to form [42]. a basis, not for the vectors to be linearly independent, nor for the vectors to be normalised, nor for the vectors to be orthogonal to one another. Throughout the Tutorial, the vector spaces we will encounter are either real (in the case of phase space) such that F = R or complex (in the case of Hilbert spaces for quantum 2. Span systems) such that F = C. In the case where the vector spaces have some topological structure (which we can colloquially understand as a mathematical sense of distance that allows to Throughout the Tutorial, we often refer to the “span” of define limits), it can make sense to consider the closure of a a certain set of vectors. These vectors can be members of span, denoted by a vector space, symplectic space, topological vectors space, pre-Hilbert space, or Hilbert space, the definition of the span is span{~v1,...~vn}, (A4) always the same. Let us here assume that V denotes any type of vector space over a field F and consider a set ~v1,...~vn ∈ V. such that any convergent sequence built with elements of the We can now define the span of this set of vectors as the set of span has its limit also included in the closure.

[1] E. Schrodinger,¨ Der stetige ubergang¨ von der mikro- zur qumodes, Opt. Lett. 37, 5178 (2012). makromechanik, Naturwissenschaften 14, 664 (1926). [16] D. Barral, M. Walschaers, K. Bencheikh, V. Parigi, J. A. Lev- [2] H. Araki and E. J. Woods, Representations of the canonical enson, N. Treps, and N. Belabas, Versatile photonic entangle- commutation relations describing a nonrelativistic infinite free ment synthesizer in the spatial domain, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, bose gas, Journal of Mathematical Physics 4, 637 (1963). 044025 (2020). [3] D. W. Robinson, The ground state of the bose gas, Com- [17] J. Roslund, R. M. de Araujo,´ S. Jiang, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, mun.Math. Phys. 1, 159 (1965). Wavelength-multiplexed quantum networks with ultrafast fre- [4] A. Verbeure, Many-body boson systems: half a century later, quency combs, Nat Photon 8, 109 (2014). Theoretical and mathematical physics (Springer, London ; [18] M. Chen, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Experimental real- New York, 2011). ization of multipartite entanglement of 60 modes of a quantum [5] R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505 (2014). field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963). [19] Y. Cai, J. Roslund, G. Ferrini, F. Arzani, X. Xu, C. Fabre, and [6] E. C. G. Sudarshan, Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum N. Treps, Multimode entanglement in reconfigurable graph mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams, Phys. Rev. states using optical frequency combs, Nat. Commun. 8, 15645 Lett. 10, 277 (1963). (2017). [7] S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with [20] W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoensombu- continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005). tamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J.-i. Yoshikawa, [8] C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ıa-Patron,´ N. J. Cerf, T. C. N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Gen- Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum infor- eration of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster mation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012). state, Science 366, 373 (2019). [9] G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous variable quan- [21] M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, tum information: Gaussian states and beyond, Open Systems and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two- & Information Dynamics 21, 1440001 (2014). dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 369 (2019). [10] J. Williamson, On the algebraic problem concerning the nor- [22] Z. Yang, M. Jahanbozorgi, D. Jeong, S. Sun, O. Pfister, H. Lee, mal forms of linear dynamical systems, American Journal of and X. Yi, A squeezed quantum microcomb on a chip (2021), Mathematics 58, 141 (1936). arXiv:2103.03380 [physics.optics]. [11] S. L. Braunstein, Squeezing as an irreducible resource, Phys. [23] H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.- Rev. A 71, 055801 (2005). C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, [12] M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Extremality of gaus- P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, sian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 080502 (2006). L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. [13] A. S. Holevo, M. Sohma, and O. Hirota, Capacity of quantum Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1820 (1999). advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020), [14] M. Yukawa, R. Ukai, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Exper- https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6523/1460.full.pdf. imental generation of four-mode continuous-variable cluster [24] J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, I. Tz- states, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012301 (2008). itrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, G. Dauphi- [15] X. Su, Y. Zhao, S. Hao, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Exper- nais, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, imental preparation of eight-partite cluster state for photonic Blueprint for a Scalable Photonic Fault-Tolerant Quantum 53

Computer, Quantum 5, 392 (2021). ful and consistent resource, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041012 (2020). [25] S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, [48] M. C. Tichy, Interference of identical particles from entangle- Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum ment to boson-sampling, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, information processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002). 103001 (2014). [26] S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over [49] Note that the notation is not a coincidence, we can indeed continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999). construct a formal linear map from the single-particle Hilbert [27] N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. space into the operator algebra of linear operators on the Fock Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Universal quantum computation space. This mapping takes single-particle state vectors ψ ∈ H with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, and maps them to a creation operators. The mapping is linear 110501 (2006). in the sense thata ˆ†(xψ+yϕ) = xaˆ†(ψ)+yaˆ†(ϕ), for all x, y ∈ C. [28] M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, N. C. Menicucci, T. C. Ralph, and [50] L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Op- P. van Loock, Quantum computing with continuous-variable tics (Cambridge University Press, 1995). clusters, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062318 (2009). [51] M. Walschaers, Signatures of many-particle interference, Jour- [29] N. C. Menicucci, Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53, computing with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. 043001 (2020). Lett. 112, 120504 (2014). [52] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (John Wiley [30] F. Arzani, N. Treps, and G. Ferrini, Polynomial approximation and Sons, Ltd, 2001). of non-Gaussian unitaries by counting one photon at a time, [53] C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052352 (2017). Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035005 (2020). [31] D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in [54] A. M. O. de Almeida, The Weyl representation in classical and an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001). quantum mechanics, Phys. Rep. 295, 265 (1998). [32] B. Q. Baragiola, G. Pantaleoni, R. N. Alexander, A. Karanjai, [55] In literature, one will encounter various different choices for and N. C. Menicucci, All-gaussian universality and fault toler- the symplectic structure which correspond to different forms ance with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code, Phys. Rev. Lett. of ordering the amplitude and phase quadratures. In general, 123, 200502 (2019). any matrix J that satisfies the conditions JT = −J and J2 = −1 [33] A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive Wigner Functions Render Clas- defines a symplectic structure. A popular alternative to the or- (x) (p) (x) (p) sical Simulation of Quantum Computation Efficient, Phys. dering (E1 , E1 ,..., Em , Em ) that we follow in this Tutorial Rev. Lett. 109, 230503 (2012). (x) (x) (p) (p) is the ordering (E1 ,..., Em , E1 ,..., Em ). The choice in this [34] R. Hudson, When is the wigner quasi-probability density non- Tutorial is motivated by the study of entanglement, where it is negative?, Reports on Mathematical Physics 6, 249 (1974). more convenient to group the quadratures that correspond to [35] F. Soto and P. Claverie, When is the wigner function of mul- the same modes together. tidimensional systems nonnegative?, Journal of Mathematical [56] E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic Physics 24, 97 (1983). equilibrium, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932). [36] A. Mandilara, E. Karpov, and N. J. Cerf, Extending hudson’s [57] M. Hillery, R. O’Connell, M. Scully, and E. Wigner, Distribu- theorem to mixed quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062302 tion functions in physics: Fundamentals, Physics Reports 106, (2009). 121 (1984). [37] L. c. v. Lachman, I. Straka, J. Hlousek,ˇ M. Jezek,ˇ and R. Filip, [58] W. P. Schleich, Wigner function, in Quantum Optics in Phase Faithful hierarchy of genuine n-photon quantum non-gaussian Space (John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2001) Chap. 3, pp. 67–98. light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 043601 (2019). [59] R. W. Spekkens, Negativity and contextuality are equiva- [38] U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Stellar represen- lent notions of nonclassicality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020401 tation of non-gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, (2008). 063605 (2020). [60] J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum [39] M. Walschaers, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, Practical framework Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Berlin, Heidelberg, for conditional non-gaussian quantum state preparation, PRX 1955). Quantum 1, 020305 (2020). [61] H. Weyl, Quantenmechanik und gruppentheorie, Zeitschrift [40] D. Petz, An invitation to the algebra of canonical comuta- fur¨ Physik 46, 1 (1927). tion relations, Leuven notes in mathematical and theoretical [62] J. B. Conway, Unbounded operators, in A Course in Func- physics Series A No. 2 (Leuven Univ. Press, Leuven, 1990). tional Analysis (Springer New York, New York, NY, 1985) [41] O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and pp. 310–352. Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, [63] M. Plancherel, Contribution a` l’etude´ de la representation´ Berlin, Heidelberg, 1987). d’une fonction arbitraire par des integrales´ definies,´ Rendi- [42] O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator algebras and quan- conti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940) 30, 289 tum statistical mechanics equilibrium states. Models in quan- (1910). tum statistical mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 1997). [64] K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Density operators and [43] M. H. Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space: III. Op- quasiprobability distributions, Phys. Rev. 177, 1882 (1969). erational Methods and Group Theory, PNAS 16, 172 (1930). [65] P. A. M. Dirac, On the analogy between classical and quantum [44] J. von Neumann, Die Eindeutigkeit der Schrodingerschen¨ Op- mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 195 (1945). eratoren, Math. Ann. 104, 570 (1931). [66] J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Quasiprobability distributions for [45] M. H. Stone, On One-Parameter Unitary Groups in Hilbert quantum-optical coherence and beyond, Physica Scripta 95, Space, Ann. Math. 33, 643 (1932). 034007 (2020). [46] J. von Neumann, Uber¨ Einen Satz Von Herrn M. H. Stone, [67] A. Royer, Wigner function as the expectation value of a parity Ann. Math. 33, 567 (1932). operator, Phys. Rev. A 15, 449 (1977). [47] B. Morris, B. Yadin, M. Fadel, T. Zibold, P. Treutlein, and [68] K. Banaszek and K. Wodkiewicz,´ Direct probing of quantum G. Adesso, Entanglement between identical particles is a use- 54

phase space by photon counting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4344 [89] C. D. Cushen and R. L. Hudson, A quantum-mechanical cen- (1996). tral limit theorem, Journal of Applied Probability 8, 454–469 [69] K. Banaszek, C. Radzewicz, K. Wodkiewicz,´ and J. S. (1971). Krasinski,´ Direct measurement of the wigner function by pho- [90] J. Quaegebeur, A noncommutative central limit theorem for ton counting, Phys. Rev. A 60, 674 (1999). ccr-algebras, Journal of Functional Analysis 57, 1 (1984). [70] K. Laiho, K. N. Cassemiro, D. Gross, and C. Silberhorn, Prob- [91] D. Goderis, A. Verbeure, and P. Vets, Non-commutative cen- ing the negative wigner function of a pulsed single photon tral limits, Probability Theory and Related Fields 82, 527 point by point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253603 (2010). (1989). [71] R. Nehra, A. Win, M. Eaton, R. Shahrokhshahi, N. Srid- [92] M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Measure of har, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, and O. Pfister, State- the non-gaussian character of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. A independent quantum state tomography by photon-number- 76, 042327 (2007). resolving measurements, Optica 6, 1356 (2019). [93] M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Quantify- [72] L. G. Lutterbach and L. Davidovich, Method for direct mea- ing the non-gaussian character of a quantum state by quantum surement of the wigner function in cavity qed and ion traps, relative entropy, Phys. Rev. A 78, 060303 (2008). Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2547 (1997). [94] M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Quantifying non-gaussianity [73] D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, C. Monroe, W. M. for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052341 (2010). Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental determination of the [95] F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Ferraro, motional quantum state of a trapped atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, Resource theory of quantum non-gaussianity and wigner neg- 4281 (1996). ativity, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052350 (2018). [74] G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, P. Bertet, [96] P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Relative entropy is an exact mea- M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche, L. G. Lutterbach, sure of non-gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012322 (2013). and L. Davidovich, Measurement of a negative value for the [97] J. S. Ivan, M. S. Kumar, and R. Simon, A measure of non- wigner function of radiation, Phys. Rev. A 62, 054101 (2000). gaussianity for quantum states, Quantum Information Process- [75] P. Bertet, A. Auffeves, P. Maioli, S. Osnaghi, T. Meunier, ing 11, 853 (2012). M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Direct measure- [98]N.L utkenhaus¨ and S. M. Barnett, Nonclassical effects in phase ment of the wigner function of a one-photon fock state in a space, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3340 (1995). cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 200402 (2002). [99] A function f is said to have an order of growth r when there [76] A. I. Lvovsky, P. Grangier, A. Ourjoumtsev, V. Parigi, are constant a, b ∈ C such that | f (z)| 6 a exp(b |z|r) for all M. Sasaki, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Production and appli- z ∈ C. cations of non-gaussian quantum states of light (2020), [100] B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Generating quantum mechanical su- arXiv:2006.16985 [quant-ph]. perpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states via am- [77] F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quan- plitude dispersion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986). tum information processing: a review, Reports on Progress in [101] E. Schrodinger,¨ Die gegenwartige¨ situation in der quanten- Physics 82, 016001 (2018). mechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935). [78] R. Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Quantum-noise matrix [102] P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, Macroscopi- for multimode systems: U(n) invariance, squeezing, and nor- cally distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code mal forms, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1567 (1994). for amplitude damping, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2631 (1999). [79] H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 [103] Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, (1929). M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient au- [80] Arvind, B. Dutta, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, The real sym- tonomous quantum memory protection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, plectic groups in quantum mechanics and optics, Pramana 45, 120501 (2013). 471 (1995). [104] B. C. Sanders, Quantum dynamics of the nonlinear rotator and [81] J. Eisert and M. M. Wolf, Gaussian quantum channels, in the effects of continual spin measurement, Phys. Rev. A 40, Quantum Information with Continuous Variables of Atoms and 2417 (1989). Light (World Scientific, 2007) pp. 23–42. [105] A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. [82] B. Demoen, P. Vanheuverzwijn, and A. Verbeure, Completely Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum interferometric optical positive maps on the CCR-algebra, Lett Math Phys 2, 161 lithography: Exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction (1977). limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000). [83] B. Demoen, P. Vanheuverzwijn, and A. Verbeure, Completely [106] H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone positive quasi-free maps of the CCR-algebra, Rep. Math. for interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002), Phys. 15, 27 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1080/0950034021000011536. [84] R. Filip and L. Mista,ˇ Detecting quantum states with a posi- [107] B. Yurke, Input states for enhancement of fermion interferom- tive wigner function beyond mixtures of gaussian states, Phys. eter sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1515 (1986). Rev. Lett. 106, 200401 (2011). [108] Y. Israel, I. Afek, S. Rosen, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, Ex- [85] A. Kenfack and K. Zyczkowski,˙ Negativity of the wigner func- perimental tomography of noon states with large photon num- tion as an indicator of non-classicality, Journal of Optics B: bers, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022115 (2012). Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 6, 396 (2004). [109] M. G. Genoni, M. L. Palma, T. Tufarelli, S. Olivares, M. S. [86] J. L. W. V. Jensen, Sur les fonctions convexes et les inegalit´ es´ Kim, and M. G. A. Paris, Detecting quantum non-gaussianity entre les valeurs moyennes, Acta Mathematica 30, 175 via the wigner function, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062104 (2013). (1906). [110] C. Hughes, M. G. Genoni, T. Tufarelli, M. G. A. Paris, [87] G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entangle- and M. S. Kim, Quantum non-gaussianity witnesses in phase ment, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002). space, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013810 (2014). [88] M. B. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capacity [111] J. Park, J. Zhang, J. Lee, S.-W. Ji, M. Um, D. Lv, K. Kim, and using entangled inputs, Nature Physics 5, 255 (2009). H. Nha, Testing nonclassicality and non-gaussianity in phase 55

space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 190402 (2015). [133] R. Yanagimoto, T. Onodera, E. Ng, L. G. Wright, P. L. McMa- [112] L. Happ, M. A. Efremov, H. Nha, and W. P. Schleich, Suffi- hon, and H. Mabuchi, Engineering a kerr-based deterministic cient condition for a quantum state to be genuinely quantum cubic phase gate via gaussian operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, non-gaussian, New Journal of Physics 20, 023046 (2018). 240503 (2020). [113]B.K uhn¨ and W. Vogel, Quantum non-gaussianity and quan- [134] D. Vion, A. Aassime, A. Cottet, P. Joyez, H. Pothier, tification of nonclassicality, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053823 (2018). C. Urbina, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Manipulating the [114] M. Bohmann, E. Agudelo, and J. Sperling, Probing nonclassi- quantum state of an electrical circuit, Science 296, 886 (2002), cality with matrices of phase-space distributions, Quantum 4, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5569/886.full.pdf. 343 (2020). [135] M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting cir- [115] I. Straka, A. Predojevic,´ T. Huber, L. c. v. Lachman, cuits for quantum information: An outlook, Science 339, 1169 L. Butschek, M. Mikova,´ M. Micuda,ˇ G. S. Solomon, (2013). G. Weihs, M. Jezek,ˇ and R. Filip, Quantum non-gaussian [136] C. W. S. Chang, C. Sab´ın, P. Forn-D´ıaz, F. Quijandr´ıa, A. M. depth of single-photon states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 223603 Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, (2014). Observation of three-photon spontaneous parametric down- [116] I. Straka, L. Lachman, J. Hlousek,ˇ M. Mikova,´ M. Micuda,ˇ conversion in a superconducting parametric cavity, Phys. Rev. M. Jezek,ˇ and R. Filip, Quantum non-gaussian multiphoton X 10, 011011 (2020). light, npj Quantum Information 4, 4 (2018). [137] K. Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Annals of [117] C. N. Gagatsos and S. Guha, Efficient representation of gaus- Physics 64, 311 (1971). sian states for multimode non-gaussian quantum state engi- [138] Statistics of quantum measurements, in Statistical Structure of neering via subtraction of arbitrary number of photons, Phys. Quantum Theory (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- Rev. A 99, 053816 (2019). berg, 2001) pp. 39–70. [118] U. Chabaud, G. Roeland, M. Walschaers, F. Grosshans, [139] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis, second edition, V. Parigi, D. Markham, and N. Treps, Certification of non- corrected reprint ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, gaussian states with operational measurements, PRX Quantum NY, 2017). 2, 020333 (2021). [140] L. Lami, A. Serafini, and G. Adesso, Gaussian entanglement [119] P. Lelong and L. Gruman, Entire Functions of Several Com- revisited, New Journal of Physics 20, 023030 (2018). plex Variables (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1986). [141] D. E. Browne, J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Driving [120] U. Chabaud, G. Ferrini, F. Grosshans, and D. Markham, non-gaussian to gaussian states with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Classical simulation of gaussian quantum circuits with non- A 67, 062320 (2003). gaussian input states, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033018 (2021). [142] J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Non-gaussian [121] R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Convex resource theory of non- statistics from individual pulses of squeezed light, Phys. Rev. gaussianity, Physical Review A 97, 062337 (2018). Lett. 92, 153601 (2004). [122] V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, [143] A. Zavatta, V. Parigi, M. S. Kim, and M. Bellini, Subtracting The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New photons from arbitrary light fields: experimental test of co- Journal of Physics 16, 013009 (2014). herent state invariance by single-photon annihilation, New J. [123] U. Chabaud, P.-E. Emeriau, and F. Grosshans, Witnessing Phys. 10, 123006 (2008). Wigner Negativity, Quantum 5, 471 (2021). [144] V. Averchenko, C. Jacquard, V. Thiel, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, [124] A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Multimode theory of single-photon subtraction, New J. Phys. Generating optical schrodinger¨ kittens for quantum informa- 18, 083042 (2016). tion processing, Science 312, 83 (2006). [145] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement [125] A. Mari, K. Kieling, B. M. Nielsen, E. S. Polzik, and J. Eis- and Control (Cambridge University Press, 2009). ert, Directly estimating nonclassicality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, [146] M. Walschaers, C. Fabre, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, Entangle- 010403 (2011). ment and Wigner Function Negativity of Multimode Non- [126] R. Loudon and P. Knight, Squeezed light, Journal of Modern Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 183601 (2017). Optics 34, 709 (1987). [147] M. Walschaers, C. Fabre, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, Statistical [127] L.-A. Wu, H. J. Kimble, J. L. Hall, and H. Wu, Generation signatures of multimode single-photon-added and -subtracted of squeezed states by parametric down conversion, Phys. Rev. states of light, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053835 (2017). Lett. 57, 2520 (1986). [148] D. Braun, P. Jian, O. Pinel, and N. Treps, Precision mea- [128] D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation, Science 270, 255 surements with photon-subtracted or photon-added gaussian (1995). states, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013821 (2014). [129] M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experi- [149] K. Mølmer, Non-gaussian states from continuous-wave gaus- mental realization of any discrete unitary operator, Phys. Rev. sian light sources, Phys. Rev. A 73, 063804 (2006). Lett. 73, 58 (1994). [150] M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrny,´ L. Knoll,¨ and D.-G. Welsch, [130] P. Marek, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, Deterministic implemen- Generating Schrodinger-cat-like¨ states by means of condi- tation of weak quantum cubic nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. A 84, tional measurements on a beam splitter, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3184 053802 (2011). (1997). [131] K. Marshall, R. Pooser, G. Siopsis, and C. Weed- [151] K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and brook, Repeat-until-success cubic phase gate for universal A. Furusawa, Generation of optical schrodinger¨ cat states by continuous-variable quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 91, generalized photon subtraction, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013710 032321 (2015). (2021). [132] K. Miyata, H. Ogawa, P. Marek, R. Filip, H. Yonezawa, J.-i. [152] A. O. C. Davis, M. Walschaers, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, Con- Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, Implementation of a quantum ditional preparation of non-gaussian quantum optical states by cubic gate by an adaptive non-gaussian measurement, Phys. mesoscopic measurement, New Journal of Physics 23, 063039 Rev. A 93, 022301 (2016). (2021). 56

[153] A. Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, Quantum-to-classical Physical Review Letters 118, 230501 (2017). transition with single-photon-added coherent states of light, [176] C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, Science 306, 660 (2004). and H. M. Wiseman, One-sided device-independent quantum [154] V. Parigi, A. Zavatta, M. Kim, and M. Bellini, Probing Quan- key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with tum Commutation Rules by Addition and Subtraction of Sin- steering, Physical Review A 85, 010301 (2012). gle Photons to/from a Light Field, Science 317, 1890 (2007). [177] J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics [155] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964). Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). [178] J. S. BELL, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum [156] R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Guhne,¨ Quan- mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966). tum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020). [179] N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of john [157] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803 (1993). S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014). [180] A. Peres, All the bell inequalities, Foundations of Physics 29, [158] One could introduce more general and rigorous notation based 589 (1999). on measure theory, but here we restrict to a simpler, though [181] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Pro- less general, formulation for pedagogical purposes. posed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. [159] R. Jozsa, Quantum effects in algorithms, Chaos, Solitons & Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). Fractals 10, 1657 (1999). [182] J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Experimental consequences of [160] This is true for general “states” in classical probability the- objective local theories, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974). ory, but in the CV context of this Tutorial it is appealing to [183] S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local phrase the argument in terms of probability distributions of hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972). phase space. [184] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental tests of [161] R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky-rosen realistic local theories via bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 460 (1981). 40, 4277 (1989). [185] A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of [162] J. B. Conway, Banach spaces, in A Course in Functional Anal- bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. ysis (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2007) pp. 63–98. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982). [163] Sohail and U. Sen, Witnessing nonseparability of bipartite [186] G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and quantum operations, Physics Letters A 404, 127411 (2021). A. Zeilinger, Violation of bell’s inequality under strict einstein [164] H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Violation of local uncertainty locality conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998). relations as a signature of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 68, [187] B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dreau,´ A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, 032103 (2003). M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. [165] O. Gittsovich, O. Guhne,¨ P. Hyllus, and J. Eisert, Unifying Schouten, C. Abellan,´ W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, several separability conditions using the covariance matrix cri- M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. terion, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052319 (2008). Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole-free bell inequality vio- [166] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- lation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- 526, 682 (2015). plete?, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935). [188] M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Hand- [167] E. Schrodinger,¨ Discussion of probability relations between steiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlechner, J. Kofler, separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- J.-A. Larsson, C. Abellan,´ W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. bridge Philosophical Society 31, 555 (1935). Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. [168] E. Schrodinger,¨ Probability relations between separated sys- Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittmann, and A. Zeilinger, tems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosoph- Significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled ical Society 32, 446–452 (1936). photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015). [169] M. D. Reid, Demonstration of the einstein-podolsky-rosen [189] L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bierhorst, paradox using nondegenerate parametric amplification, Phys. M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989). Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. Dyer, C. Hodge, [170] H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, en- A. E. Lita, V. B. Verma, C. Lambrocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. tanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen para- Migdall, Y. Zhang, D. R. Kumor, W. H. Farr, F. Marsili, M. D. dox, Physical Review Letters 98, 140402 (2007). Shaw, J. A. Stern, C. Abellan,´ W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, T. Jen- [171] D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: a review newein, M. W. Mitchell, P. G. Kwiat, J. C. Bienfang, R. P. with focus on semidefinite programming, Reports on Progress Mirin, E. Knill, and S. W. Nam, Strong loophole-free test of in Physics 80, 024001 (2017). local realism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015). [172] E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, [190] C. Abellan,´ A. Ac´ın, A. Alarcon,´ O. Alibart, C. K. Andersen, Experimental criteria for steering and the einstein-podolsky- F. Andreoli, A. Beckert, F. A. Beduini, A. Bendersky, M. Ben- rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009). tivegna, P. Bierhorst, D. Burchardt, A. Cabello, J. Carine,˜ [173] I. Kogias, A. R. Lee, S. Ragy, and G. Adesso, Quantification S. Carrasco, G. Carvacho, D. Cavalcanti, R. Chaves, J. Cortes-´ of gaussian quantum steering, Physical Review Letters 114, Vega, A. Cuevas, A. Delgado, H. de Riedmatten, C. Eich- 060403 (2015). ler, P. Farrera, J. Fuenzalida, M. Garc´ıa-Matos, R. Garthoff, [174] Q. Y. He, Q. H. Gong, and M. D. Reid, Classifying directional S. Gasparinetti, T. Gerrits, F. Ghafari Jouneghani, S. Glancy, gaussian entanglement, einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, and E. S. Gomez,´ P. Gonzalez,´ J. Y. Guan, J. Handsteiner, J. Hein- discord, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060402 (2015). soo, G. Heinze, A. Hirschmann, O. Jimenez,´ F. Kaiser, [175] X. Deng, Y.Xiang, C. Tian, G. Adesso, Q. He, Q. Gong, X. Su, E. Knill, L. T. Knoll, S. Krinner, P. Kurpiers, M. A. Laro- C. Xie, and K. Peng, Demonstration of monogamy relations tonda, J. Å. Larsson, A. Lenhard, H. Li, M. H. Li, G. Lima, for einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in gaussian cluster states, B. Liu, Y. Liu, I. H. Lopez´ Grande, T. Lunghi, X. Ma, O. S. 57

Magana-Loaiza,˜ P. Magnard, A. Magnoni, M. Mart´ı-Prieto, [206] E. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Inseparability criteria for contin- D. Mart´ınez, P. Mataloni, A. Mattar, M. Mazzera, R. P. Mirin, uous bipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230502 M. W. Mitchell, S. Nam, M. Oppliger, J. W. Pan, R. B. Patel, (2005). G. J. Pryde, D. Rauch, K. Redeker, D. Rielander,¨ M. Ring- [207] J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Verifying continuous-variable en- bauer, T. Roberson, W. Rosenfeld, Y. Salathe,´ L. Santodonato, tanglement in finite spaces, Phys. Rev. A 79, 052313 (2009). G. Sauder, T. Scheidl, C. T. Schmiegelow, F. Sciarrino, A. Seri, [208] J. S. Kim and B. C. Sanders, Monogamy of multi-qubit entan- L. K. Shalm, S. C. Shi, S. Slussarenko, M. J. Stevens, glement using renyi´ entropy, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- S. Tanzilli, F. Toledo, J. Tura, R. Ursin, P. Vergyris, V. B. ical and Theoretical 43, 445305 (2010). Verma, T. Walter, A. Wallraff, Z. Wang, H. Weinfurter, M. M. [209] G. Adesso, D. Girolami, and A. Serafini, Measuring gaussian Weston, A. G. White, C. Wu, G. B. Xavier, L. You, X. Yuan, quantum information and correlations using the renyi´ entropy A. Zeilinger, Q. Zhang, W. Zhang, J. Zhong, and T. B. B. T. of order 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 190502 (2012). Collaboration, Challenging local realism with human choices, [210] R. Simon, Peres-horodecki separability criterion for continu- Nature 557, 212 (2018). ous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2726 (2000). [191] D. Rauch, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, J. Gallicchio, A. S. [211] L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Inseparability Friedman, C. Leung, B. Liu, L. Bulla, S. Ecker, F. Steinlech- criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, ner, R. Ursin, B. Hu, D. Leon, C. Benn, A. Ghedina, M. Cec- 2722 (2000). coni, A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser, T. Scheidl, and A. Zeilinger, [212] P. van Loock and A. Furusawa, Detecting genuine multipartite Cosmic bell test using random measurement settings from continuous-variable entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052315 high-redshift quasars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080403 (2018). (2003). [192] A. Ac´ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and [213] P. Hyllus and J. Eisert, Optimal entanglement witnesses for V. Scarani, Device-independent security of quantum cryptog- continuous-variable systems, New Journal of Physics 8, 51 raphy against collective attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2006). (2007). [214] S. Gerke, J. Sperling, W. Vogel, Y. Cai, J. Roslund, N. Treps, [193] F. Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys. and C. Fabre, Full multipartite entanglement of frequency- Rev. Lett. 108, 200401 (2012). comb gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 050501 (2015). [194] C. Branciard, D. Rosset, Y.-C. Liang, and N. Gisin, [215] A. A. Valido, F. Levi, and F. Mintert, Hierarchies of multipar- Measurement-device-independent entanglement witnesses for tite entanglement for continuous-variable states, Phys. Rev. A all entangled quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 060405 90, 052321 (2014). (2013). [216] Note that there is also a more profound connection between [195] P. Abiuso, S. Bauml,¨ D. Cavalcanti, and A. Ac´ın, the transpose and time-reversal through Wigner’s theorem. Measurement-device-independent entanglement detection for The latter is here effectively implemented by changing the sign continuous-variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 190502 of the momentum variables. However, this connection is be- (2021). yond the scope of this tutorial and interested readers are in- [196] C. K. Hong and L. Mandel, Experimental realization of a lo- vited to indulge in the literature on quantum chaos instead. calized one-photon state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 58 (1986). [217] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. [197] G. S. Thekkadath, B. A. Bell, I. A. Walmsley, and A. I. , En- Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entangle- gineering Schrodinger¨ cat states with a photonic even-parity ment and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Phys. Rev. detector, Quantum 4, 239 (2020). Lett. 76, 722 (1996). [198] M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, Non-gaussian and gottes- [218] C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schu- man–kitaev–preskill state preparation by photon catalysis, macher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local opera- New Journal of Physics 21, 113034 (2019). tions, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996). [199] D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Conversion of [219] J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Distilling gaussian states gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon-number- with gaussian operations is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, resolving detectors, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052301 (2019). 137903 (2002). [200] S. Yu, Q. Chen, C. Zhang, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, All entan- [220] J. Fiura´sek,ˇ Gaussian transformations and distillation of en- gled pure states violate a single bell’s inequality, Phys. Rev. tangled gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137904 (2002). Lett. 109, 120402 (2012). [221] G. Giedke and J. Ignacio Cirac, Characterization of gaussian [201] R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Bound entangled gaussian operations and distillation of gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 66, states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3658 (2001). 032316 (2002). [202] Y. Xiang, S. Liu, J. Guo, Q. Gong, N. Treps, Q. He, [222] R. Dong, M. Lassen, J. Heersink, C. Marquardt, R. Filip, and M. Walschaers, Quantification of wigner negativity re- G. Leuchs, and U. L. Andersen, Experimental entanglement motely generated via einstein-podolsky-rosen steering (2021), distillation of mesoscopic quantum states, Nature Physics 4, arXiv:2104.00451 [quant-ph]. 919 (2008). [203] M. D. Reid, Monogamy inequalities for the einstein-podolsky- [223] B. Hage, A. Samblowski, J. DiGuglielmo, A. Franzen, rosen paradox and quantum steering, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062108 J. Fiura´sek,ˇ and R. Schnabel, Preparation of distilled and pu- (2013). rified continuous-variable entangled states, Nature Physics 4, [204] S.-W. Ji, M. S. Kim, and H. Nha, Quantum steering of multi- 915 (2008). mode gaussian states by gaussian measurements: monogamy [224] L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Entangle- relations and the peres conjecture, Journal of Physics A: Math- ment purification of gaussian continuous variable quantum ematical and Theoretical 48, 135301 (2015). states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4002 (2000). [205] X. Deng, Y.Xiang, C. Tian, G. Adesso, Q. He, Q. Gong, X. Su, [225] L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physi- C. Xie, and K. Peng, Demonstration of monogamy relations cal implementation for entanglement purification of gaussian for einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in gaussian cluster states, continuous-variable quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032304 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 230501 (2017). (2000). 58

[226] J. Fiura´sek,ˇ Distillation and purification of symmetric entan- [247] S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabi- gled gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042331 (2010). lizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004). [227] E. T. Campbell, M. G. Genoni, and J. Eisert, Continuous- [248] V. Veitch, N. Wiebe, C. Ferrie, and J. Emerson, Efficient sim- variable entanglement distillation and noncommutative central ulation scheme for a class of quantum optics experiments with limit theorems, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042330 (2013). non-negative wigner representation, New Journal of Physics [228] J. Dias and T. C. Ralph, Quantum repeaters using continuous- 15, 013037 (2013). variable teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022312 (2017). [249] S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. C. Ralph, and C. M. Caves, Sufficient [229] G. Y. Xiang, T. C. Ralph, A. P. Lund, N. Walk, and G. J. Pryde, Conditions for Efficient Classical Simulation of Quantum Op- Heralded noiseless linear amplification and distillation of en- tics, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021039 (2016). tanglement, Nature Photonics 4, 316 (2010). [250] M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex ma- [230] T. Opatrny,´ G. Kurizki, and D.-G. Welsch, Improvement on trices, Linear Algebra and its Applications 10, 285 (1975). teleportation of continuous variables by photon subtraction via [251] A. S. Holevo, The choi–jamiolkowski forms of quantum gaus- conditional measurement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 032302 (2000). sian channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics 52, 042202 [231] P. T. Cochrane, T. C. Ralph, and G. J. Milburn, Teleportation (2011), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3581879. improvement by conditional measurements on the two-mode [252] L. Garc´ıa-Alvarez,´ C. Calcluth, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, Ef- squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 65, 062306 (2002). ficient simulatability of continuous-variable circuits with large [232] S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris, and R. Bonifacio, Teleportation wigner negativity, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043322 (2020). improvement by inconclusive photon subtraction, Phys. Rev. [253] C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silber- A 67, 032314 (2003). horn, and I. Jex, Gaussian boson sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett. [233] A. Kitagawa, M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, and A. Chefles, Entan- 119, 170501 (2017). glement evaluation of non-gaussian states generated by pho- [254] R. Kruse, C. S. Hamilton, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silber- ton subtraction from squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 73, 042310 horn, and I. Jex, Detailed study of gaussian boson sampling, (2006). Phys. Rev. A 100, 032326 (2019). [234] Y. Yang and F.-L. Li, Entanglement properties of non- [255] A. Deshpande, A. Mehta, T. Vincent, N. Quesada, M. Hin- gaussian resources generated via photon subtraction and addi- sche, M. Ioannou, L. Madsen, J. Lavoie, H. Qi, J. Eisert, tion and continuous-variable quantum-teleportation improve- D. Hangleiter, B. Fefferman, and I. Dhand, Quantum compu- ment, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022315 (2009). tational supremacy via high-dimensional gaussian boson sam- [235] C. Navarrete-Benlloch, R. Garc´ıa-Patron,´ J. H. Shapiro, and pling (2021), arXiv:2102.12474 [quant-ph]. N. J. Cerf, Enhancing quantum entanglement by photon addi- [256] S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity tion and subtraction, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012328 (2012). of linear optics, Theory of Computing 9, 143 (2013). [236] T. Das, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Superiority of pho- [257] N. Quesada, J. M. Arrazola, and N. Killoran, Gaussian boson ton subtraction to addition for entanglement in a multimode sampling using threshold detectors, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062322 squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052313 (2016). (2018). [237] M. Walschaers, S. Sarkar, V. Parigi, and N. Treps, Tailoring [258] E. R. Caianiello, On quantum field theory —i: explicit so- non-gaussian continuous-variable graph states, Physical Re- lution of dyson’s equation in electrodynamics without use view Letters 121, 220501 (2018). of feynman graphs, Il Nuovo Cimento (1943-1954) 10, 1634 [238] K. Zhang, J. Jing, N. Treps, and M. Walschaers, Maximal en- (1953). tanglement distillation with single-photon subtraction (2021), [259] K. Bradler,´ P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, P. Rebentrost, D. Su, and arXiv:2103.09197 [quant-ph]. C. Weedbrook, Gaussian boson sampling for perfect match- [239] E. G. Brown, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Passivity and practi- ings of arbitrary graphs, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032310 (2018). cal work extraction using gaussian operations, New Journal of [260] M. Schuld, K. Bradler,´ R. Israel, D. Su, and B. Gupt, Mea- Physics 18, 113028 (2016). suring the similarity of graphs with a gaussian boson sampler, [240] R. S. Barbosa, T. Douce, P.-E. Emeriau, E. Kashefi, and Phys. Rev. A 101, 032314 (2020). S. Mansfield, Continuous-variable nonlocality and contextu- [261] T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, S. Jahangiri, J. Izaac, N. Que- ality (2019), arXiv:1905.08267 [quant-ph]. sada, A. D. Gran, M. Schuld, J. Swinarton, Z. Zabaneh, [241] A. Ac´ın, N. J. Cerf, A. Ferraro, and J. Niset, Tests of mul- and N. Killoran, Applications of near-term photonic quantum timode quantum nonlocality with homodyne measurements, computers: software and algorithms, Quantum Science and Phys. Rev. A 79, 012112 (2009). Technology 5, 034010 (2020). [242] R. Garc´ıa-Patron,´ J. Fiura´sek,ˇ N. J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R. Tualle- [262] D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Conversion of Brouri, and P. Grangier, Proposal for a loophole-free bell gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon-number- test using homodyne detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130409 resolving detectors, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052301 (2019). (2004). [263] H. Qi, D. J. Brod, N. Quesada, and R. Garc´ıa-Patron,´ Regimes [243] D. Klyshko, The bell and ghz theorems: a possible three- of classical simulability for noisy gaussian boson sampling, photon interference experiment and the question of nonlocal- Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100502 (2020). ity, Physics Letters A 172, 399 (1993). [264] J. F. Clauser, Experimental distinction between the quantum [244] W. N. Plick, F. Arzani, N. Treps, E. Diamanti, and and classical field-theoretic predictions for the photoelectric D. Markham, Violating bell inequalities with entangled optical effect, Phys. Rev. D 9, 853 (1974). frequency combs and multipixel homodyne detection, Phys. [265] H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon antibunch- Rev. A 98, 062101 (2018). ing in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977). [245] K. Banaszek and K. Wodkiewicz,´ Nonlocality of the einstein- [266] F. Diedrich and H. Walther, Nonclassical radiation of a single podolsky-rosen state in the wigner representation, Phys. Rev. stored ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 203 (1987). A 58, 4345 (1998). [267] R. Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in [246] K. Banaszek and K. Wodkiewicz,´ Testing quantum nonlocal- laser interferometers, Physics Reports 684, 1 (2017). ity in phase space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2009 (1999). [268] A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek, 59

and S. Schiller, Quantum state reconstruction of the single- entanglement of light, Nature Photonics 8, 564 (2014). photon fock state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 050402 (2001). [288] O. Morin, K. Huang, J. Liu, H. Le Jeannic, C. Fabre, and [269] A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical J. Laurat, Remote creation of hybrid entanglement between quantum-state tomography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 299 (2009). particle-like and wave-like optical qubits, Nature Photonics 8, [270] A. I. Lvovsky and S. A. Babichev, Synthesis and tomographic 570 (2014). characterization of the displaced fock state of light, Phys. Rev. [289] N. Biagi, L. S. Costanzo, M. Bellini, and A. Zavatta, Entan- A 66, 011801 (2002). gling macroscopic light states by delocalized photon addition, [271] A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 033604 (2020). homodyne tomography of a two-photon fock state, Phys. Rev. [290] T. Serikawa, J.-i. Yoshikawa, S. Takeda, H. Yonezawa, T. C. Lett. 96, 213601 (2006). Ralph, E. H. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Generation of a [272] M. Cooper, L. J. Wright, C. Soller,¨ and B. J. Smith, Exper- cat state in an optical sideband, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 143602 imental generation of multi-photon fock states, Opt. Express (2018). 21, 5309 (2013). [291] V. A. Averchenko, V. Thiel, and N. Treps, Nonlinear photon [273] M. Yukawa, K. Miyata, T. Mizuta, H. Yonezawa, P. Marek, subtraction from a multimode quantum field, Phys. Rev. A 89, R. Filip, and A. Furusawa, Generating superposition of up- 063808 (2014). to three photons for continuous variable quantum information [292] Y.-S. Ra, C. Jacquard, A. Dufour, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, To- processing, Opt. Express 21, 5529 (2013). mography of a Mode-Tunable Coherent Single-Photon Sub- [274] J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Hettich, tractor, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031012 (2017). K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Generation of a superposition of [293] Y.-S. Ra, A. Dufour, M. Walschaers, C. Jacquard, T. Michel, odd photon number states for quantum information networks, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, Non-gaussian quantum states of a mul- Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 083604 (2006). timode light field, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-019-0726- [275] K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Photon y (2019). subtracted squeezed states generated with periodically poled [294] V. Cimini, M. Barbieri, N. Treps, M. Walschaers, and V. Pa- ktiopo4, Opt. Express 15, 3568 (2007). rigi, Neural networks for detecting multimode wigner negativ- [276] D. V. Sychev, A. E. Ulanov, A. A. Pushkina, M. W. Richards, ity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 160504 (2020). I. A. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Enlargement of optical [295] U. Chabaud, F. Grosshans, E. Kashefi, and D. Markham, Effi- schrodinger’s¨ cat states, Nature Photonics 11, 379 (2017). cient verification of boson sampling (2021), arXiv:2006.03520 [277] J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, M. Takeuchi, K. Wakui, H. Taka- [quant-ph]. hashi, K. Hayasaka, M. Takeoka, and M. Sasaki, Opti- [296] E. S. Tiunov, V. V. T. (Vyborova), A. E. Ulanov, A. I. Lvovsky, cal continuous-variable qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 053602 and A. K. Fedorov, Experimental quantum homodyne tomog- (2010). raphy via machine learning, Optica 7, 448 (2020). [278] M. Barbieri, N. Spagnolo, M. G. Genoni, F. Ferreyrol, [297] A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Counting near-infrared R. Blandino, M. G. A. Paris, P. Grangier, and R. Tualle-Brouri, single-photons with 95% efficiency, Opt. Express 16, 3032 Non-gaussianity of quantum states: An experimental test on (2008). single-photon-added coherent states, Phys. Rev. A 82, 063833 [298] C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and (2010). D. J. Wineland, A “schrodinger¨ cat” superposi- [279] A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, tion state of an atom, Science 272, 1131 (1996), Generation of optical ‘schrodinger¨ cats’from photon number https://science.sciencemag.org/content/272/5265/1131.full.pdf. states, Nature 448, 784 (2007). [299] M. Brune, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, L. Davidovich, and [280] J. Etesse, M. Bouillard, B. Kanseri, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Ex- N. Zagury, Manipulation of photons in a cavity by dispersive perimental generation of squeezed cat states with an opera- atom-field coupling: Quantum-nondemolition measurements tion allowing iterative growth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 193602 and generation of “schrodinger¨ cat” states, Phys. Rev. A 45, (2015). 5193 (1992). [281] B. Hacker, S. Welte, S. Daiss, A. Shaukat, S. Ritter, L. Li, [300] M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Hagley, and G. Rempe, Deterministic creation of entangled atom–light J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Quantum rabi oscillation: A schrodinger-cat¨ states, Nature Photonics 13, 110 (2019). direct test of field quantization in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, [282] S. A. Babichev, J. Appel, and A. I. Lvovsky, Homodyne to- 1800 (1996). mography characterization and nonlocality of a dual-mode op- [301] G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J. M. tical qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 193601 (2004). Raimond, and S. Haroche, Seeing a single photon without de- [283] M. D’Angelo, A. Zavatta, V. Parigi, and M. Bellini, Tomo- stroying it, Nature 400, 239 (1999). graphic test of bell’s inequality for a time-delocalized single [302] S. Deleglise,´ I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J.- photon, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052114 (2006). M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Reconstruction of non-classical [284] H. Takahashi, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, M. Takeuchi, cavity field states with snapshots of their decoherence, Nature M. Takeoka, K. Hayasaka, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, En- 455, 510 (2008). tanglement distillation from Gaussian input states, Nat Photon [303] M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, 4, 178 (2010). E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Mar- [285] A. Ourjoumtsev, A. Dantan, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, tinis, and A. N. Cleland, Generation of fock states in a super- Increasing Entanglement between Gaussian States by Coher- conducting quantum circuit, Nature 454, 310 (2008). ent Photon Subtraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030502 (2007). [304] B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, [286] A. Ourjoumtsev, F. Ferreyrol, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grang- L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. ier, Preparation of non-local superpositions of quasi-classical Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministically light states, Nature Physics 5, 189 (2009). encoding quantum information using 100-photon [287] H. Jeong, A. Zavatta, M. Kang, S.-W. Lee, L. S. Costanzo, schrodinger¨ cat states, Science 342, 607 (2013), S. Grandi, T. C. Ralph, and M. Bellini, Generation of hybrid https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/607.full.pdf. 60

[305] Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Pe- Entangled states of more than 40 atoms in an trenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, optical fiber cavity, Science 344, 180 (2014), M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6180/180.full.pdf. M. H. Devoret, Confining the state of light to a quantum man- [322] H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zi- ifold by engineered two-photon loss, Science 347, 853 (2015), bold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezze,` A. Smerzi, and M. K. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/853.full.pdf. Oberthaler, Fisher information and entanglement of [306] C. Fluhmann,¨ T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, non-gaussian spin states, Science 345, 424 (2014), K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion https://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/424.full.pdf. mechanical oscillator, Nature 566, 513 (2019). [323] R. McConnell, H. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Cuk,´ and V. Vuletic,´ Entan- [307] P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- glement with negative wigner function of almost 3,000 atoms Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, heralded by one photon, Nature 519, 439 (2015). S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and [324] M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic multi-mode gates in grid states of an oscillator, Nature 584, 368 (2020). on a scalable photonic quantum computing platform (2020), [308] M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity arXiv:2010.14422 [quant-ph]. optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014). [325] J. M. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Bradler,´ T. R. Bromley, M. J. [309] U. B. Hoff, J. Kollath-Bonig,¨ J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. U. L. Andersen, Measurement-induced macroscopic superpo- Helt, J. Hundal, T. Isacsson, R. B. Israel, J. Izaac, S. Ja- sition states in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, hangiri, R. Janik, N. Killoran, S. P. Kumar, J. Lavoie, A. E. 143601 (2016). Lita, D. H. Mahler, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, S. W. Nam, [310] M. Brunelli, O. Houhou, D. W. Moore, A. Nunnenkamp, L. Neuhaus, H. Y. Qi, N. Quesada, A. Repingon, K. K. Sabap- M. Paternostro, and A. Ferraro, Unconditional preparation athy, M. Schuld, D. Su, J. Swinarton, A. Szava,´ K. Tan, P. Tan, of nonclassical states via linear-and-quadratic optomechanics, V. D. Vaidya, Z. Vernon, Z. Zabaneh, and Y. Zhang, Quantum Phys. Rev. A 98, 063801 (2018). circuits with many photons on a programmable nanophotonic [311] T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, chip, Nature 591, 54 (2021). and K. W. Lehnert, Entangling mechanical motion [326] P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, A. Leverrier, P. Grangier, and with microwave fields, Science 342, 710 (2013), E. Diamanti, Experimental demonstration of long-distance https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6159/710.full.pdf. continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Nature Photon- [312] R. Riedinger, S. Hong, R. A. Norte, J. A. Slater, ics 7, 378 (2013). J. Shang, A. G. Krause, V. Anant, M. Aspelmeyer, and [327] B. A. Bell, D. Markham, D. A. Herrera-Mart´ı, A. Marin, S. Groblacher,¨ Non-classical correlations between single pho- W. J. Wadsworth, J. G. Rarity, and M. S. Tame, Experimental tons and phonons from a mechanical oscillator, Nature 530, demonstration of graph-state quantum secret sharing, Nature 313 (2016). Communications 5, 5480 (2014). [313] A. P. Reed, K. H. Mayer, J. D. Teufel, L. D. Burkhart, W. Pfaff, [328] M. Navascues,´ F. Grosshans, and A. Ac´ın, Optimality of M. Reagor, L. Sletten, X. Ma, R. J. Schoelkopf, E. Knill, and gaussian attacks in continuous-variable quantum cryptogra- K. W. Lehnert, Faithful conversion of propagating quantum phy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190502 (2006). information to mechanical motion, Nature Physics 13, 1163 [329] Y. Guo, Q. Liao, Y. Wang, D. Huang, P. Huang, and G. Zeng, (2017). Performance improvement of continuous-variable quantum [314] J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, J. M. Amini, D. Hanneke, R. Ozeri, key distribution with an entangled source in the middle via C. Langer, J. J. Bollinger, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, photon subtraction, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032304 (2017). Entangled mechanical oscillators, Nature 459, 683 (2009). [330] J. Huh, G. G. Guerreschi, B. Peropadre, J. R. McClean, and [315] E. Flurin, N. Roch, F. Mallet, M. H. Devoret, and B. Huard, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Boson sampling for molecular vibronic Generating entangled microwave radiation over two transmis- spectra, Nature Photonics 9, 615 (2015). sion lines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183901 (2012). [331] L. Banchi, M. Fingerhuth, T. Babej, C. Ing, and J. M. [316] S. Gerke, J. Sperling, W. Vogel, Y. Cai, J. Roslund, N. Treps, Arrazola, Molecular docking with gaussian boson sam- and C. Fabre, Full Multipartite Entanglement of Frequency- pling, Science Advances 6, 10.1126/sciadv.aax1950 (2020), Comb Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 050501 (2015). https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/23/eaax1950.full.pdf. [317] M. Forsch, R. Stockill, A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovic,´ C. Gart-¨ [332] S. Jahangiri, J. M. Arrazola, and A. Delgado, Quantum algo- ner, R. A. Norte, F. van Otten, A. Fiore, K. Srinivasan, and rithm for simulating single-molecule electron transport, The S. Groblacher,¨ Microwave-to-optics conversion using a me- Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, The Journal of Physi- chanical oscillator in its quantum ground state, Nature Physics cal Chemistry Letters 12, 1256 (2021). 16, 69 (2020). [333] N. Killoran, T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, M. Schuld, [318] R. Lescanne, S. Deleglise,´ E. Albertinale, U. Reglade,´ N. Quesada, and S. Lloyd, Continuous-variable quantum neu- T. Capelle, E. Ivanov, T. Jacqmin, Z. Leghtas, and E. Flurin, Ir- ral networks, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033063 (2019). reversible qubit-photon coupling for the detection of itinerant [334] J. Nokkala, R. Mart´ınez-Pena,˜ G. L. Giorgi, V. Parigi, M. C. microwave photons, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021038 (2020). Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Gaussian states of continuous- [319] L. Pezze,` A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and variable quantum systems provide universal and versatile P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of reservoir computing, Communications Physics 4, 53 (2021). atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018). [335] F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezze,` A. Smerzi, [320] B. Dubost, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, N. Behbood, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Motional fock R. J. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Efficient quantification of states for quantum-enhanced amplitude and phase measure- non-gaussian spin distributions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 183602 ments with trapped ions, Nature Communications 10, 2929 (2012). (2019). [321] F. Haas, J. Volz, R. Gehr, J. Reichel, and J. Esteve,` [336] M. Gessner, L. Pezze,` and A. Smerzi, Entanglement and 61

squeezing in continuous-variable systems, Quantum 1, 17 11, 3775 (2020). (2017). [340] J. G. Kirkwood, Quantum statistics of almost classical assem- [337] B. Yadin, M. Fadel, and M. Gessner, Metrological comple- blies, Phys. Rev. 44, 31 (1933). mentarity reveals the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, Nature [341] M. Walschaers, N. Treps, B. Sundar, L. D. Carr, and V. Parigi, Communications 12, 2410 (2021). Emergent complex quantum networks in continuous-variables [338] M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezze,` Metrological nonlinear non-gaussian states (2021), arXiv:2012.15608 [quant-ph]. squeezing parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 090503 (2019). [342] H. H. Schaefer, Topological Vector Spaces (Springer New [339] D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V. Lep- York, New York, NY, 1971). age, A. A. Lasek, C. H. W. Barnes, and S. Lloyd, Quantum [343] J. B. Conway, A Course in Functional Analysis (Springer New advantage in postselected metrology, Nature Communications York, New York, NY, 2007).