arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 1 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 Multiphoton interference in quantum Fourier transform circuits and applications to quantum metrology arxiv:78.96v [quant-ph] Aug 7 Zu-En Su,, Yuan Li,, Peter P. Rohde, e-liang uang,, Xi-Lin Wang,, Li Li,, Nai-Le Liu,, Jonathan P. Dowling, 4 Chao-Yang Lu,, and Jian-Wei Pan, efei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, efei, Anhui 6, China CAS Centre for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Centre in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, efei, Anhui 6, China Centre for Quantum Software & Information (QSI), Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 7, Australia 4 earne Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics & Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 78, USA (Dated: August, 7) Quantum Fourier transforms () have gained increased attention with the rise of quantum walks, boson sampling, and quantum metrology. ere we present and demonstrate a general technique that simplifies the construction of interferometers using both path and polarization modes. On that basis, we first observed the generalized ong-ou-mandel effect with up to four photons. Furthermore, we directly exploited number-path entanglement generated in these interferometers and demonstrated optical phase supersensitivities deterministically. Quantum interference lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. Increasing the number of single photons and the complexity of optical circuits are key advances for a quantum advantage in many photonic quantum processing tasks []; including quantum computing [], quantum simulation [], and quantum metrology [4]. The ong-ou-mandel (OM) effect [5] is regarded as one of the quintessential quantum interference phenomena. In the original experiment, two identical single photons interfered and bunched in a two-mode quantum Fourier transform () interferometer (i.e., a balanced beam splitter). Generally, n identical single photons interfering in an n-mode interferometer [6] will lead to a higher-dimensional bunching effect [7, 8], which is expected to play an important role in understanding and exploiting multiphoton interference. A recent application of the is to use it for stringent and efficient assessment of boson sampling [9], which can guarantee the results contain genuine quantum interference []. The interferometer has been constructed on chip with up to eight modes [6]. owever, only three-photon assessment was demonstrated [4], due in part to the relatively high loss of the optical circuit. For this scheme to work with more photons, it is essential to construct large-scale and low-loss interferometers. Quantum metrology is another important application intimately related to quantum interference. One of the most versatile quantum metrology devices the Mach- Zehnder interferometer (MZI), is made up of two balanced beam splitters. Naturally, m-mode interferometers were proposed to construct multimode MZIs for precision improvement [, 4] or simultaneous estimation of multiple phases [5, 6]. Recently, Motes and Olson et al. [7, 7] pointed out that an n-mode MZI fed with a single photon into each arm can be used to beat the shot noise limit (SNL) deterministically [see Fig. ], requiring neither nonlinear nor probabilistic preparation of entanglement. owever, since multimode MZIs consist of a and an inverse interferometer, having higher loss and lower stability than a single interferometer, only one [] and two [4] photons were tested in a three-mode MZI so far. It remains a challenge to observe multiphoton interference in multimode MZIs to beat the SNL. In this work, we develop a general approach to simplifying the construction of interferometers using both path and polarization modes, which makes it possible to reduce resources as much as 75% when compared to devices using only path modes. We report the first experimental demonstration of the generalized OM effect with up to four photons. Moreover, we constructed multimode MZIs using two cascaded s and observed phase supersensitivies deterministically. The single-photon inputs were generated via three Inputs M f j f j M f n j Measurement FIG.. Quantum metrology scheme of the interferometers using single-photon inputs. The acts as the number-path entanglement generator, while the inverse transform is used for un-entangling the probe. Counting coincidence events with one photon per output mode leads to the probability distribution that is used to estimate the unknown phase ϕ. M

2 (a) T Single Photon Sources PBS WP nm IF (b) n=4 Prism Measurement D D UV pulses (c) BBO DM T n= 8nm IF 4 (d) NBS QWP n= D D4 PDBS NBS FIG.. Experimental setup. (a) The single photon sources. Photons are produced in three nonlinear crystals (BBO) via spontaneous parametric down conversion. Motorized translation stages d d (not drawn in the figure) were used to synchronize the delays among paths one to four. The quantum metrology optical circuit with (b) four, (c) two, and (d) three single-photon inputs. The labels are: DM, dichroic mirror; PBS, polarizing beam splitter; PDBS, polarization-dependent beam splitter; NBS, non-polarizing beam splitter; WP (QWP), half (quarter) wave plate; Prism used as phase shifter between different paths; IF, interferential filter; D, D, D, D4, T, T, fiber-coupled single-photon detectors. spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) sources [Fig. (a)], each emitting one pair of photons s V i, where and V denote horizontal and vertical polarizations, and s and i correspond to the signal and idler path modes, respectively. For n =, one pair of SPDC photons was enough, while for n =, another SPDC was added, and all three SPDCs were used for n =. For the latter two cases, post selection of a four-fold (six-fold) coincidence, consisting of one (two) triggers, ensures that only three (four) photons enter the setup in separate modes with a negligible higher-order noise. The interferometers were constructed with lowloss bulk-optical elements. In order to decrease the number of beam splitters and improve the interference stability, we exploited polarization and path modes simultaneously. This simplification makes us able to construct the interferometers with only one non-polarizing beam splitter (NBS) for n = 4 and [Fig. (b), (c)], and one polarization-dependent beam splitter (PDBS) for n = [Fig. (d)]. More details can be found in the Supplemental Material [9]. Generalized OM effect. Going through the interferometers, the single-photon inputs will evolve as, ( )/, () ( + + ), () 6 ( ) 8 + ( + ) 4 ( ). () 4 Other terms are destructively interfered to zero according to the so-called zero-transmission law [7], which predicts which output configurations will be strictly suppressed in the generalized OM effect. The theoretical and experimental probability distributions are shown in Fig.. We use the fidelity defined as F = i pi q i to quantify the similarity between the experimental probability distribution {p i } and the theoretical one {q i }, with respect to the three states in Eqs. ( ). We obtained fidelities of.97 ±.,.87 ±.4, and.765 ±.8 for n =,, and 4, respectively. To distinguish an effect associated with classical particles, we calculated the experimental violation of Eqs. ( ) as υ n = N s /N t ; the ratio of the number of predicted suppressed events N s to the total number of events N t. For n =,, and 4, the violations with indistinguishable single photons are υ ind =.5 ±., υ ind =.4 ±., υ ind 4 =.4 ±., compared with the larger values υ d =.47±., υ d =.68±.8, υ d 4 =.75±.4 with distinguishable single photons (coherent states). (See more details in the Supplemental Material [9].) The results can also be viewed as a nonclassicality witness of the input sources [8]. We calculated the average second-order correlation function, defined as G n = i<j n in j p ij, where n i is the photon number in n(n ) the i-th mode and p ij is the coincidence probability between the i-th and j-th modes. We obtained G =.5±.5, G =.96±.7 and G 4 =.556±., significantly violating their corresponding classical lower bounds ( /n), G =.5, G =.67, G 4 =.75, and

3 (a).5.4 (b).5..5 Probabilities Probabilities.... (c) () () () Probabilities () () () () () () () () () ().. (4) (4) (4) (4) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () FIG.. Experimental results of the generalized OM effect. (a) n = ; (b) n = ; (c) n = 4. These bunching output states with photon number, such as () and (), were measured by multiplexing the single-photon detectors with arrays of beam splitters. Error bars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics. indicating good average pairwise indistinguishability of the input sources. Quantum metrology based on the. Our scheme has different phase distributions {f j ϕ} n j=, as illustrated in Fig.. To demonstrate the basic principle, we chose two phase distributions (linear phase f lin j = j and delta phase fj δ = δ j, ) and implemented two- to fourphoton experiments. As shown in Fig. 4, all experimental fringes exhibit phase superresolution and, most importantly, oscillate with a better visibility than the corresponding classically limited distributions, which are given in the Supplemental Material [9]. Different from other schemes based on engineered entangled states, e.g., the NN state [], the -based quantum metrology scheme directly exploits deterministically generated entanglement [Eqs. ( )]. Thus, we do not need to worry about post-selection efficiency when trying to demonstrate phase supersensitivity []. The linear phase scheme has phase sensitivity that scales as O(/n / ) [7]. Unfortunately, the high sensitivity is due to the linearly increasing phase shift {(j )ϕ} n j=, but not the quantum nature of multiphoton interference []. Nevertheless, the linear scheme is superresolving and could have applications to quantum microscopy []. Note that the largest relative phase shift is (n )ϕ nϕ. If we run a classical two-mode MZI n times to measure the largest relative phase shift nϕ, its TABLE I. Measuring phase sensitivity ϕ against the number of photons n. ere L denotes eisenberg limit. Photon-number (n) ϕ ideal ϕexp SNL L.5.55 ± ± ± classical sensitivity is (nϕ) = O(/n / ), that means (ϕ) = O(/n / ), giving the same improvement as the linear phase scheme. In fact, it has been pointed out that Kitaev s phase-estimation algorithm, based on the with a similar linearly increasing phase shift, cannot beat the SNL unless one uses adaptive measurements [4]. The delta function proved to be the best phase distribution to demonstrate phase supersensitivity, although ϕ only scales as n [7]. As the number of photons 8(n ) increases, the phase sensitivity approaches a constant. As a result, the superresoluion disappears and the output fringes approach the SNL distribution quickly. Only in the low-photon-number regime (n 6), is it possible to beat the SNL. In the experiment, the effective visibilities of the measured fringes are.94 ±. and.97 ±. for n = and 4, respectively. They are greater than the corresponding thresholds (.8 and.9) to beat the SNL. As shown in Table I, all the measuring phase sensitivities beat the SNLs. More details can be found in the

4 4 Counts/s 8k 6k 4k k Supplemental Material [9]. In conclusion, we have experimentally demonstrated the generalized OM effect in interferometers and observed phase supersensitivies in the multimode MZIs with two, three, and four photons. Our simple devices may be used to realize other -based applications, such as quantum-enhanced multiphase estimation [5, 6], entanglement generation and transformation [5], sorting quantum systems efficiently [6], nonmonotonic quantum-to-classical transitions [7], and simulations of geometric phase [8]. Additionally, the scheme using both path and polarization modes are also suited to optical waveguide systems for simplifying the construction of interferometers. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the National Fundamental Research Program. JPD would like to acknowledge support from the US National Science Foundation. PPR is funded by an ARC Future Fellowship (project FT697). All the authors would like to acknowledge Chenglong You, Sushovit Adhikari, Jonathan Olson, and Tim Byrnes for helpful discussions. Counts/5s Counts/h Counts/5s Counts/h FIG. 4. Measuring counts as function of phase shift ϕ for (a c) linear and (d, e) delta phase distribution. The fringes exhibit,.5 and distinct oscillations within a half phase cycle for (a) n =, (b, d) n = and (c, e) n = 4 respectively. Error bars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics. The solid red line is a fit to the case of indistinguishable single photons, while the dashed line is the limiting distribution of distinguishable single photons. From (a) to (e), the experimental (classical-limit) visibilities are.97±. (.5),.98 ±. (.69),.96 ±.5 (.79),.97 ±.7 (.66),.99 ±.45 (.89) respectively. ere visibility is defined as (Counts max Counts min)/(counts max+counts min), different from the fitted parameter called effective visibility in the main text and Supplemental Material [9]. [] J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu,. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. Żukowski, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777 (). [] A. Steane, in Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, Vol. 45 (The Royal Society, 996) pp ; E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature (London) 49, 46 (); P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 5 (7). [] A. Aspuru-Guzik and P. Walther, Nat. Phys. 8, 85 (); I. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 5 (4). [4]. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 5 (); V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photonics 5, (). [5] C. K. ong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 44 (987). [6] M. Żukowski, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. orne, Phys. Rev. A 55, 564 (997); A. Vourdas and J. A. Dunningham, ibid. 7, 89 (5); Y. L. Lim and A. Beige, New J. Phys. 7, 55 (5). [7] M. C. Tichy, M. Tiersch, F. de Melo, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 45 (); N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Aparo, P. Mataloni, F. Sciarrino, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, and R. Osellame, Nat. Commun. 4, 66 (). [8] L. Rigovacca, C. Di Franco, B. J. Metcalf, I. A. Walmsley, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 6 (6). [9] M. C. Tichy, K. Mayer, A. Buchleitner, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett., 5 (4). [] M. C. Tichy, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, (4). [6] A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, M. Bentivegna, F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, N. Viggianiello, L. Innocenti, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nat. Commun. 7, 469 (6). [4] J. Carolan, C. arrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martín-López, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 49, 7 (5). [] G. Weihs, M. Reck,. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Opt. Lett., (996). [4] Z. Chaboyer, T. Meany, L. elt, M. J. Withford, and M. Steel, Sci. Rep. 5, 96 (5). [5] P. C. umphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74 (). [6] M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Sci. Rep. 6, 888 (6); M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Adv. Phys.: X, 6 (6). [7] K. R. Motes, J. P. Olson, E. J. Rabeaux, J. P. Dowling, S. J. Olson, and P. P. Rohde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 78 (5).

5 5 [7] J. P. Olson, K. R. Motes, P. M. Birchall, N. M. Studer, M. LaBorde, T. Moulder, P. P. Rohde, and J. P. Dowling, arxiv:6.78 (6). [9] See Supplemental Material. [] A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 7 (); J. P. Dowling, Contemp. Phys. 49, 5 (8). [] K. J. Resch, K. L. Pregnell, R. Prevedel, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O Brien, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 6 (7); T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 6, 76 (7). [] G. M. D Ariano and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 55, 67 (997); J. Söderholm, G. Björk, B. essmo, and S. Inoue, ibid. 67, 58 (); J. Chwedeńczuk, F. Piazza, and A. Smerzi, ibid. 87, 67 (). [] T. Juffmann, B. B. Klopfer, T. L. Frankort, P. aslinger, and M. A. Kasevich, Nat. Commun. 7, 858 (6). [4] B. L. iggins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett,. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nature (London) 45, 9 (7); V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 4 (6). [5] Y. L. Lim and A. Beige, Phys. Rev. A 7, 6 (5). [6] R. Ionicioiu, Sci. Rep. 6, 556 (6). [7] M. C. Tichy,.-T. Lim, Y.-S. Ra, F. Mintert, Y.-. Kim, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. A 8, 6 (); Y.- S. Ra, M. C. Tichy,.-T. Lim, O. Kwon, F. Mintert, A. Buchleitner, and Y.-. Kim, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 7 (). [8] A. Laing, T. Lawson, E. Martín López, and J. L. O Brien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 655 (). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SINGLE-POTON SOURCE CARACTERIZATION The ultraviolet pumping laser which we use has central wavelength of 9 nm, pulse duration of fs, repetition rate of 8 Mz. The pulses pump collinear Type-II cut BBO crystals and generate PDC photon pairs. In order to minimize higher order noise, we deliberately lower the average pump power to 65 mw while maintaining a feasible brightness. We estimate a single pair generation efficiency., and a collection and detection efficiency.6. Accurate spatial and temporal mode overlap are necessary to make indistinguishable independent photons. To achieve good spatial and temporal overlap, all photons are spectrally filtered and detected by fiber-coupled single-photon detectors. To find the optimal indistinguishability, we scanned the delay lines d - d and observed OM interference fringes, as shown in Fig. S. Imperfection of optical elements is another main cause for experimental error. For example, the splitting ratio tolerance (±%) of beam splitter will make the interferometer deviate from the quantum Fourier transform slightly. Total efficiency of the (4) modes optical interferometer is.87 (.94). As to interference stability, the interferometers which we build are compact and stable enough (> day) to finish the measurement. OPTICAL INTERFEROMETER CONSTRUCTION For n =, the is equivalent to the adamard matrix = ( ), which can be realized by an NBS with two path modes [see Fig. S(a)]. For n =, three modes are represented by (, V, ), where subscript and refer to path modes. The can be realized by a PDBS with reflectivity / for horizontal polarization and perfect reflectivity for vertical polarization [see Fig. S(b)]. The function of the PDBS could be written by R I = ( ) I. For n = 4, four modes are represented by (, V,, V ). The interferometers can be realized by a NBS followed by a polarizing adamard matrix in one path, which can be realized by a WP, and a polarizing transform S = ( ) ( ) = ( ) i i i in another path, which can be realized by a QWP and a WP [Fig. S(c)]. SIMPLIFYING INTERFEROMETERS USING PAT AND POLARIZATION MODES Given a d-mode non-polarizing interferometer F d d, we can expand it to F d d as, F d d = P [ d k= (kπ/d)][f d d F d d ]P, ( ) where (θ) = e iθ e iθ is the product of adamard matrix and phase shift matrix, and P is the d d permutation matrix that maps the column vector v = (, V,, V, d, V d ) T into P v = (,, d, V, V, V d ) T, that is, it shuffles components of v such that horizontal polarizations appear on the first half and vertical polarizations on the latter part. The scheme is essentially equivalent to the first stage of the fast Fourier transform, i.e., the famous factorization

6 6 discovered by Cooley and Tukey [] (also by Gauss [] in 85). The general method [] requires O(m ) beam splitters to realize an arbitrary m-dimensional unitary transformation, which was recently adopted to realize a six-mode interferometer in a planar light-wave circuit [4]. With the help of the aforementioned technique, the number of beam splitters can be reduced by 75%. Thanks to the special form of the, more efficient methods [5] only requiring O(m log(m)) beam splitters have been proposed and used to construct an eight-mode interferometer in a complex D waveguide circuit [6]. In this case, the number of beam splitters can still be reduced by over 5%. CLASSICAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OF TE INTERFEROMETERS For comparison, we measure the output probability distributions in the interferometers with distinguishable single-photon inputs (which can be modelled by inserting identical coherent-state inputs). The results are shown in Fig. S. The violations of different input single photons are υ d =.47 ±., υ d =.68 ±.8, υ d 4 =.75 ±.4. The results show that the generalized OM effect is distinctly different with indistinguishable or distinguishable photons. where p is the theoretical probability [7], and A and V are fitted parameters denoting the largest count rate and effective visibility, respectively. According to the Cramer- Rao bound, the phase sensitivities can be determined as ϕ = / FI, where FI denotes the Fisher information, FI = 4V p/ ϕ V (p ). (S.) The error of FI can be deduced from the error of V via Eq. S. and error propagation formula. For the delta-phase scheme, letting FI > n, we can obtain the thresholds of the effective visibility to beat the SNL. The thresholds are.78,.86 and.9 for n =, and 4, respectively. In Eq. S., p at the origin and V are independent of the phase ϕ. It is then easy to see that the schemes with the largest FI (and consequently the smallest phase uncertainty) will have the steepest (largest) slope of p(ϕ) near the origin. That this is so can be seen clearly in the data plots in Fig. S4. NORMALIZED LINEAR PASE VERSUS DELTA PASE In the main text, we have explained why we cannot use the interferometers with linear phase distribution to beat the SNL. The root of the problem is the utilization of multiple phases ϕ. In order to compare different strategies fairly, we adopted the normalization condition i f i = [7] and redrew the fringes of output probability as function of phase shift ϕ. As shown in Fig. S4, we can conclude that the fringe with higher phase sensitivity also has steeper slope near the origin. PASE SENSITIVITY CALCULATION The experimental data can be fitted by the fringes as Counts = V (p ) + A, (S.) [] J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey, Math. Comput. 9, 97 (965). [] G. Strang, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 8, 88 (99). [] M. Reck, A. Zeilinger,. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 58 (994); W. R. Clements, P. C. umphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walsmley, Optica, 46 (6). [4] J. Carolan, C. arrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martín-López, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 49, 7 (5). [5] P. Törmä, I. Jex, and S. Stenholm, J. Mod. Opt. 4, 45 (996); R. Barak and Y. Ben-Aryeh, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, (7); G. Tabia, Phys. Rev. A 9, (6). [6] A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, M. Bentivegna, F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, N. Viggianiello, L. Innocenti, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nat. Commun. 7, 469 (6). [7] J. P. Olson, K. R. Motes, P. M. Birchall, N. M. Studer, M. LaBorde, T. Moulder, P. P. Rohde, and J. P. Dowling, arxiv:6.78 (6).

7 7 (a ) (b ) (c ) 5 T w o fo ld c o in c id e n c e D e la y ( m ) F o u rfo ld c o in c id e n c e D e la y ( m ) F o u rfo ld c o in c id e n c e D e la y ( m ) FIG. S. (color online). Observation of OM interference. The interference fringes visibilities are (a).945 ±. between photons and, (b).84 ±. between photons and, and (c).8 ±. between photons and 4. Error bars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics. (a) Phase f j f j (b) Phase V f j R R f j p/ f j -p/ V (c) Phase V 4 V Swap S f j f j f j f j 4 S V 4 V V f j f j V 4 V S f j f j 4 S 4 V FIG. S. (color online). Quantum-circuit representation of the experimental setup in Fig.. (a) n =. (b) n =. (c) n = 4.

8 8 (a).5 (b)..4 Probabilities.. Probabilities (c). () () () () () () () () () () () () ().8 Probabilities (4) (4) (4) (4) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () FIG. S. (color online). Experimental results of the interferometers with distinguishable single-photon inputs. (a) n =. (b) n =. (c) n = 4. We obtained fidelities as (a).999 ±., (b).999 ±. and (c).998 ±.. Error bars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics...8 n o rm a liz e d lin e a r p h a s e - p h o to n s n o rm a liz e d lin e a r p h a s e - 4 p h o to n s d e lta p h a s e - p h o to n s d e lta p h a s e - 4 p h o to n s P ro b a b ility P h a s e s h ift (d e g re e s ) FIG. S4. (color online). Normalized linear phase versus delta phase.