Multiphoton interference in quantum Fourier transform circuits and applications toquantum metrology

Zu-En Su,1, 2 Yuan Li,1, 2 Peter P. Rohde,3 He-Liang Huang,1, 2 Xi-Lin Wang,1, 2 Li

Li,1, 2 Nai-Le Liu,1, 2 Jonathan P. Dowling,4 Chao-Yang Lu,1, 2 and Jian-Wei Pan1, 2

1Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics,University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

2CAS Centre for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Centre in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics,University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

3Centre for Quantum Software & Information (QSI), Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology,University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia

4Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics & Astronomy,Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA

(Dated: August 2, 2017)

Quantum Fourier transforms (QFT) have gained increased attention with the rise of quantumwalks, boson sampling, and quantum metrology. Here we present and demonstrate a general tech-nique that simplifies the construction of QFT interferometers using both path and polarizationmodes. On that basis, we first observed the generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel effect with up to fourphotons. Furthermore, we directly exploited number-path entanglement generated in these QFTinterferometers and demonstrated optical phase supersensitivities deterministically.

Quantum interference lies at the heart of quantum me-chanics. Increasing the number of single photons andthe complexity of optical circuits are key advances for aquantum advantage in many photonic quantum process-ing tasks [1]; including quantum computing [2], quantumsimulation [3], and quantum metrology [4].

The Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect [5] is regardedas one of the quintessential quantum interference phe-nomena. In the original experiment, two identical singlephotons interfered and bunched in a two-mode quantumFourier transform (QFT) interferometer (i.e., a balancedbeam splitter). Generally, n identical single photons in-terfering in an n-mode QFT interferometer [6] will leadto a higher-dimensional bunching effect [7, 8], which isexpected to play an important role in understanding andexploiting multiphoton interference. A recent applica-tion of the QFT is to use it for stringent and efficientassessment of boson sampling [9], which can guaranteethe results contain genuine quantum interference [10].The QFT interferometer has been constructed on chipwith up to eight modes [6]. However, only three-photonassessment was demonstrated [4], due in part to the rel-atively high loss of the optical circuit. For this schemeto work with more photons, it is essential to constructlarge-scale and low-loss QFT interferometers.

Quantum metrology is another important applicationintimately related to quantum interference. One of themost versatile quantum metrology devices—the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI), is made up of two bal-anced beam splitters. Naturally, m-mode QFT interfer-ometers were proposed to construct multimode MZIs forprecision improvement [13, 14] or simultaneous estima-tion of multiple phases [15, 16]. Recently, Motes andOlson et al. [7, 17] pointed out that an n-mode MZI fedwith a single photon into each arm can be used to beat

the shot noise limit (SNL) deterministically [see Fig. 1],requiring neither nonlinear nor probabilistic preparationof entanglement. However, since multimode MZIs con-sist of a QFT and an inverse QFT interferometer, havinghigher loss and lower stability than a single QFT interfer-ometer, only one [13] and two [14] photons were testedin a three-mode MZI so far. It remains a challenge toobserve multiphoton interference in multimode MZIs tobeat the SNL.

In this work, we develop a general approach to sim-plifying the construction of QFT interferometers usingboth path and polarization modes, which makes it possi-ble to reduce resources as much as 75% when comparedto devices using only path modes. We report the firstexperimental demonstration of the generalized HOM ef-fect with up to four photons. Moreover, we constructedmultimode MZIs using two cascaded QFTs and observedphase supersensitivies deterministically.

The single-photon inputs were generated via three

M

1

1

1

1

1

1

M M

Inputs Measurement

†QFTQFT

f ×j1

f ×j2

f ×jn

FIG. 1. Quantum metrology scheme of the QFT interfer-ometers using single-photon inputs. The QFT acts as thenumber-path entanglement generator, while the inverse trans-form QFT† is used for un-entangling the probe. Countingcoincidence events with one photon per output mode leadsto the probability distribution that is used to estimate theunknown phase ϕ.

arX

iv:1

708.

0029

6v1

[qu

ant-

ph]

1 A

ug 2

017

2

UV pulses

BBO

1

2

3

4

D2

D3

D1

D4

Measurementn=4

T1

(a)

(c)

PrismPBS

T2

DM

(b)

1

2

3

n=3

n=2

Single Photon Sources

NBS

HWP

2

3NBS

3nm IF

8nm IF

(d)

QWP

PDBS

FIG. 2. Experimental setup. (a) The single photon sources. Photons are produced in three nonlinear crystals (BBO) viaspontaneous parametric down conversion. Motorized translation stages ∆d1 – ∆d3 (not drawn in the figure) were used tosynchronize the delays among paths one to four. The quantum metrology optical circuit with (b) four, (c) two, and (d) threesingle-photon inputs. The labels are: DM, dichroic mirror; PBS, polarizing beam splitter; PDBS, polarization-dependent beamsplitter; NBS, non-polarizing beam splitter; HWP (QWP), half (quarter) wave plate; Prism used as phase shifter betweendifferent paths; IF, interferential filter; D1, D2, D3, D4, T1, T2, fiber-coupled single-photon detectors.

spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC)sources [Fig. 2(a)], each emitting one pair of photons|H〉s|V 〉i, where H and V denote horizontal and verti-cal polarizations, and s and i correspond to the signaland idler path modes, respectively. For n = 2, one pairof SPDC photons was enough, while for n = 3, anotherSPDC was added, and all three SPDCs were used forn = 3. For the latter two cases, post selection of afour-fold (six-fold) coincidence, consisting of one (two)triggers, ensures that only three (four) photons enter thesetup in separate modes with a negligible higher-ordernoise.

The QFT interferometers were constructed with low-loss bulk-optical elements. In order to decrease the num-ber of beam splitters and improve the interference stabil-ity, we exploited polarization and path modes simultane-ously. This simplification makes us able to construct theQFT interferometers with only one non-polarizing beamsplitter (NBS) for n = 4 and 2 [Fig. 2(b), (c)], and onepolarization-dependent beam splitter (PDBS) for n = 3[Fig. 2(d)]. More details can be found in the Supplemen-tal Material [19].

Generalized HOM effect.— Going through the QFTinterferometers, the single-photon inputs will evolve as,

|11〉 → (|20〉 − |02〉)/√

2, (1)

|111〉 →√

2

3(|300〉+ |030〉+ |003〉)− 1√

3|111〉 , (2)

|1111〉 →√

6

8(|4000〉 − |0400〉+ |0040〉 − |0004〉)

+

√2

4(|1210〉 − |2101〉+ |1012〉 − |0121〉)

− 1

4(|2020〉 − |0202〉). (3)

Other terms are destructively interfered to zero accordingto the so-called zero-transmission law [7], which predictswhich output configurations will be strictly suppressedin the generalized HOM effect. The theoretical and ex-perimental probability distributions are shown in Fig. 3.We use the fidelity defined as F =

∑i

√piqi to quantify

the similarity between the experimental probability dis-tribution {pi} and the theoretical one {qi}, with respectto the three states in Eqs. (1 – 3). We obtained fideli-ties of 0.973 ± 0.001, 0.871 ± 0.004, and 0.765 ± 0.008for n = 2, 3, and 4, respectively. To distinguish an ef-fect associated with classical particles, we calculated theexperimental violation of Eqs. (1 – 3) as υn = Ns/Nt;the ratio of the number of predicted suppressed eventsNs to the total number of events Nt. For n = 2, 3,and 4, the violations with indistinguishable single pho-

tons are υind2 = 0.052 ± 0.001, υind

3 = 0.24 ± 0.01,

υind4 = 0.41 ± 0.03, compared with the larger values

υd2 = 0.47±0.01, υd

3 = 0.68±0.08, υd4 = 0.75±0.14 with

distinguishable single photons (coherent states). (Seemore details in the Supplemental Material [19].)

The results can also be viewed as a nonclassicality wit-ness of the input sources [8]. We calculated the aver-age second-order correlation function, defined as Gn =

2n(n−1)

∑i<j ninjpij , where ni is the photon number in

the i-th mode and pij is the coincidence probability be-tween the i-th and j-th modes. We obtained G2 =0.052±0.005, G3 = 0.396±0.007 and G4 = 0.556±0.011,significantly violating their corresponding classical lowerbounds (1 − 1/n), G2 = 0.5, G3 = 0.67, G4 = 0.75, and

3

(20

)

(02

)

(11

)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Exp. Theo.

Exp. Theo.

Exp. Theo.

(300)

(030)

(003)

(111)

(210)

(201)

(120)

(021)

(102)

(012)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Pro

babili

ties

Pro

babili

ties

Output states

Output states

Pro

babili

ties

Output states

(4000)

(0040)

(0400)

(0004)

(3010)

(3100)

(3001)

(1300)

(0310)

(0301)

(1030)

(0130)

(0031)

(1003)

(0013)

(0103)

(2101)

(2110)

(2011)

(1210)

(1201)

(0211)

(0121)

(1021)

(1120)

(1012)

(1102)

(0112)

(2020)

(0202)

(2200)

(2002)

(0220)

(0022)

(1111)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

(c)

(b)(a)

FIG. 3. Experimental results of the generalized HOM effect. (a) n = 2; (b) n = 3; (c) n = 4. These bunching output stateswith photon number ≥ 2, such as (300) and (210), were measured by multiplexing the single-photon detectors with arrays ofbeam splitters. Error bars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics.

indicating good average pairwise indistinguishability ofthe input sources.

Quantum metrology based on the QFT.— Our schemehas different phase distributions {fj ·ϕ}nj=1, as illustratedin Fig. 1. To demonstrate the basic principle, we chose

two phase distributions (linear phase f linj = j − 1 and

delta phase fδj = δj,1) and implemented two- to four-photon experiments. As shown in Fig. 4, all experi-mental fringes exhibit phase superresolution and, mostimportantly, oscillate with a better visibility than thecorresponding classically limited distributions, which aregiven in the Supplemental Material [19]. Different fromother schemes based on engineered entangled states, e.g.,the N00N state [20], the QFT-based quantum metrol-ogy scheme directly exploits deterministically generatedentanglement [Eqs. (1 – 3)]. Thus, we do not needto worry about post-selection efficiency when trying todemonstrate phase supersensitivity [21].

The linear phase scheme has phase sensitivity thatscales as O(1/n3/2) [17]. Unfortunately, the high sen-sitivity is due to the linearly increasing phase shift{(j − 1)ϕ}nj=1, but not the quantum nature of multipho-ton interference [22]. Nevertheless, the linear scheme issuperresolving and could have applications to quantummicroscopy [23]. Note that the largest relative phase shiftis (n− 1)ϕ ∼ nϕ. If we run a classical two-mode MZI ntimes to measure the largest relative phase shift nϕ, its

TABLE I. Measuring phase sensitivity ∆ϕ against the num-ber of photons n. Here HL denotes Heisenberg limit.

Photon-number (n) ∆ϕideal ∆ϕexp SNL HL2 0.500 0.515 ± 0.013 0.707 0.5003 0.433 0.491 ± 0.015 0.577 0.3334 0.408 0.458 ± 0.027 0.500 0.250

classical sensitivity is ∆(nϕ) = O(1/n1/2), that means∆(ϕ) = O(1/n3/2), giving the same improvement as thelinear phase scheme. In fact, it has been pointed out thatKitaev’s phase-estimation algorithm, based on the QFTwith a similar linearly increasing phase shift, cannot beatthe SNL unless one uses adaptive measurements [24].

The delta function proved to be the best phase distri-bution to demonstrate phase supersensitivity, although

∆ϕ only scales as√

n8(n−1) [7]. As the number of photons

increases, the phase sensitivity approaches a constant. Asa result, the superresoluion disappears and the outputfringes approach the SNL distribution quickly. Only inthe low-photon-number regime (n ≤ 6), is it possible tobeat the SNL. In the experiment, the effective visibilitiesof the measured fringes are 0.94 ± 0.02 and 0.97 ± 0.03for n = 3 and 4, respectively. They are greater thanthe corresponding thresholds (0.83 and 0.93) to beat theSNL. As shown in Table I, all the measuring phase sensi-tivities beat the SNLs. More details can be found in the

4

0 45 90 135 1800

20k

40k

60k

80k

Phase shift (degrees)

Counts

/1s

0 45 90 135 1800

50

100

150

200

Phase shift (degrees)

Counts

/5s

0 45 90 135 180

0

20

40

60

80

100

Phase shift (degrees)

Counts

/1h

0 45 90 135 1800

50

100

150

200

Phase shift (degrees)

Counts

/5s

0 45 90 135 1800

20

40

60

80

100

120

Phase shift (degrees)

Counts

/1h

FIG. 4. Measuring counts as function of phase shift ϕ for (a– c) linear and (d, e) delta phase distribution. The fringes ex-hibit 1, 1.5 and 2 distinct oscillations within a half phase cyclefor (a) n = 2, (b, d) n = 3 and (c, e) n = 4 respectively. Errorbars are one standard deviation due to propagated Poissonianstatistics. The solid red line is a fit to the case of indistinguish-able single photons, while the dashed line is the limiting distri-bution of distinguishable single photons. From (a) to (e), theexperimental (classical-limit) visibilities are 0.97±0.02 (0.50),0.908 ± 0.020 (0.609), 0.962 ± 0.025 (0.790), 0.927 ± 0.037(0.636), 0.919 ± 0.045 (0.829) respectively. Here visibility isdefined as (Countsmax−Countsmin)/(Countsmax+Countsmin),different from the fitted parameter called effective visibility inthe main text and Supplemental Material [19].

Supplemental Material [19].

In conclusion, we have experimentally demonstratedthe generalized HOM effect in QFT interferometers andobserved phase supersensitivies in the multimode MZIswith two, three, and four photons. Our simple QFT de-vices may be used to realize other QFT-based applica-tions, such as quantum-enhanced multiphase estimation[15, 16], entanglement generation and transformation[25], sorting quantum systems efficiently [26], nonmono-tonic quantum-to-classical transitions [27], and simula-tions of geometric phase [28]. Additionally, the schemeusing both path and polarization modes are also suited tooptical waveguide systems for simplifying the construc-tion of QFT interferometers.

Acknowledgments— This work was supported by theNational Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chi-nese Academy of Sciences, and the National Fundamen-

tal Research Program. JPD would like to acknowl-edge support from the US National Science Foundation.PPR is funded by an ARC Future Fellowship (projectFT160100397). All the authors would like to acknowl-edge Chenglong You, Sushovit Adhikari, Jonathan Olson,and Tim Byrnes for helpful discussions.

[1] J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter,

A. Zeilinger, and M. Zukowski, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777(2012).

[2] A. Steane, in Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, Vol. 452(The Royal Society, 1996) pp. 2551–2577; E. Knill,R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature (London) 409,46 (2001); P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph,J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79,135 (2007).

[3] A. Aspuru-Guzik and P. Walther, Nat. Phys. 8, 285(2012); I. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod.Phys. 86, 153 (2014).

[4] H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325(2002); V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat.Photonics 5, 222 (2011).

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

[6] M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Horne, Phys. Rev.A 55, 2564 (1997); A. Vourdas and J. A. Dunningham,ibid. 71, 013809 (2005); Y. L. Lim and A. Beige, New J.Phys. 7, 155 (2005).

[7] M. C. Tichy, M. Tiersch, F. de Melo, F. Mintert, andA. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 220405 (2010);N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Aparo, P. Mataloni, F. Scia-rrino, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, and R. Osellame, Nat.Commun. 4, 1606 (2013).

[8] L. Rigovacca, C. Di Franco, B. J. Metcalf, I. A. Walmsley,and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 213602 (2016).

[9] M. C. Tichy, K. Mayer, A. Buchleitner, and K. Mølmer,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020502 (2014).

[10] M. C. Tichy, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 103001(2014).

[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, 10469(2016).

[4] J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martın-Lopez,N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Mat-suda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 349, 711 (2015).

[13] G. Weihs, M. Reck, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger,Opt. Lett. 21, 302 (1996).

[14] Z. Chaboyer, T. Meany, L. Helt, M. J. Withford, andM. Steel, Sci. Rep. 5, 9601 (2015).

[15] P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A.Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 070403 (2013).

[16] M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezze,A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Sci. Rep. 6, 28881 (2016);M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Adv. Phys.:X 1, 621 (2016).

[17] K. R. Motes, J. P. Olson, E. J. Rabeaux, J. P. Dowling,S. J. Olson, and P. P. Rohde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 170802(2015).

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:1610.07128 (2016).

[19] See Supplemental Material.[20] A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P.

Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733(2000); J. P. Dowling, Contemp. Phys. 49, 125 (2008).

[21] 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, 223601 (2007); T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L.O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 316, 726(2007).

[22] G. M. D’Ariano and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 55,2267 (1997); J. Soderholm, G. Bjork, B. Hessmo, andS. Inoue, ibid. 67, 053803 (2003); J. Chwedenczuk, F. Pi-azza, and A. Smerzi, ibid. 87, 033607 (2013).

[23] T. Juffmann, B. B. Klopfer, T. L. Frankort, P. Haslinger,and M. A. Kasevich, Nat. Commun. 7, 12858 (2016).

[24] B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise-man, and G. J. Pryde, Nature (London) 450, 393 (2007);V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev.Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).

[25] Y. L. Lim and A. Beige, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062311 (2005).[26] R. Ionicioiu, Sci. Rep. 6, 25356 (2016).[27] M. C. Tichy, H.-T. Lim, Y.-S. Ra, F. Mintert, Y.-H. Kim,

and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062111 (2011); Y.-S. Ra, M. C. Tichy, H.-T. Lim, O. Kwon, F. Mintert,A. Buchleitner, and Y.-H. Kim, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 110, 1227 (2013).

[28] A. Laing, T. Lawson, E. Martın Lopez, and J. L.O’Brien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260505 (2012).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

SINGLE-PHOTON SOURCECHARACTERIZATION

The ultraviolet pumping laser which we use has centralwavelength of 390 nm, pulse duration of 100 fs, repeti-tion rate of 80 MHz. The pulses pump collinear Type-IIcut BBO crystals and generate PDC photon pairs. In or-der to minimize higher order noise, we deliberately lowerthe average pump power to 650 mW while maintaining afeasible brightness. We estimate a single pair generationefficiency ∼0.02, and a collection and detection efficiency∼0.26.

Accurate spatial and temporal mode overlap are nec-essary to make indistinguishable independent photons.To achieve good spatial and temporal overlap, all pho-tons are spectrally filtered and detected by fiber-coupledsingle-photon detectors. To find the optimal indistin-guishability, we scanned the delay lines ∆d1 - ∆d3 andobserved HOM interference fringes, as shown in Fig. S1.

Imperfection of optical elements is another main causefor experimental error. For example, the splitting ratiotolerance (±3%) of beam splitter will make the inter-ferometer deviate from the quantum Fourier transformslightly. Total efficiency of the 3 (4) modes optical inter-ferometer is ∼0.87 (∼0.94). As to interference stability,

the interferometers which we build are compact and sta-ble enough (> 1 day) to finish the measurement.

OPTICAL INTERFEROMETERCONSTRUCTION

For n = 2, the QFT is equivalent to the Hadamardmatrix

H =1√2

(1 11 −1

),

which can be realized by an NBS with two path modes[see Fig. S2(a)].

For n = 3, three modes are represented by (|H〉1, |V 〉1,|H〉2), where subscript 1 and 2 refer to path modes. TheQFT can be realized by a PDBS with reflectivity 1/3 forhorizontal polarization and perfect reflectivity for verticalpolarization [see Fig. S2(b)]. The function of the PDBScould be written by

R⊕ I3 =1√3

(1√

2√2 −1

)⊕ I3.

For n = 4, four modes are represented by (|H〉1, |V 〉1,|H〉2, |V 〉2). The QFT interferometers can be realizedby a NBS followed by a polarizing Hadamard matrix Hin one path, which can be realized by a HWP, and apolarizing transform

HS =1√2

(1 11 −1

)(1 00 i

)=

1√2

(1 i1 −i

)in another path, which can be realized by a QWP and aHWP [Fig. S2(c)].

SIMPLIFYING QFT INTERFEROMETERSUSING PATH AND POLARIZATION MODES

Given a d-mode non-polarizing QFT interferometerFd×d, we can expand it to F2d×2d as,

F2d×2d = P [⊕d−1k=0H(kπ/d)][Fd×d ⊕ Fd×d]P,

where H(θ) = 1√2

(1 eiθ

1 −eiθ)

is the product of

Hadamard matrix and phase shift matrix, and P is the2d×2d permutation matrix that maps the column vector~v = (H1, V1, H2, V2 · · · , Hd, Vd)

T into

P~v = (H1, H2 · · · , Hd, V1, V2, · · ·Vd)T ,

that is, it shuffles components of ~v such that horizontalpolarizations appear on the first half and vertical polar-izations on the latter part.

The scheme is essentially equivalent to the first stage ofthe fast Fourier transform, i.e., the famous factorization

6

discovered by Cooley and Tukey [1] (also by Gauss [2]in 1805). The general method [3] requires O(m2) beamsplitters to realize an arbitrary m-dimensional unitarytransformation, which was recently adopted to realize asix-mode QFT interferometer in a planar light-wave cir-cuit [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 QFT, more efficientmethods [5] only requiring O(m log(m)) beam splittershave been proposed and used to construct an eight-modeQFT interferometer in a complex 3D waveguide circuit[6]. In this case, the number of beam splitters can stillbe reduced by over 50%.

CLASSICAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONSOF THE QFT INTERFEROMETERS

For comparison, we measure the output probabilitydistributions in the QFT interferometers with distin-guishable single-photon inputs (which can be modelledby inserting identical coherent-state inputs). The resultsare shown in Fig. S3. The violations of different input

single photons are υd2 = 0.47 ± 0.01, υd

3 = 0.68 ± 0.08,

υd4 = 0.75± 0.14. The results show that the generalized

HOM effect is distinctly different with indistinguishableor distinguishable photons.

NORMALIZED LINEAR PHASE VERSUS DELTAPHASE

In the main text, we have explained why we cannot usethe QFT interferometers with linear phase distributionto beat the SNL. The root of the problem is the utiliza-tion of multiple phases ϕ. In order to compare differentstrategies fairly, we adopted the normalization condition∑i fi = 1 [7] and redrew the fringes of output probabil-

ity as function of phase shift ϕ. As shown in Fig. S4, wecan conclude that the fringe with higher phase sensitivityalso has steeper slope near the origin.

PHASE SENSITIVITY CALCULATION

The experimental data can be fitted by the fringes as

Counts =V (2p− 1) + 1

2·A, (S.1)

where p is the theoretical probability [7], and A and V arefitted parameters denoting the largest count rate and ef-fective visibility, respectively. According to the Cramer-Rao bound, the phase sensitivities can be determined as∆ϕ = 1/

√FI, where FI denotes the Fisher information,

FI =4V 2|∂p/∂ϕ|2

1− V 2(2p− 1)2 . (S.2)

The error of FI can be deduced from the error of V viaEq. S.2 and error propagation formula.

For the delta-phase scheme, letting FI > n, we canobtain the thresholds of the effective visibility to beat theSNL. The thresholds are 0.708, 0.826 and 0.923 for n = 2,3 and 4, respectively. In Eq. S.2, p at the origin and Vare independent of the phase ϕ. It is then easy to seethat the schemes with the largest FI (and consequentlythe smallest phase uncertainty) will have the steepest(largest) slope of p(ϕ) near the origin. That this is socan be seen clearly in the data plots in Fig. S4.

[1] J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey, Math. Comput. 19, 297(1965).

[2] G. Strang, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 28, 288 (1993).[3] M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58 (1994); W. R. Clements, P. C.Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A.Walsmley, Optica 3, 1460 (2016).

[4] J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martın-Lopez,N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Mat-suda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 349, 711 (2015).

[5] P. Torma, I. Jex, and S. Stenholm, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 245(1996); R. Barak and Y. Ben-Aryeh, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B24, 231 (2007); G. Tabia, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012323 (2016).

[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, 10469(2016).

[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:1610.07128 (2016).

7

- 1 5 0 - 1 0 0 - 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 00

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

- 1 0 0 - 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 00

5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

- 1 5 0 - 1 0 0 - 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 05 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

Fourf

old co

incide

nce

� � � � � � � �

Twofo

ld coin

ciden

ce

� � � � � � � �

( a ) ( c )( b )

Fourf

old co

incide

nce

� � � � � � � �

FIG. S1. (color online). Observation of HOM interference. The interference fringes visibilities are (a) 0.945 ± 0.002 betweenphotons 2 and 3, (b) 0.84 ± 0.03 between photons 1 and 3, and (c) 0.82 ± 0.03 between photons 3 and 4. Error bars are onestandard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics.

H H

R

H H

R1H

2H

3V

H

H

H

HS

H

SH

H

H

Swap

H

H

H

HS

H

SH

H

H

1H

2H

3V

1H

2V

3H

4V

1H

2V

3H

4V

1H

2V

3H

4V

1H

2V

3H

4V

H H

1H

2H

†QFT(a) QFT

†QFT(b) QFT

†QFT(c) QFT

Phase

Phase

Phase

f ×j1

f ×j2

f ×j1

f ×j2

f ×j3

f ×j1

f ×j2

f ×j3

f ×j4

f ×j1

f ×j3

f ×j2

f ×j4

p/2 -p/2

1H

2H

FIG. S2. (color online). Quantum-circuit representation of the experimental setup in Fig.2. (a) n = 2. (b) n = 3. (c) n = 4.

8

(20)

(02)

(11)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Exp.

Theo.

Exp.

Theo.

Pro

ba

bili

tie

s

Output states

Exp.

Theo.

(300)

(030)

(003)

(111)

(210)

(201)

(120)

(021)

(102)

(012)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

(a) (b)

Pro

ba

bili

tie

s

Output states

(c)

(4000)

(0040)

(0400)

(0004)

(3010)

(3100)

(3001)

(1300)

(0310)

(0301)

(1030)

(0130)

(0031)

(1003)

(0013)

(0103)

(2101)

(2110)

(2011)

(1210)

(1201)

(0211)

(0121)

(1021)

(1120)

(1012)

(1102)

(0112)

(2020)

(0202)

(2200)

(2002)

(0220)

(0022)

(1111)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Pro

ba

bili

tie

s

Output states

FIG. S3. (color online). Experimental results of the QFT interferometers with distinguishable single-photon inputs. (a) n = 2.(b) n = 3. (c) n = 4. We obtained fidelities as (a) 0.999 ± 0.002, (b) 0.999 ± 0.001 and (c) 0.998 ± 0.001. Error bars are onestandard deviation due to propagated Poissonian statistics.

0 4 5 9 0 1 3 5 1 8 00 . 0

0 . 2

0 . 4

0 . 6

0 . 8

1 . 0 n o r m a l i z e d l i n e a r p h a s e - 3 p h o t o n s n o r m a l i z e d l i n e a r p h a s e - 4 p h o t o n s d e l t a p h a s e - 3 p h o t o n s d e l t a p h a s e - 4 p h o t o n s

Proba

bility

P h a s e s h i f t ( d e g r e e s )

FIG. S4. (color online). Normalized linear phase versus delta phase.