\documentclass[aps,pra,,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4-2} 
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{float}

\begin{document}
	\title{Supplementary Material for \\ Narrowband four-photon states from spontaneous four-wave mixing}
	\author{Yifan~Li}
	\author{Justin Yu Xiang Peh}
	\author{Chang Hoong Chow}
	\author{Boon Long Ng}
	\author{Vindhiya Prakash}
	\affiliation{Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543}
	\author{Christian~Kurtsiefer}
	\affiliation{Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543}
	\affiliation{Department of Physics, National University of Singapore, 2 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117551}
	\email[]{christian.kurtsiefer@gmail.com}
	
\maketitle

\appendix
%\section{Supplementary Material}

\section{Event searching algorithms}\label{app:algorithms}
The search for multiple coincidences over timestamp data from four detectors is a computationally resource intensive task. We employ the following strategy to identify triplets and quadruplets. We first identify pair coincidences at various relative delays for each pair from the following possible pairs of Stokes-anti-Stokes detections  D1-D3, D1-D4, D2-D3, and D2-D4. %We note the respective photon arrival timestamp data.  
The triplet coincidences are then identified based on the pair detections that share a photon arrival timestamp within a (short) coinciden time window. Quadruplet events are identified from triplet detections that share a common timestamp with a pair detection (again within an adequate coinciden time window).

For example, to identify triplet events involving D1, D3, and D4, we compare the timestamps of pairs between D1 and D3 detected at timestamps $t_{1}$ and $t_{3}$ with pairs between D1 and D4 detected at timestamps $t_{1}'$ and $t_{4}$. Pair events that share a common timestamp in D1 i.e. $t_{1}=t_{1}'$, are taken to form the triplet event $(t_{1}, t_{3}, t_{4})$. This information can be used to identify quadruplets detected across the four detectors. For this we compare pair events  between D2 (at $t_2$) and D4 (at time $t_4^*$)  with the previously identified triplet event with times $t_{1}, t_{3}, t_{4}$. When $t_{4}=t_{4}^*$, the events are combined to form a quadruplet detection with the timestamp $t_1, t_2, t_3,t_4$. Thus, we can efficiently search for pair, triplet, and quadruplet events from timestamp data and plot the temporal distribution of these coincidences.

\section{Correlated quadruplets vs uncorrelated double pairs}\label{app:corrvsuncorr}
We compare the four-photon component of the output (i.e., Stokes and
anti-Stokes photons) in two different scenarios: (a) when the output contains an aggregate of multiple independent SFWM events in the cloud with (b) when the output can be described as generated from a single coherent SFWM process. When a large number of independent SFWM processes take place, any $2n$ photon state can be satisfactorily described as $n$ independent pairs \cite{deriedmattenTwoIndependentPhoton2004}. In this case, the probability $P'_n$ of creating $n$ pairs within a certain time window is described by a Poisson distribution of mean $\mu$, $P'_n=e^{-\mu}\mu^n/n!$. For small $\mu$, $P'_4 \approx P'^2_2/2$. Here the four-photon states can be understood as a consequence of independent pairs that are coincidental in time.  However, if the output is the consequence of a single coherent SFWM process, it is described by Eq.~(1) in the main manuscript. At small interaction strengths ($\zeta\ll 1$) the probability of generating states with four photons ($P_4$) relates to the probability of producing pairs ($P_2$) as $P_4=P^2_2$. Here the quadruplets are time-correlated. The probability of generating four-photon states in the latter scenario, is twice as much as in the former scenario. 

The factor of two in the ratio between correlated four-photons and uncorrelated double pairs also manifests in a measurement of the third-order correlation between the modes as seen in Fig.~3 in the manuscript. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:TripletReduced}), 
when all delays are less than the coherence time ($\Delta t$) of the photons i.e., $\tau_{3s}, \tau_{34}, \tau_{4s} \lesssim \Delta t$, the third-order correlation increases several-fold. Using $g^{(2)}_{a,a}(0)=2$ (thermal statistics in each of the two correlated modes), we get the limit $g^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(0,0,0) \leq 4  g^{(2)}_{a,s}(0)$.  The theoretical maximum possible value of $g^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(0,0,0) = 4  g^{(2)}_{a,s}(0)$ is obtained when $g^{(2)}_{a,s}(0)\gg 1 $, a condition true for highly non-classical pair sources. Thus, theoretically, the peak is expected to be 4 times the average in either the horizontal or vertical ridges, or 2 times the sum of horizontal and vertical ridges, when the output contains highly correlated four-photon states. 

\begin{comment}
From Eq.~(1) in the main manuscript, it is evident that at small interaction strengths ($\zeta\approx0$) the probability of generating states with four photons ($P_4$) relates to the probability of producing pairs ($P_2$) as $P_4=P^2_2$.

If SFWM process does not generate correlated four-photon states, but instead only generates correlated-pairs, the output would still sontain   We first analyse the difference in probability of generating four-photon states, when the output is described as a two-mode squeezed state as shown in Eq.~(1) in the main manuscript vs when the output is a Poissonian. 


From Eq.~(\ref{eq:two_mode_squeezing_state2}), it is evident that at small interaction strengths ($\zeta\approx0$) the probability of generating states with four photons ($P_4$) relates to the probability of producing pairs ($P_2$) as $P_4=P^2_2$. In this case the four-photon states contain correlated and entangled quadruplets of two Stokes and anti-Stokes photons 
generated within a single SFWM process
\cite{deriedmattenTwoIndependentPhoton2004}. Furthermore, this is twice the
probability of four-photon states present if the output contains a Poissonian
distribution of photons \cite{deriedmattenTwoIndependentPhoton2004} (refer
Supplementary Material there). 


\end{comment}
	
\section{Expanded Second, Third and Fourth order correlation functions  }\label{app:coincidencerates}

Here we express the double, triple and quadruple coincidence rates in terms of the phase sensitive first-order cross-correlation,
\begin{equation}
	C(\tau_{ij}) = \langle \hat{E}_i(t+\tau_{ij}) \hat{E}_{j}(t)\rangle,
\end{equation}
and the first-order autocorrelation
\begin{equation}
	R(\tau_{ij}) = \langle \hat{E}^\dagger_i(t+\tau_{ij}) \hat{E}_j(t)\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here $i$ and $j$ can be $s$ and/or $a$ to represent the Stokes and/or anti-Stokes mode, or  $\{i,j\}\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ to represent one of the four detection channels. 
Note, $ R(0)$ is the pair generation rate. % and $R_{s,a}(\tau)=c_{s,s}(\tau)=c_{a,a}(\tau)=0$ 

The second order intensity correlation between fields $\hat{E}_i$ and $\hat{E}_j$ in modes $i$ and $j$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normg2}
	g^{(2)}_{ji}(\tau_{ji})= \frac{\langle\hat{E}^{\dagger}_{i}(t_{i})\hat{E}^{\dagger}_{j}(t_{i}+\tau_{ji})\hat{E}_{j}(t_{i}+\tau_{ji})\hat{E}_{i}(t_{i})\rangle}{\langle \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{j}(t_{i}+\tau_{ji})\hat{E}_{j}(t_{i}+\tau_{ji})\rangle \langle \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{i}(t_{i})\hat{E}_{i}(t_{i})\rangle }\ . 
\end{equation}
When the state under consideration is the output of a parametric photon-pair production process such as SPDC or SFWM, the Gaussian moment factoring theorem can be applied to the intensity correlations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:normg2}) to give the following expressions for the normalized intensity cross-correlation \cite{shapiroSemiclassicalQuantumBehavior1994}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normcross}
	g^{(2)}_{s,a}(\tau)=1+\frac{|C(\tau_{s,a})|^2}{|R(0)|^2},
\end{equation}
and the normalized intensity autocorrelation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normauto}
	g^{(2)}_{i,i}(\tau)=1+\frac{|R(\tau_{i,i})|^2}{|R(0)|^2}.
\end{equation}

The triple-coincidence rate $G^{(3)}_{a,a,s}$ for an two anti-Stoke detections, one each at times $t_3$ and $t_4$ in D3 and D4, respectively, and a single Stokes detection at time $t_s$ in either of D1 or D2
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		G^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(t_3,& t_4,t_s)=\\ 
		& \langle \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{s}(t_{\text{s}})\hat{E}^{\dagger}_{a}(t_{\text{3}}) \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{a}(t_{4})\hat{E}_{a}(t_{4})\hat{E}_{a}(t_{\text{3}})\hat{E}_{s}(t_{s}) \rangle,
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
can be similarly expanded and expressed in terms of relative delays to give \cite{razaviCharacterizingHeraldedSinglephoton2009,bettelliCommentCoherenceMeasures2010}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tripletrate}
	\begin{aligned}
		G^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(\tau_{3s},\tau_{4s},\tau_{34})  = \, &   R(0)[R(0)^2 + |R(\tau_{34})|^{2}] \\ 
		& + R(0)[|C(\tau_{3s})|^{2}+|C(\tau_{4s})|^{2}] \\
		& + 2\text{Re}\{C(\tau_{3s})C^{\ast}(\tau_{4s})R(\tau_{34})\}.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus the accidental triplet events are a sum of four contributions:
accidental singles detected in each of the three channels, a correlated pair
between the Stokes mode and D3 (D4) with an accidental in D4 (D3), and
thermally bunched photons in the anti-Stokes (causing coincidences in D3 and
D4) with an accidental single in the Stokes mode (D1 or D2). Using
Eq.~(\ref{eq:normcross} (and Eq.~(\ref{eq:normauto}) this can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		G^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(\tau_{3s},\tau_{4s},\tau_{34}) 	=\, & R(0)^3 g^{(2)}_{a, a}(\tau_{34})+ R(0)^3 g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{3s})\\ 
		&+R(0)^3g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{4s}) - 2R(0)^3  \\
		&  +2 R(0)^3 \sqrt{g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{3s})-1} \\ & \sqrt{{g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{4s})-1}}
		\times \sqrt{{g^{(2)}_{a, a}(\tau_{34})-1}}.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The normalized third-order correlation is then
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		g^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(\tau_{3s},\tau_{4s},\tau_{34})=&\frac{G^{(3)}_{a,a,s}(\tau_{3s},\tau_{4s},\tau_{34})}{R(0)^3}\\
		=\, & g^{(2)}_{a, a}(\tau_{34})+ g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{3s})\\ 
		&+g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{4s}) - 2  \\
		&  +2 \sqrt{g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{3s})-1} \sqrt{{g^{(2)}_{a, s}(\tau_{4s})-1}} \\
		& \times \sqrt{{g^{(2)}_{a, a}(\tau_{34})-1}}.
	\end{aligned} \label{eq:TripletReduced}
\end{equation}

Similarly, the quadruplet rate for detecting two Stokes photons at times $t_1,$ and $t_2$ and two anti-Stokes photons at times $t_3$ and $t_4$,
\begin{small}
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:g4}
		\begin{aligned}
			& {   G^{(4)}_{s,s,a,a}(t_1, t_2, t_3, t_4) =} \\
			& { \langle \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{a}(t_{\text{4}})
					\hat{E}^{\dagger}_{a}(t_{\text{3}}) \hat{E}^{\dagger}_{s}(t_{2})\hat{E}^{\dagger}_{s}(t_{1})\hat{E}_{s}(t_{1})\hat{E}_{s}(t_{2})\hat{E}_{a}(t_{\text{3}})\hat{E}_{a}(t_{\text{4}}) \rangle}.
		\end{aligned}
	\end{equation}
\end{small}

Applying the Gaussian moment factoring theorem, we obtain the following expression in terms of relative delays. 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:quadrupletrate}
	\begin{aligned}
		G^{(4)}_{s,s,a,a}(\tau_{34}, \tau_{24}, & \tau_{14},\tau_{23} ,\tau_{21},\tau_{13})=R(0)^4 \\
		&+R(0)^2[ |R(\tau_{43})|^2+|R(\tau_{21})|^2]\\
		&+R(0)^2[ |C(\tau_{23})|^2+|C(\tau_{24})|^2] \\ 
		&+R(0)^2[|C(\tau_{13})|^2+|C(\tau_{14})|^2]\\
		&+2R(0)\mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{34})C^*(\tau_{24})C(\tau_{23})\}\\
		&+2R(0)\mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{34})C^*(\tau_{14})C(\tau_{13})\}\\
		&+2R(0)\mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{21})C^*(\tau_{14})C(\tau_{24})\}\\
		&+2R(0)\mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{21})C^*(\tau_{13})C(\tau_{23})\}\\
		&+ |R(\tau_{43})|^2|R(\tau_{21})|^2 \\ 
		&+|C(\tau_{13})|^2|C(\tau_{24})|^2+|C(\tau_{14})|^2|C(\tau_{23})|^2\\&+2\mathrm{Re}\{C^*(\tau_{24})C^*(\tau_{13})C(\tau_{14})C(\tau_{23})\}]\\
		&+2 \mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{34})R(\tau_{12})C^*(\tau_{24})C(\tau_{13})\}\\
		&+2 \mathrm{Re}\{R(\tau_{34})R(\tau_{21})C(\tau_{23})C^*(\tau_{14})\}\,.\\
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

From the 17 terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:quadrupletrate}), all terms other than the last three are contributions due to accidentals. Terms 2-7 are due to two accidentals combined either with a correlated Stokes-anti-Stokes pair or with thermally bunched photons in either of the Stokes or anti-Stokes modes. Terms 8-11 are caused by an accidental combined with a correlated triplet in three detectors. Term 12 is from bunching in both the Stokes and anti-Stokes modes. Terms 13 and 14 are correlated pairs from separate SFWM events contributing to four-fold coincidences. Terms 15, 16 and 17 are due to correlated double-pairs from the same SFWM event.

\section{Accidental Correction Procedure}\label{app:accidental}
Correction must be performed to eliminate contributions from accidental coincidences between uncorrelated events from different channels. This can be visualized as the relative probability of independent events falling within the same coincidence time window $t_c$ (i.e. random chance). For coincidences between two detectors, the accidental rate is $ t_c R_i R_j $
for singles rates $R_i$ and $R_j$ in detectors D$i$ and D$j$, respectively. Excess coincidence events after correction can then only be attributed to actual correlations between channels: in the case of two detectors D$i$ and D$j$ with an observed pair rate of $R_{ij}$, the correlated pair rate $c_{ij}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
	c_{ij} = R_{ij} - t_c R_i R_j.
\end{equation}


The total correlated pair rate is $c_p=\sum_{i,j}c_{ij}$ for $\{i,j\} \in \{\{1,3\},\{1,4\},\{2,3\}, \{2,4\}\}$.

These correlated pairs (and separately, accidentals) can be modeled as a separate stream of events that factor into the calculation of higher-order accidentals, e.g. 3-fold accidentals between channels $i,j$ and $k$ occur due to accidental coincidences across the individual channels $\{R_i,R_j,R_k\}$, as well as pairs with the remaining channel $\{c_{ij},R_k\}$, $\{c_{ik},R_j\}$ and $\{c_{jk},R_i\}$. For instance, in Fig.~3 in the manuscript, these correspond to the general background horizontal, vertical ridges and diagonal ridges when $\{i,j,k\}=\{s,3,4\}$. 

The correlated triplet rate is thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tripletcorr}
c_{ijk} = R_{ijk} - t_c\left(c_{ij}R_{k} + c_{jk}R_i + c_{ik}R_j\right) - t_c^2R_{i}R_{j}R_{k}
\end{equation}
given an observed triplet rate of $R_{ijk}$.

It can be seen that each of the individual terms contributing to the $n$-fold coincidences correspond to a possible partitioning of the set of all channels, with the total number of partitions given by Bell's number $B_n$ (i.e. $B_2 = 2$, $B_3 = 5$, $B_4=15$). We write out explicitly the exhaustive 14-term correction performed for 4-fold coincidences,
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
	c_{1234} &= R_{1234} \\
	&- t_c\left(c_{12}c_{34} + c_{13}c_{24} + c_{14}c_{23}\right) \\
	&- t_c\left(c_{123}R_{4} + c_{124}R_3 + c_{134}R_2 + c_{234}R_1\right) \\
	&- t_c^2\left(c_{12}R_{3}R_{4} + c_{13}R_2R_4 + c_{14}R_2R_3\right) \\
	&- t_c^2\left(c_{23}R_1R_4 + c_{24}R_1R_3 + c_{34}R_1R_2\right) \\
	&- t_c^3R_{1}R_{2}R_{3}R_{4}.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

We also make a small note that this correction slightly overestimates the actual accidental rate~\cite{janossy1944rate} due to the $n$-fold coincidence calculation method containing an implicit ordering of events that introduces excess accidentals. 

In the experiment, this overcompensation is minimized by using a small 20\,ns coincidence window. At fixed pump and coupling powers of $800\, \mu$W and 10\,mW, respectively, and $\Delta_p=40$ MHz, the mean value of singles rates for Stokes photons is $R_s=(1.04 \pm 0.07)\times 10^{6} \text{\ cps}$ and anti-Stokes photons $R_{a}= (1.10 \pm 0.06) \times 10^{6} \text{\ cps}$. Performing accidental subtraction as outlined above we obtained a correlated-pair detection rate $c_p= (4.8 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{4} \text{\ cps}$. 

As we can see from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tripletcorr}), the accidental corrected rate depends on the combination of detectors chosen. Thus, we report detector-specific accidental-corrected triplet rates. The corrected rate of detected photon triplets consisting of one Stokes photon and one anti-Stokes photon each in D3 and D4 is $c_{134}+c_{234}=(251 \pm 10)\text{\ cps}$, while the rate for triplets consisting of a Stokes photon each in D1 and D2 and one anti-Stokes photon is $ c_{123}+c_{124}=( 246 \pm 7)\text{\ cps}$.
The correlated photon quadruplet rate after accidental subtraction for a detection in each of the four detectors, is found to be 
$c_{q}=(2.9 \pm 0.4) \text{\ cps}$. 

We infer the generation rates of pairs $g_{p}$ and double-pairs $g_{q}$ from detected accidental-corrected rates of pairs, triplets and quadruplets by factoring in the losses as described in Appendix~\ref{app:generationrate}.
Most of the accidentals are dominated by coincidences between uncorrelated souble pairs (5.5\,cps), followed by coincidences from a pair and two singles (5.6\,cps) and coincidences from a triplet combined with a single (4.8\,cps).


\section{Channel Losses}\label{app:ChannelLoss}
We characterize the losses in each channel to estimate the rate of correlated
pairs and double-pairs directly generated from the SFWM process. The total
transmission and detection probability in each channel $k \in\{1,2,3,4\}$,
which includes transmission of the collection and filtering setup, splitting
efficiency of the fiber-based 50:50 beamsplitter, and quantum efficiency of
the detector in the respective channel is denoted by $\eta_{k}$. The optical
losses in each channel are determined by measuring the transmission of a laser
beam (at the target wavelength) from outside the vacuum chamber to just before
the detector in each channel. We measure transmissions of $\approx 11.5\%$
each for channels 1 and 2 (with detectors D1 and D2, respectively) and $
12.5\%$ each for channels 3 and 4 (corresponding to D3 and D4, respectively),
which include the contributions from the filter Etalon and fiber
beamsplitter. Including the quantum efficiencies of avalanche photodiodes used
as single photon detectors in each channel (about 60-70$\%$ per detector), the
measured efficiencies $(\eta'_k)$ are 0.078, 0.083, 0.080, and 0.067 for
channels 1,2,3, and 4, respectively. These values provide an estimate of the
upper bound for effective efficiencies, as they do not account for absorption
in the atomic ensemble or spatial mode mismatch between the photons and the
collection optics.

Since we expect additional losses that are frequency specific to the Stokes and anti-Stokes modes, we define $\eta_i = \eta_s\eta'_i$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$ and $\eta_j = \eta_{a}\eta'_j$ for $j \in \{3,4\}$. We then use equations \ref{eq:triplet_detection} and \ref{eq:four_detection} to estimate $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{a}$. We infer additional losses that are $1-\eta_s=19 \%$ for channels in the Stokes arm and $1-\eta_{a}=8 \%$ for the anti-Stokes channels, which we attribute to a combination of above mentioned factors. Taking into account these additional losses, the total efficiencies are $\eta_1=0.022$ and $\eta_2=0.023$  for channels 1 and 2 pertaining to the Stokes modes, and the total efficiencies are $\eta_3 = 0.025$ and $\eta_4 = 0.021$   for channels 3 and 4 of the anti-Stokes mode.

\section{Generation Rates from Detection Rates}\label{app:generationrate}

We infer the generation rates of pairs $g_{p}$ and correlated double-pairs $g_{q}$ from the detected accidental-corrected rates of pairs, triplets and quadruplets by factoring in the channel losses as follows. The accidental-corrected quadruplet rate $c_{q}$ is solely contributed to by generated correlated double-pairs. There are four possible combinations by which each of the two Stokes photons reach D1 and D2 and each of the two anti-Stokes photons reach D3 and D4. This results in
\begin{equation}\label{eq:four_detection}
	c_{q} = 4 g_{q} \eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}\,.
\end{equation}

Similarly, double-pair generations are the sole contributors to accidental-corrected triplet coincidences. A triplet between detectors D1, D3 and D4 occurs from two possible combinations by which the two anti-Stokes photons reach one of D3 and D4 each (leading to the factor $2 \eta_3 \eta_4$), combined with the probability that at least one of the two Stokes photons reaches D1 (leading to the factor $1- (1-\eta_1)^2$ where $(1-\eta_1)^2$ is the probability that neither of the two Stokes photons reaches D1). Applying this to all combinations of triplet detections, 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:triplet_detection}
	\begin{aligned}
		c_{123} &= 2g_{q} \eta_{1}\eta_{2}(2-\eta_{3})\eta_{3} \\
		c_{124} &= 2g_{q} \eta_{1}\eta_{2}(2-\eta_{4})\eta_{4} \\
		c_{134} &= 2g_{q} \eta_{3}\eta_{4}(2-\eta_{1})\eta_{1} \\
		c_{234} &= 2 g_{q} \eta_{3}\eta_{4}(2-\eta_{2})\eta_{2}\,. \\ 
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $c_{ijk}$ is the rate of correlated triplets between detectors $i$, $j$ and $k$. We use this to estimate mean values of $g_{q}$. 

Since we have non-number-resolving detectors, both pairs and correlated
double-pairs from the SFWM process contribute to accidental-corrected pair
coincidences. A coincidence between D1 and D3 can be caused by a generated
pair where the Stokes photon is detected in D1 and the anti-Stokes is detected
in D3 ($\eta_1 \eta_3$) or the probability that at least one of two Stokes and
two anti-Stokes photons from a double-pair reach D1 and D3, respectively, ($
(1- (1-\eta_1)^2)(1- (1-\eta_3)^2)= \eta_1\eta_3(2-\eta_1)(2-\eta_3)$). This
results in
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pair_detection}
	\begin{aligned}
		c_{13} &= \eta_{1}\eta_{3}(g_{p} + g_{q} (2-\eta_{1})(2-\eta_{3})) \\
		c_{14} &=  \eta_{1}\eta_{4}(g_{p} +g_{q} (2-\eta_{1})(2-\eta_{4}))\\
		c_{23} &=  \eta_{2}\eta_{3}(g_{p} + g_{q}(2-\eta_{2})(2-\eta_{3}))\\
		c_{24} &=  \eta_{2}\eta_{4}(g_{p} +g_{q} (2-\eta_{2})(2-\eta_{4}))\,, \\
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $c_{ij}$ is the accidental-corrected pair rate between channels $i$ and $j$. 

We use use accidental-corrected pair, triplet and quadruplet rates to obtain values for $g_{p}$ and $g_{q}$, reported in the manuscript. 

\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-2}
%\bibliography{reference2.bib}
%apsrev4-2.bst 2019-01-14 (MD) hand-edited version of apsrev4-1.bst
%Control: key (0)
%Control: author (72) initials jnrlst
%Control: editor formatted (1) identically to author
%Control: production of article title (-1) disabled
%Control: page (0) single
%Control: year (1) truncated
%Control: production of eprint (0) enabled
\begin{thebibliography}{5}%
\makeatletter
\providecommand \@ifxundefined [1]{%
 \@ifx{#1\undefined}
}%
\providecommand \@ifnum [1]{%
 \ifnum #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
 \else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
 \fi
}%
\providecommand \@ifx [1]{%
 \ifx #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
 \else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
 \fi
}%
\providecommand \natexlab [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \enquote  [1]{``#1''}%
\providecommand \bibnamefont  [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \bibfnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \citenamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \href@noop [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \href [0]{\begingroup \@sanitize@url \@href}%
\providecommand \@href[1]{\@@startlink{#1}\@@href}%
\providecommand \@@href[1]{\endgroup#1\@@endlink}%
\providecommand \@sanitize@url [0]{\catcode `\\12\catcode `\$12\catcode
  `\&12\catcode `\#12\catcode `\^12\catcode `\_12\catcode `\%12\relax}%
\providecommand \@@startlink[1]{}%
\providecommand \@@endlink[0]{}%
\providecommand \url  [0]{\begingroup\@sanitize@url \@url }%
\providecommand \@url [1]{\endgroup\@href {#1}{\urlprefix }}%
\providecommand \urlprefix  [0]{URL }%
\providecommand \Eprint [0]{\href }%
\providecommand \doibase [0]{https://doi.org/}%
\providecommand \selectlanguage [0]{\@gobble}%
\providecommand \bibinfo  [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \bibfield  [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \translation [1]{[#1]}%
\providecommand \BibitemOpen [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemStop [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemNoStop [0]{.\EOS\space}%
\providecommand \EOS [0]{\spacefactor3000\relax}%
\providecommand \BibitemShut  [1]{\csname bibitem#1\endcsname}%
\let\auto@bib@innerbib\@empty
%</preamble>
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {{de Riedmatten}}\ \emph {et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont
  {{de Riedmatten}}, \citenamefont {Scarani}, \citenamefont {Marcikic},
  \citenamefont {Acin}, \citenamefont {Tittel}, \citenamefont {Zbinden},\ and\
  \citenamefont {Gisin}}]{deriedmattenTwoIndependentPhoton2004}%
  \BibitemOpen
  \bibfield  {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {{de
  Riedmatten}}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {V.}~\bibnamefont {Scarani}},
  \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont {Marcikic}}, \bibinfo
  {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Acin}}, \bibinfo {author}
  {\bibfnamefont {W.}~\bibnamefont {Tittel}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
  {H.}~\bibnamefont {Zbinden}},\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
  {N.}~\bibnamefont {Gisin}},\ }\href
  {https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340408232478} {\bibfield  {journal} {\bibinfo
  {journal} {Journal of Modern Optics}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {51}},\
  \bibinfo {pages} {1637} (\bibinfo {year} {2004})},\ \Eprint
  {https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310167} {quant-ph/0310167} \BibitemShut
  {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Shapiro}\ and\ \citenamefont
  {Sun}(1994)}]{shapiroSemiclassicalQuantumBehavior1994}%
  \BibitemOpen
  \bibfield  {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~H.}\ \bibnamefont
  {Shapiro}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.-X.}\ \bibnamefont
  {Sun}},\ }\href {https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAB.11.001130} {\bibfield
  {journal} {\bibinfo  {journal} {Journal of the Optical Society of America B}\
  }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {11}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {1130} (\bibinfo {year}
  {1994})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Razavi}\ \emph {et~al.}(2009)\citenamefont {Razavi},
  \citenamefont {S{\"o}llner}, \citenamefont {Bocquillon}, \citenamefont
  {Couteau}, \citenamefont {Laflamme},\ and\ \citenamefont
  {Weihs}}]{razaviCharacterizingHeraldedSinglephoton2009}%
  \BibitemOpen
  \bibfield  {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
  {Razavi}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont {S{\"o}llner}},
  \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont {Bocquillon}}, \bibinfo
  {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.}~\bibnamefont {Couteau}}, \bibinfo {author}
  {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont {Laflamme}},\ and\ \bibinfo {author}
  {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont {Weihs}},\ }\href
  {https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/42/11/114013} {\bibfield  {journal}
  {\bibinfo  {journal} {Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical
  Physics}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {42}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {114013}
  (\bibinfo {year} {2009})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont
  {Bettelli}(2010)}]{bettelliCommentCoherenceMeasures2010}%
  \BibitemOpen
  \bibfield  {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
  {Bettelli}},\ }\href {https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.037801} {\bibfield
  {journal} {\bibinfo  {journal} {Physical Review A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
  {volume} {81}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {037801} (\bibinfo {year}
  {2010})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Jánossy}(1944)}]{janossy1944rate}%
  \BibitemOpen
  \bibfield  {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont
  {Jánossy}},\ }\href@noop {} {\bibfield  {journal} {\bibinfo  {journal}
  {Nature}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {153}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {165}
  (\bibinfo {year} {1944})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\end{thebibliography}%


%\typeout{} 

%\printbibliography



\end{document}
