. For example, $w_2(t)$ captures the increase in the pulse length with photon number due to an increase in thermal recovery time [^1]. However, since the dominant contribution to the data variance is from $w_1(t)$, particularly for the low photon numbers considered here, we choose to solely focus on this component for the remainder of our analysis.

*Detector tomography:* We now seek to determine the correspondence between the reduced detector signals and the input number of photons by carrying out detector tomography [@Lundeen2008]. The goal of detector tomography is to determine the positive-operator-valued measure (POVM) $\{ \pi(s) \}$ that fully characterises the detector response; this is parameterised by the outcome $s$ in the space of $s_{i1}$. Once the POVM is known, the probability density for detector outcome $s$, given input state $\rho$, is determined by the Born rule $$p(s | {\rho}) = \mathrm{Tr}\left [\rho \, \pi(s) \right ] \label{eqn:born}.$$ The standard approach to tomography consists of experimentally estimating the outcome probability densities $p(s | \rho_k)$ for a set of known probe basis states $\left \{ \rho_k \right \}$. Using these estimated probabilities, equation (\[eqn:born\]) can then, in principle, be inverted to find $\pi(s)$.

The set of probe states $\left \{ \rho_k \right \}$ must provide a sufficient basis for the operator space of the POVM $\{ \pi(s) \}$; in other words, it must be tomographically complete. We satisfy this constraint by using a well established method [@Lundeen2008] for tomography of PNRDs based on coherent state probes $\ket{\alpha}$. It is well known that coherent states form an over-complete basis for an optical mode. Coherent states are also straightforward to generate in the lab and are insensitive in form to experimental losses during preparation, making them ideal probe states. Additionally, as TES detectors are phase insensitive, their response depends only on the magnitude of the coherent state parameter $\alpha$, and not its phase. This significantly reduces the number of probe states needed to form a tomographically complete set of basis operators and removes the need for any phase reference in the experiment.

A phase insensitive detector will have POVM elements diagonal in the photon-number basis; these can therefore
. For example, $ w_2(t)$ captures the increase in the pulse duration with photon numeral due to an increase in thermal recovery time   [ ^1 ]. However, since the prevailing contribution to the data variance is from $ w_1(t)$, particularly for the gloomy photon numbers considered here, we choose to entirely concentrate on this component for the end of our analysis. 

 * Detector tomography :* We now seek to settle the correspondence between the reduced detector signals and the input number of photon by carrying out detector tomography   [ @Lundeen2008 ]. The goal of detector imaging is to determine the positive - operator - valued measure (POVM) $ \ { \pi(s) \}$ that amply characterises the detector response; this is parameterised by the outcome $ s$ in the space of $ s_{i1}$. Once the POVM is known, the probability concentration for detector outcome $ s$, given input state $ \rho$, is determined by the Born dominion $ $ p(s | { \rho }) = \mathrm{Tr}\left [ \rho \, \pi(s) \right ] \label{eqn: born}.$$ The standard approach to tomography consists of experimentally estimating the outcome probability densities $ p(s | \rho_k)$ for a set of known probe basis states $ \left \ { \rho_k \right \}$. Using these estimate probabilities, equation   (\[eqn: born\ ]) can then, in rationale, be turn back to receive $ \pi(s)$. 

 The set of probe states $ \left \ { \rho_k \right \}$ must leave a sufficient basis for the operator space of the POVM $ \ { \pi(s) \}$; in other word, it must be tomographically complete. We satisfy this constraint by using a well established method   [ @Lundeen2008 ] for imaging of PNRDs based on coherent state probes $ \ket{\alpha}$. It is well known that coherent states form an over - complete footing for an ocular mode. Coherent states are also straightforward to render in the lab and are insensitive in form to experimental losses during preparation, reach them ideal probe states. Additionally, as TES detectors are phase insensitive, their reply depends entirely on the magnitude of the coherent state argument $ \alpha$, and not its phase. This significantly reduces the number of probe states necessitate to form a tomographically arrant set of basis operators and removes the need for any phase mention in the experiment. 

 A phase insensitive detector will have POVM component diagonal in the photon - number basis; these can therefore
. Fog example, $w_2(t)$ captures tht increase in the pulse nength with phuton number due to an increade in tyermal recovery time [^1]. Huwever, sijce the eomiiant contributioi to the data bwriaucx is from $w_1(t)$, patticularly fmr the low phodov uumbers considered here, we choose to solely flcus on this cjmpomqnt ror the remainder of our analysis.

*Dstector tomography:* Wr now seek to determine thf cogrespondence betwefn the reduxed qwtector signxls and tht nnput numbet of photons by carrying out detdctor tomographi [@Lhnfgen2008]. The goal of dvtector tomogvsphy iv to deyermine the poxitmve-operator-valued measure (POVM) $\{ \pi(s) \}$ that folly charawtzrises the detector rwsponse; thiv is parxmeuermses by tje kutcome $s$ jn the spacw of $s_{i1}$. Once the POFM px known, the lrobabylyty density for detector outcome $s$, givet ihput state $\rho$, is deternined by the Born rulg $$p(s | {\rho}) = \mathrm{Tr}\left [\rho \, \pi(s) \right ] \label{eqn:born}.$$ The stdndarv xppxiach gi homography consists of experimentally estimatyhg tme outcome probanility densities $p(x | \rnj_k)$ for a set uf knoch lrobe basis states $\left \{ \tho_k \rught \}$. Usigg tnese estimated probabilitiew, equation (\[equ:boen\]) can then, in priuciple, be inrerted to fond $\pi(s)$.

The set of probe stafes $\left \{ \rjo_k \right \}$ must provide a rufnichent basis for the operatow space oh the POVM $\{ \oi(s) \}$; in otrer words, lt must be tomographicalpy colpnete. We sahisfy this constraint by using e well establosved method [@Lbndeen2008] for tomograpry of PNRDs baxed on eoherevt state pgobes $\ket{\elpha}$. It is rell known thdj coherent stetes form an iver-xompletd basis for an pptical mode. Coherebt states are also sttajghtforward to ytnetqte in the lab ana awe iisensydive in form to dxpdtimengal losses bufing preparation, making dhem ideal probe statex. Wdditionqlly, as EES detectors are phase insensiuive, tieir rxsponsr dgpends only on the magnitude of the cohegenb state paramqter $\alpha$, and npt its phase. This significantly reduces the number of prove states needed to norm a tomogcaphicwlly compnete set of basis opwrators and removts the need for any phaae refarencf in the experiment.

A phase insensitive detector will have POVM elements duagonal in the phofon-nimber bcsix; thesq cai vherefore
. For example, $w_2(t)$ captures the increase pulse with photon due to an [^1]. since the dominant to the data is from $w_1(t)$, particularly for the photon numbers considered here, we choose to solely focus on this component for remainder of our analysis. *Detector tomography:* We now seek to determine the correspondence the detector and input number of photons by carrying out detector tomography [@Lundeen2008]. The goal of detector tomography is determine the positive-operator-valued measure (POVM) $\{ \pi(s) \}$ fully characterises the detector this is parameterised by the $s$ the space $s_{i1}$. the is known, the density for detector outcome $s$, given input state $\rho$, is determined by the Born rule $$p(s | = \mathrm{Tr}\left \pi(s) \right \label{eqn:born}.$$ standard to tomography consists estimating the outcome probability densities $p(s a set of known probe basis states $\left \rho_k \right Using these estimated probabilities, equation (\[eqn:born\]) then, in principle, be inverted to find $\pi(s)$. set of probe states $\left \{ \rho_k \right \}$ must provide a sufficient basis for space of the POVM \pi(s) \}$; in words, must tomographically We satisfy constraint by using a well established method [@Lundeen2008] for tomography of based on coherent state probes $\ket{\alpha}$. It is well known states an over-complete basis an optical mode. Coherent are straightforward to generate in and insensitive experimental during making them ideal probe Additionally, as TES detectors are insensitive, their response depends the coherent state parameter $\alpha$, and not its This significantly reduces the number of probe needed to form a tomographically complete set of basis operators and removes need for reference in the experiment. A phase insensitive detector have POVM elements diagonal the photon-number basis; these can therefore
. For example, $w_2(t)$ captures the inCrease in thE pulsE leNgtH wIth pHotoN number due to an INcreAse in thermal recovery tiMe [^1]. HowEvER, sinCE tHe domInant coNTrIBUtiOn To The DaTA vArianCe iS from $w_1(t)$, ParticularLy fOr The low photon NUmBers considEreD here, we choosE to Solely FoCus ON this ComPonenT for thE RemainDer of our aNaLYsis.

*DeTEctor toMOGrAphy:* we now seek to determINe THe correspondenCe betwEeN ThE REduCed Detector siGnAls anD The inpuT NuMBER of PHotons by carryIng out detecTOr tOmograPhY [@LuNDeen2008]. ThE goal Of DEteCtor tomograPhy iS to determIne the POsitive-OPerator-Valued MeaSurE (POVm) $\{ \Pi(S) \}$ tHat FuLLy cHArActERisEs the detEcToR respOnse; THIS Is paRamEterIsed bY the outcome $s$ iN thE spaCE of $S_{i1}$. OncE the PoVM iS kNown, tHe probAbiliTy Density for detecTor oUtcome $s$, giVen InPut StAte $\rhO$, Is deteRmiNed By the BoRn rule $$p(S | {\Rho}) = \MaTHRM{TR}\left [\rho \, \pi(s) \right ] \laBeL{EQn:Born}.$$ The sTandarD ApPrOAch to tomOgRapHy coNSIsts oF expERiMentally EstimaTInG tHe outcoMe ProbabIlIty DenSitieS $P(s | \rhO_k)$ for a Set of knoWn proBE basis states $\leFT \{ \rho_k \right \}$. UsiNG tHESe EStimAteD probabilitIes, eQUatiOn (\[eqN:BoRn\]) cAN then, In priNcIPlE, Be inverted to find $\pi(s)$.

thE set of Probe States $\left \{ \rho_K \right \}$ must PROVide a sufFiciENt BAsis for the operAtor sPace of the PovM $\{ \pi(s) \}$; in oTher wOrds, it muSt be tomogRAPhically ComPleTe. WE saTISfY this constraiNT By usInG a well eStaBlished MetHod [@lunDeeN2008] fOr tomograPhy of PNRds BaSeD oN coHerenT State proBeS $\keT{\aLphA}$. It is WEll knoWn thaT cohErEnT StaTes form AN oVER-comPlEtE basIs fOr An optIcal MOde. coherenT states arE alSO strAiGhTforwarD to generate in ThE lab and are InSenSitive IN Form to exPerimental losses during pREparatiOn, mAking Them Ideal probE stAtes. AdDitIOnally, As TES dEtectOrS arE PHase iNSEnSitIvE, their respONSe dEpendS oNly oN the magNitude of the coherenT StaTe parameter $\alPha$, And nOT ItS phASe. tHis SiGNifICAntly reduces the Number of prObE StAtes needed TO foRm A tomogrAphicalLy comPLete set Of basis opErators anD rEmovES The Need for any Phase refErence in tHE expeRImEnt.

A pHasE insenSiTivE deteCtor wiLL haVe POVm elemeNtS diagoNal in ThE photon-nUmber basis; these can thereFore
. For example, $w_2(t)$ ca ptures the  incr eas e i nthepuls e length withp hoto n number due to an inc rease  i n  the r ma l rec overy t i me [ ^1] .Ho wev er ,  s incethe  domina nt contrib uti on  to the data va riance isfro m $w_1(t)$,par ticula rl y f o r the  lo w pho ton nu m bers c onsidered  h e re, we chooset o  s olel y focus on this c o mp o nent for the r emaind er of o urana lysis.

*D et ector tomogra p hy : * Wen ow seek to de termine the cor respon de nce betwee n the  r e duc ed detector  sig nals andthe in p ut numb e r of ph otonsbycar ryin g  o ut  de te c tor to mog r aph y [@Lund ee n2 008].  The g o a l of  de tect or to mography is t o d eter m ine  theposit ive- op erato r-valu ed me as ure (POVM) $\{\pi( s) \}$ th atfu lly  c harac t erises  th e d etector  respon s e;th i s is  parameterised byth e ou tcome $s $ in t h esp a ce of $s _{ i1} $. O n c e the  POV M  i s known,  the p r ob ab ility d en sity f or  de tec tor o u tcom e $s$,  given i nputs tate $\rho$, i s  determined b y  t h e  B o rn r ule  $$p(s | {\ rho} )  = \ math r m{ Tr} \ left[\rho  \ ,  \ p i(s) \right ] \labe l{ eqn:bo rn}.$ $ The standar d approach t o  tomogra phyc on s ists of experi menta lly estima t ing theoutco me proba bility de n s ities $p (s| \ rho _k) $ fo r a set of kn o w n pr ob e basis  st ates $\ lef t \ { \ rho _k  \right \ }$. Usin gth es eest imate d  probabi li tie s,  eq uatio n  (\[eq n:bor n\])  c an the n, in p r in c i ple,  b einve rte dto fi nd $ \ pi( s)$.

T he set of  pr o be s ta te s $\lef t \{ \rho_k \ ri ght \}$ mu st  pr ovidea sufficie nt basis for the operat o r space  of  thePOVM  $\{ \pi( s)\}$; i n o t her wo rds, i t mus tbet o mogra p h ic all ycomplete.W e  sa tisfy  t hisconstra int by using a wel l  es tablished met hod  [@L u n de en2 0 08 ]  fo rt omo g r aphy of PNRDs b ased on co he r en t state pr o bes  $ \ket{\a lpha}$.  It i s  well k nown that  coherent  s tate s for m an over- complete  basis fo r  an o p ti cal m ode . Cohe re ntstate s area lso  stra ightfo rw ard to  gene ra te in th e lab and are insensiti ve informtoexperimen tal los ses durin g pr eparation,  ma kin g the m i d eal p robe st ate s . Add itio n ally, asT ES  de t e ct ors are pha s e ins ensit ive ,  their  res ponse depends onl y  on the magnit udeo f  th e c o here nt  state paramet er$\ a l pha$, an dnot its pha se. This  s i gnifi cantly  reduc es then u mb e r of p robe  st ates need edto form ato mo g raphic ally  c omplet e seto f ba s i s operators andremov e s  then eed  foran y phase refe rence in t he experime nt.

A  pha se in sensiti ve  detec tor  w ill have P O VM elemen ts di agonalin  the  ph oton-n umbe r basis ; th es e c an theref o r e
. For_example, $w_2(t)$_captures the increase in_the pulse_length_with photon_number_due to an_increase in thermal_recovery time [^1]. However, since_the dominant contribution_to_the data variance is from $w_1(t)$, particularly for the low photon numbers considered here,_we_choose to_solely_focus_on this component for the_remainder of our analysis.

*Detector tomography:*_We now_seek to determine the correspondence between the reduced_detector_signals and the_input number of photons by carrying out detector tomography [@Lundeen2008]._The goal of detector tomography is_to determine the_positive-operator-valued_measure_(POVM) $\{ \pi(s) \}$_that fully characterises the detector response;_this is parameterised by the outcome_$s$ in the space of $s_{i1}$. Once_the POVM is known, the probability_density for detector outcome $s$,_given input_state $\rho$, is determined by_the Born rule_$$p(s |_{\rho}) = \mathrm{Tr}\left_[\rho \, \pi(s) \right ] \label{eqn:born}.$$_The standard approach_to tomography consists of experimentally estimating_the_outcome probability densities_$p(s_|_\rho_k)$ for_a set of_known_probe basis_states_$\left \{ \rho_k \right \}$. Using_these_estimated probabilities, equation (\[eqn:born\]) can then, in principle,_be inverted to find_$\pi(s)$.

The_set of probe states_$\left \{ \rho_k \right \}$_must provide a sufficient basis for_the operator_space of_the POVM $\{ \pi(s) \}$; in other words, it must be_tomographically complete. We satisfy this constraint_by using a well_established method [@Lundeen2008]_for_tomography of PNRDs_based_on coherent_state probes $\ket{\alpha}$. It is well known_that coherent_states form an over-complete basis for_an optical mode. Coherent_states_are also straightforward to generate in_the lab and are insensitive in_form to experimental losses during_preparation,_making_them ideal probe states. Additionally,_as TES detectors are phase insensitive,_their response depends_only on the magnitude of the coherent_state_parameter $\alpha$, and not its phase._This_significantly reduces the number of probe_states_needed_to form a tomographically complete_set of basis operators and removes_the need for any phase reference in the experiment.

A_phase insensitive detector_will have POVM elements diagonal_in_the_photon-number basis; these can therefore