Advances in quantum imaging

Daniele Faccio; Dan Oron; Gabriela Barreto Lemos; Hugo Defienne; Maria Chekhova; Nicolas Treps; Sven Ramelow; Warwick P. Bowen

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 149 references

Advances in quantum imaging

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum microscopes are beating classical light in specific settings, from squeezed-light Raman gains to mid-IR imaging seen with visible photons.

desk verdict Honest, current review from the people who built the field; useful as a status report, but Section 5's 'practical quantum advantage' is softer than it looks because Q-ISM is never benchmarked against classical fluctuation imaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08415 v1 pith:YSCADEUN submitted 2024-11-13 quant-ph

Hugo Defienne , Warwick P. Bowen , Maria Chekhova , Gabriela Barreto Lemos , Dan Oron , Sven Ramelow , Nicolas Treps , Daniele Faccio This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumimagingsqueezedlightentangledphotonsphotonantibunchingsuperresolutionwithundetectedmicroscopysub-shot-noise

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review marshals the last five years of experiments to argue that quantum imaging has crossed from proof-of-concept to concrete, apparatus-specific advantage. Its central claim is that non-classical light can either beat the best classical imaging in a given setting or create capabilities classical light does not have. The supporting cases include a 35% signal-to-noise gain from squeezed light in stimulated Raman microscopy under photodamage constraints, separation estimation roughly five orders of magnitude below the Rayleigh limit using spatial-mode demultiplexing, superresolution from photon antibunching in standard fluorescent microscopy, and mid-infrared images formed with detectors that only see visible light. A sympathetic reader would take away that quantum light is becoming a practical part of the microscope builder's toolbox, with the strongest near-term cases in biologically compatible imaging and hard-to-detect wavelengths.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the quantum states of light and their measured correlations. Bright squeezed light reduces the noise on the information-carrying quadrature below shot noise, buying SNR in exactly the regimes where brighter illumination is forbidden by photodamage. Entangled photon pairs supply spatial and spectral correlations: intensity-correlation subtraction for sub-shot-noise imaging, two-photon coincidence detection that narrows the point-spread function by up to $\sqrt{N}$ or $1/N$, induced coherence without induced emission for imaging with undetected photons, and covariance-based distillation against stray light. Single-photon emitters contribute photon antibunching, a sub-Poissonian timing signature that raises the effective PSF power and sharpens the image. The review also leans on quantum estimation theory—the quantum Cramér-Rao bound and optimal mode-basis measurements—as the benchmark that separates genuine quantum gains from suboptimal classical implementations.

What would settle it

Repeat the squeezed-light Raman experiment of Ref. 3 with a fully optimized classical microscope at exactly the photodamage threshold; if the 35% SNR gain vanishes or falls below the claimed value, the absolute quantum advantage claim fails. Equivalently, rerun the SPADE separation measurement of Ref. 54 against an ideal Rayleigh-limited direct imager using the same detected photons; the five-order margin is only an advantage if that baseline is the best classical protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the non-classical properties of light sources—squeezing, entanglement, and antibunching—are now demonstrated resources for imaging, not just metrology. It reports that squeezed light gives an absolute quantum advantage in one specific sense: in Ref. 3 the same SNR could not be obtained classically without exceeding illumination intensities that irreversibly damage the yeast cell. For separation of two incoherent sources, Ref. 54 shows SPADE achieves precision of 20 nm with accuracy of 1 µm for a 1 mm beam, five orders beyond the Rayleigh limit and beyond ideal direct imaging. For entangled pairs, coincidence and induced-coherence schemes provide effective shorter wavelengths, sub-shot-noise subtraction, stray-light rejection, and imaging with undetected mid-IR photons. For single-photon emitters, antibunching in ordinary fluorophores enables roughly a twofold-to-threefold superresolution without any external squeezed or entangled source. The review's conclusion is that these are early but real demonstrations that quantum light can make visible what classical imaging leaves invisible.

Load-bearing premise

The review's positive claims depend on the cited classical baselines being genuinely optimal: if the shot-noise-limited comparison in the squeezed-Raman experiment or the direct-imaging baseline in the SPADE experiment is suboptimal, the reported quantum advantages shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In photodamage-limited biological imaging, squeezed light raises SNR without increasing illumination intensity, so existing microscopes could gain a quantum mode rather than requiring a new apparatus.
Mode-demultiplexing detection (SPADE) can beat the Rayleigh limit by orders of magnitude for estimating the separation of faint incoherent sources, with sub-micron accuracy on millimeter beams.
Imaging with undetected photons moves the sensing wavelength to the mid-IR while keeping detection in the visible, enabling absorption and spectral imaging where silicon cameras are blind.
Photon antibunching from ordinary fluorophores can sharpen images beyond the diffraction limit, often requiring only detector and analysis changes to existing scanning microscopes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The review stops short of claiming a general, apparatus-independent quantum advantage; a natural next test is combining squeezed-light and mode-demultiplexing gains in one microscope to separate the two mechanisms' contributions.
A standardized benchmark—same sample, same photodamage budget, same detected-photon count—would let future papers report quantum advantage as a ratio against the best classical protocol, which the review's case-by-case comparisons suggest is feasible.
If antibunching-based superresolution scales with faster detector arrays and sparse-reconstruction algorithms, it could become the most widely adopted quantum imaging technique because it requires no nonclassical light source at all.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a review, not a new result, and the right way to read it is as a status report from most of the groups that built the field. It is accurate on the parts I can check, current through 2024, and unusually candid about the gap between proof-of-principle and biology lab use. The authors deserve credit for saying plainly in Section 6 that biologists are far from integrating quantum microscopes, and in Section 3 that photon-pair methods have yet to outperform classical techniques in practice. That honesty is the main reason I trust the positive claims more than I usually would.

The useful core: a compact account of QCRB/SPADE superresolution; the squeezed-light stimulated Raman result with 35% SNR gain under photodamage; the undetected-photon section with a useful table of resolution and field-of-view for different configurations; and the single-emitter correlation methods. No new data or derivations appear, but the synthesis is not lazy - the cited literature is primary and the limitations are named.

Soft spots: the self-citation ratio is noticeable (Refs. 3, 4, 5, 39, 54, 84, 101, and 118 are the authors' own demonstrations), and the narrative leans on those for most highlighted advances. That is normal for a field still small enough that the reviewers are the authors, but it is worth keeping in mind.

The more substantive issue is in Section 5. The review answers "can a practical quantum advantage be achieved with current microscopes?" with a clear yes based on photon antibunching. Yet a few paragraphs later it calls antibunching a 'quantum analog' of classical intensity fluctuations used in SOFI and admits that for resolution 'only the deviation from Poisson statistics matters.' Classical blinking is also non-Poissonian and can narrow the PSF by the same higher-order correlation mechanism. The review never compares Q-ISM against SOFI or related classical fluctuation methods on the same sample; it compares against conventional ISM/confocal without correlations. So the 'clear yes' is established only relative to a weak baseline. The advantage may still be real - antibunching can be faster or more photon-efficient than blinking in some settings - but this review does not prove it. A benchmark against SOFI, or at least a qualification that the advantage is 'quantum' only in the source statistics, not necessarily in achievable resolution, would fix it.

Who should read it: grad students entering the field, researchers in adjacent optics or biophysics who want a map, and anyone writing a proposal who needs the current state of play. I would send it to peer review; with revision on Section 5 and a few baseline clarifications in Sections 1 and 2 it would be a solid review.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of recent advances in quantum imaging, organized around four families of non-classical light sources: bright squeezed light, two-photon states from spontaneous parametric down-conversion, undetected-photon imaging, and single-photon emitters. The review describes the quantum Cramér-Rao bound and spatial-mode demultiplexing as a route to super-resolution, surveys quantum-enhanced Raman microscopy and other squeezed-light applications, reviews two-photon imaging techniques including sub-shot-noise imaging, quantum illumination, and quantum holography, details the state of the art in imaging with undetected photons, and argues that photon antibunching in fluorescent emitters offers a practical quantum advantage in super-resolution microscopy. The concluding outlook calls for hybrid quantum-classical imaging systems as sources and detectors mature.

Significance. If the claims are accurate, this review offers a useful and fairly comprehensive snapshot of a rapidly maturing field, with the notable strength that every major claim is traced to specific experimental or theoretical references, including many recent proof-of-principle demonstrations. The paper is refreshingly candid in several places: it acknowledges that current N-photon sources are orders of magnitude dimmer than classical sources, that apparatus-independent quantum advantage is still open, and that quantum microscopes are not yet adopted by biologists. The central thesis that quantum light can outperform classical methods or enable new capabilities is supported for squeezed-light microscopy and for mid-IR imaging with undetected photons. However, the claimed practical quantum advantage for single-photon-emitter imaging is not established because the review does not compare against the closest classical competitor, super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (SOFI).

major comments (1)

[Section 5, 'Direct use of antibunching for superresolution' (and Fig. 4h)] The review claims a 'clear yes' to the question of whether a practical quantum advantage can be achieved with current microscopes, citing Q-ISM (Ref. 4). However, the same paragraph explicitly states that antibunching is a 'quantum analog' of the classical intensity fluctuations used in SOFI and that 'for resolution, however, only the deviation from Poisson statistics matters.' Classical super-Poissonian blinking in SOFI narrows the effective point-spread function through the same higher-order correlation mechanism. The review compares Q-ISM to conventional ISM/confocal microscopy but does not benchmark it against SOFI or other classical fluctuation-based superresolution methods, so the claimed advantage in resolution, and any associated SNR or speed benefit, is not shown to be quantum-specific. This is load-bearing because the abstract highlights single-photon emitters as one of the three flagship demonstrations, and the section's conclusion is the strongest statement of practical advantage in the paper. The authors should either benchmark Q-ISM against SOFI on the same sample (e.g., in terms of SNR per frame, acquisition time, or achievable emitter density) or explicitly qualify the 'clear yes' to state that the advantage is practical but not necessarily quantum in origin.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1 (p. 3) and Section 2 (p. 4)] There are several typographical errors: 'Today’ researchers' should read 'Today’s researchers', 'This limits imposes' should read 'This limit imposes', and 'one such schemes' in Section 3 should read 'one such scheme.'
[Section 3 (p. 5)] The phrase 'the de Broglie wavelength scales as λ /N' contains an unnecessary space and should be typeset as λ/N.
[Figure 4 caption (p. 18)] Panels b–e show microscopy images of a mouse heart sample, but only panel h includes a scale bar; adding scale bars to all image panels would improve the reader's ability to judge the resolution claims.
[Table 1 (p. 7)] The rows defining N (1D number of modes) are not explained in the main text; a sentence in Section 4 describing how N is computed and why it is independent of magnification would make the table more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Review with no derivation-to-input circularity; self-citations present but not load-bearing, plus a benchmark-fairness concern that is not circular reasoning.

full rationale

This is a review article rather than a derivation, and it contains no fitted parameters, no predictions generated from fitted inputs, and no quantity defined in terms of the quantity it is used to establish. The concrete advantages cited (35% squeezed-light SNR gain in stimulated Raman microscopy, Ref. 3; five-orders-of-magnitude SPADE separation sensitivity, Ref. 54; threefold Q-ISM resolution increase, Ref. 4) are reports of external peer-reviewed experiments with specified apparatus and controls, not consequences of the review's own assumptions. Some of these references include review co-authors (e.g., Bowen, Oron, Ramelow, Treps), so there is a mild self-citation presence, but none of the review's conclusions is forced by an unverified self-citation chain or by a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The one substantive concern is Section 5: the review states that antibunching is a 'quantum analog of stochastic classical intensity fluctuations used in superresolved imaging methods like SOFI' and that 'for resolution, however, only the deviation from Poisson statistics matters,' which concedes that classical super-Poissonian fluctuations can narrow the PSF by the same correlation mechanism. This undermines the strength of the 'clear yes' quantum-advantage claim in that section unless Q-ISM is benchmarked against SOFI, but it is a baseline-fairness objection, not circularity: the review does not define the quantum advantage in terms of SOFI or fit a parameter and call it a prediction. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard quantum-metrology and quantum-optics models (QCRB, shot-noise scaling, SPDC entanglement, antibunching statistics) and on the validity of the cited experimental demonstrations, which are not independently re-derived in this manuscript.

assumptions (5)

standard math Quantum Fisher Information and the Quantum Cramér-Rao bound define the ultimate precision limit for optical parameter estimation.
Invoked in Section 1 (and cited Refs. 40-44) to benchmark resolution and sensitivity limits; this is a standard theorem in quantum metrology.
domain assumption Shot-noise limit for coherent states and the scaling of sensitivity with photon number apply to classical imaging benchmarks.
Sections 1-2 use the standard shot-noise and squeezing-factor scaling to define classical versus quantum performance.
domain assumption SPDC-generated photon pairs are well described by position-momentum entangled two-photon states in the low-gain regime.
Sections 3-4 use this model to derive correlation-based imaging and IUP resolution formulas.
domain assumption Fluorescent molecules exhibit photon antibunching with g2(0)=1-1/N for N emitters.
Section 5 uses this to estimate emitter numbers and achieve superresolution; invoked with Ref. 143.
domain assumption The cited experimental demonstrations are correctly reported and their classical baselines are fair.
The review's claims of quantum advantage (e.g., 35% SNR in Raman microscopy, SPADE resolution beyond Rayleigh) rest on results from primary sources such as Refs. 3 and 54; these are not re-derived or re-measured here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advances in quantum imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSCADEUN

@misc{pith2026241108415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advances in quantum imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSCADEUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08415}
}

read the original abstract

Modern imaging technologies are widely based on classical principles of light or electromagnetic wave propagation. They can be remarkably sophisticated, with recent successes ranging from single molecule microscopy to imaging far-distant galaxies. However, new imaging technologies based on quantum principles are gradually emerging. They can either surpass classical approaches or provide novel imaging capabilities that would not otherwise be possible. {Here }we provide an overview {of the most recently developed quantum imaging systems, highlighting the non-classical properties of sources such as bright squeezed light, entangled photons, and single-photon emitters that enable their functionality.} We outline potential upcoming trends and the associated challenges, all driven by a central inquiry, which is to understand whether quantum light can make visible the invisible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08415 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE) for optimal separation estimation. SPADE decomposes incoming light using the Hermite-Gaussian mode basis. Measuring the intensity of each mode is an optimal approach for transverse separation estimation. It provides orders of magnitude improvement in sensitivity for estimating closely spaced incoherent sources compared to direct diffraction-limited imaging. The numbers presented i… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Biological imaging with bright squeezed light. A quantum-enhanced image of a live yeast cell using bright squeezed light in stimulated Raman microscopy3 . The frequency difference between the two illumination lasers was set to 2,850 cm−1 , a frequency yielding a strong Raman signal from lipids. A signal-to-noise (SNR) enhancement of 35% was reported compared to the SNR achievable using shot noise limited light. On t… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Imaging with two-photon states. a, Imaging technique for detecting photons coincidences80. Photon pairs from SPDC strike an image amplifier, converting each photon into a flash of light recorded by a time-tagging camera. b, After cluster identification, the data contains all coincidence events (blue and red dots) detected over time per pixel (data from Ref.148).c, Properties such as strong spatial anti-correlations … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Microscopes based on imaging with undetected photons (a-e) and single photon emitters (f-h). a, Reflected light microscope based using a ‘folded’ imaging with undetected photon configuration118. The sample is illuminated with mid-IR light while the image is formed onto…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

& Pirandola, S

Lupo, C. & Pirandola, S. Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging. Phys. review letters 117, 190802 (2016). 9/18

2016
[2]

& Maccone, L

Giovannetti, V ., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Advances in quantum metrology.Nat. photonics 5, 222–229 (2011)

2011
[3]

Casacio, C. A. et al. Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy. Nature 594, 201–206 (2021)

2021
[4]

Tenne, R. et al. Super-resolution enhancement by quantum image scanning microscopy. Nat. Photonics 13, 116–122 (2019)

2019
[5]

M., Avery, E

Kviatkovsky, I., Chrzanowski, H. M., Avery, E. G., Bartolomaeus, H. & Ramelow, S. Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd0264 (2020)

2020
[6]

Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination

Lloyd, S. Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination. Science 321, 1463–1465 (2008)

2008
[7]

Boto, A. N. et al. Quantum interferometric optical lithography: exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000)

2000
[8]

Crawford, J. et al. Towards quantum telescopes: demonstration of a two-photon interferometer for precision astrometry. Opt. Express 31, 44246–44258 (2023)

2023

Show all 149 references

[9]

Kolobov, M. I. Quantum imaging (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

2007
[10]

Real applications of quantum imaging

Genovese, M. Real applications of quantum imaging. J. Opt. 18, 073002 (2016)

2016
[11]

& Padgett, M

Moreau, P.-A., Toninelli, E., Gregory, T. & Padgett, M. J. Imaging with quantum states of light. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 367–380 (2019)

2019
[12]

& Lugiato, L

Gatti, A., Brambilla, E. & Lugiato, L. Quantum imaging. Prog. Opt. 51, 251–348 (2008)

2008
[13]

Gilaberte Basset, M. et al. Perspectives for applications of quantum imaging. Laser & Photonics Rev. 13, 1900097 (2019)

2019
[14]

Magaña-Loaiza, O. S. & Boyd, R. W. Quantum imaging and information. Reports on Prog. Phys. 82, 124401 (2019)

2019
[15]

Quantum imaging.IEEE J

Shih, Y . Quantum imaging.IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 13, 1016–1030 (2007)

2007
[16]

& Yallapragada, V

Lubin, G., Oron, D., Rossman, U., Tenne, R. & Yallapragada, V . J. Photon correlations in spectroscopy and microscopy. ACS photonics 9, 2891–2904 (2022)

2022
[17]

& Forbes, A

Moodley, C. & Forbes, A. Advances in quantum imaging with machine intelligence. Laser & Photonics Rev. 2300939 (2024)

2024
[18]

Kocher, C. A. & Commins, E. D. Polarization correlation of photons emitted in an atomic cascade. Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 575 (1967)

1967
[19]

Burnham, D. C. & Weinberg, D. L. Observation of simultaneity in parametric production of optical photon pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 84 (1970)

1970
[20]

J., Dagenais, M

Kimble, H. J., Dagenais, M. & Mandel, L. Photon antibunching in resonance fluorescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977)

1977
[21]

& Valley, J

Slusher, R., Hollberg, L., Yurke, B., Mertz, J. & Valley, J. Observation of squeezed states generated by four-wave mixing in an optical cavity. Phys. review letters 55, 2409 (1985)

1985
[22]

& Kimble, H

Xiao, M., Wu, L.-A. & Kimble, H. J. Precision measurement beyond the shot-noise limit. Phys. review letters 59, 278 (1987)

1987
[23]

& Sokolov, I

Kolobov, M. & Sokolov, I. Multimode squeezing, antibunching in space and noise-free optical images. Europhys. Lett. 15, 271 (1991)

1991
[24]

Treps, N. et al. Surpassing the standard quantum limit for optical imaging using nonclassical multimode light. Phys. review letters 88, 203601 (2002)

2002
[25]

Schwartz, O. et al. Superresolution microscopy with quantum emitters. Nano letters 13, 5832–5836 (2013)

2013
[26]

Monticone, D. G. et al. Beating the abbe diffraction limit in confocal microscopy via nonclassical photon statistics. Phys. review letters 113, 143602 (2014)

2014
[27]

B., Shih, Y ., Strekalov, D

Pittman, T. B., Shih, Y ., Strekalov, D. & Sergienko, A. V . Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429 (1995)

1995
[28]

two-photon

Bennink, R. S., Bentley, S. J. & Boyd, R. W. “two-photon” coincidence imaging with a classical source. Phys. review letters 89, 113601 (2002)

2002
[29]

& Shih, Y

Valencia, A., Scarcelli, G., D’Angelo, M. & Shih, Y . Two-photon imaging with thermal light.Phys. review letters 94, 063601 (2005). 10/18

2005
[30]

D’Angelo, M., Chekhova, M. V . & Shih, Y . Two-photon diffraction and quantum lithography.Phys. review letters 87, 013602 (2001)

2001
[31]

Utilization of vacuum fluctuations as an optical brightness standard

Klyshko, D. Utilization of vacuum fluctuations as an optical brightness standard. Sov. J. Quantum Electron. 7, 591 (1977)

1977
[32]

& Mandel, L

Hong, C. & Mandel, L. Experimental realization of a localized one-photon state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 58 (1986)

1986
[33]

& Jakeman, E

Rarity, J., Tapster, P. & Jakeman, E. Observation of sub-poissonian light in parametric downconversion. Opt. communications 62, 201–206 (1987)

1987
[34]

& Fabre, C

Laurat, J., Coudreau, T., Treps, N., Maître, A. & Fabre, C. Conditional preparation of a quantum state in the continuous variable regime: generation of a sub-poissonian state from twin beams. Phys. review letters 91, 213601 (2003)

2003
[35]

Iskhakov, T. S.et al. Heralded source of bright multi-mode mesoscopic sub-poissonian light. Opt. letters 41, 2149–2152 (2016)

2016
[36]

& Gatti, A

Brambilla, E., Caspani, L., Jedrkiewicz, O., Lugiato, L. & Gatti, A. High-sensitivity imaging with multi-mode twin beams. Phys. Rev. A 77, 053807 (2008)

2008
[37]

& Ruo Berchera, I

Brida, G., Genovese, M. & Ruo Berchera, I. Experimental realization of sub-shot-noise quantum imaging. Nat. Photonics 4, 227–230 (2010)

2010
[38]

& Mandel, L

Wang, L., Zou, X. & Mandel, L. Induced coherence without induced emission. Phys. Rev. A 44, 4614 (1991)

1991
[39]

Lemos, G. B. et al. Quantum imaging with undetected photons. Nature 512, 409–412 (2014)

2014
[40]

Mathematical methods of statistics, vol

Cramér, H. Mathematical methods of statistics, vol. 43 (Princeton university press, 1999)

1999
[41]

Rao, C. R. Minimum variance and the estimation of several parameters. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 43,2, 280–283 (Cambridge University Press, 1947)

1947
[42]

Caves, C. M. Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer. Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

1981
[43]

Helstrom, C. W. Quantum detection and estimation theory. J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231–252 (1969)

1969
[44]

Braunstein, S. L. & Caves, C. M. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[45]

K., Schmied, R

Pezze, L., Smerzi, A., Oberthaler, M. K., Schmied, R. & Treutlein, P. Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[46]

& Treps, N

Fabre, C. & Treps, N. Modes and states in quantum optics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035005 (2020)

2020
[47]

& Fabre, C

Gessner, M., Treps, N. & Fabre, C. Estimation of a parameter encoded in the modal structure of a light beam: a quantum theory. Optica 10, 996–999 (2023)

2023
[48]

& Treps, N

Gessner, M., Fabre, C. & Treps, N. Superresolution limits from measurement crosstalk. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 100501 (2020)

2020
[49]

Pinel, O. et al. Ultimate sensitivity of precision measurements with intense gaussian quantum light: A multimodal approach. Phys. Rev. A 85, 010101 (2012)

2012
[50]

Treps, N. et al. A quantum laser pointer. Science 301, 940–943 (2003)

2003
[51]

& Lu, X.-M

Tsang, M., Nair, R. & Lu, X.-M. Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources.Phys. Rev. X 6, 031033 (2016)

2016
[52]

& Treps, N

Boucher, P., Fabre, C., Labroille, G. & Treps, N. Spatial optical mode demultiplexing as a practical tool for optimal transverse distance estimation. Optica 7, 1621–1626 (2020)

2020
[53]

S., Dequal, D

Santamaria, L., Pallotti, D., de Cumis, M. S., Dequal, D. & Lupo, C. Spatial-mode demultiplexing for enhanced intensity and distance measurement. Opt. Express 31, 33930–33944 (2023)

2023
[54]

Rouvière, C. et al. Ultra-sensitive separation estimation of optical sources. Optica 11, 166–170 (2024)

2024
[55]

Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution

Ansari, V .et al. Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution. PRX Quantum 2, 010301 (2021)

2021
[56]

Tan, X.-J. et al. Quantum-inspired superresolution for incoherent imaging. Optica 10, 1189–1194 (2023)

2023
[57]

P., Schnabel, R., Treps, N., Bachor, H

Bowen, W. P., Schnabel, R., Treps, N., Bachor, H. & Lam, P. K. Recovery of continuous wave squeezing at low frequencies. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 4, 421 (2002). 11/18

2002
[58]

& Lett, P

McCormick, C., Boyer, V ., Arimondo, E. & Lett, P. Strong relative intensity squeezing by four-wave mixing in rubidium vapor. Opt. letters 32, 178–180 (2007)

2007
[59]

M., forthe LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al

Harry, G. M., forthe LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. Advanced ligo: the next generation of gravitational wave detectors. Class. Quantum Gravity 27, 084006 (2010)

2010
[60]

E., Mansell, G

Dwyer, S. E., Mansell, G. L. & McCuller, L. Squeezing in gravitational wave detectors. Galaxies 10, 46 (2022)

2022
[61]

Taylor, M. A. & Bowen, W. P. Quantum metrology and its application in biology.Phys. Reports 615, 1–59 (2016)

2016
[62]

& Schnabel, R

Vahlbruch, H., Mehmet, M., Danzmann, K. & Schnabel, R. Detection of 15 db squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency. Phys. review letters 117, 110801 (2016)

2016
[63]

J., Lett, P

Lawrie, B. J., Lett, P. D., Marino, A. M. & Pooser, R. C. Quantum sensing with squeezed light. Acs Photonics 6, 1307–1318 (2019)

2019
[64]

Taylor, M. A. et al. Biological measurement beyond the quantum limit. Nat. Photonics 7, 229–233 (2013)

2013
[65]

Taylor, M. A. et al. Subdiffraction-limited quantum imaging within a living cell. Phys. Rev. X 4, 011017 (2014)

2014
[66]

Pooser, R. et al. Truncated nonlinear interferometry for quantum-enhanced atomic force microscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230504 (2020)

2020
[67]

J., Pooser, R

Dowran, M., Kumar, A., Lawrie, B. J., Pooser, R. C. & Marino, A. M. Quantum-enhanced plasmonic sensing. Optica 5, 628–633 (2018)

2018
[68]

Pooser, R. C. & Lawrie, B. Plasmonic trace sensing below the photon shot noise limit. ACS Photonics 3, 8–13 (2016)

2016
[69]

de Andrade, R. B. et al. Quantum-enhanced continuous-wave stimulated raman scattering spectroscopy. Optica 7, 470–475 (2020)

2020
[70]

Xu, Z. et al. Stimulated raman scattering spectroscopy with quantum-enhanced balanced detection. Opt. Express 30, 18589–18598 (2022)

2022
[71]

Xu, Z. et al. Quantum-enhanced stimulated raman scattering microscopy in a high-power regime.Opt. Lett. 47, 5829–5832 (2022)

2022
[72]

Xu, Z. et al. Dual-polarization quantum-enhanced stimulated raman scattering microscopy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 123 (2023)

2023
[73]

Li, T., Li, F., Liu, X., Yakovlev, V . V . & Agarwal, G. S. Quantum-enhanced stimulated brillouin scattering spectroscopy and imaging. Optica 9, 959–964 (2022)

2022
[74]

& Xie, X

Cheng, J.-X. & Xie, X. S. Vibrational spectroscopic imaging of living systems: An emerging platform for biology and medicine. Science 350, aaa8870 (2015)

2015
[75]

Camp Jr, C. H. & Cicerone, M. T. Chemically sensitive bioimaging with coherent raman scattering. Nat. photonics 9, 295–305 (2015)

2015
[76]

& Cheng, J.-X

Fu, Y ., Wang, H., Shi, R. & Cheng, J.-X. Characterization of photodamage in coherent anti-stokes raman scattering microscopy. Opt. express 14, 3942–3951 (2006)

2006
[77]

& Genovese, M

Samantaray, N., Ruo-Berchera, I., Meda, A. & Genovese, M. Realization of the first sub-shot-noise wide field microscope. Light. Sci. & Appl. 6, e17005–e17005 (2017)

2017
[78]

Ortolano, G. et al. Quantum enhanced non-interferometric quantitative phase imaging. Light. Sci. & Appl. 12, 171 (2023)

2023
[79]

& Villa, F

Madonini, F., Severini, F., Zappa, F. & Villa, F. Single photon avalanche diode arrays for quantum imaging and microscopy. Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100005 (2021)

2021
[80]

& Sussman, B

Vidyapin, V ., Zhang, Y ., England, D. & Sussman, B. Characterisation of a single photon event camera for quantum imaging. Sci. Reports 13, 1009 (2023)

2023
[81]

& Shapiro, J

Giovannetti, V ., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L. & Shapiro, J. H. Sub-rayleigh-diffraction-bound quantum imaging.Phys. Rev. A 79, 013827 (2009)

2009
[82]

& Fleischer, J

Reichert, M., Defienne, H. & Fleischer, J. W. Massively parallel coincidence counting of high-dimensional entangled states. Sci. reports 8, 7925 (2018)

2018
[83]

Toninelli, E. et al. Resolution-enhanced quantum imaging by centroid estimation of biphotons. Optica 6, 347–353 (2019)

2019
[84]

& Wang, L

He, Z., Zhang, Y ., Tong, X., Li, L. & Wang, L. V . Quantum microscopy of cells at the heisenberg limit.Nat. Commun. 14, 2441 (2023). 12/18

2023
[85]

& Stefanov, A

Unternährer, M., Bessire, B., Gasparini, L., Perenzoni, M. & Stefanov, A. Super-resolution quantum imaging at the heisenberg limit. Optica 5, 1150–1154 (2018)

2018
[86]

& Takeuchi, S

Ono, T., Okamoto, R. & Takeuchi, S. An entanglement-enhanced microscope. Nat. communications 4, 2426 (2013)

2013
[87]

& Silberberg, Y

Israel, Y ., Rosen, S. & Silberberg, Y . Supersensitive polarization microscopy using noon states of light.Phys. review letters 112, 103604 (2014)

2014
[88]

Camphausen, R. et al. A quantum-enhanced wide-field phase imager. Sci. Adv. 7, eabj2155 (2021)

2021
[89]

Defienne, H. et al. Pixel super-resolution with spatially entangled photons. Nat. communications 13, 3566 (2022)

2022
[90]

& Lantz, E

Devaux, F., Mosset, A., Moreau, P.-A. & Lantz, E. Imaging spatiotemporal hong-ou-mandel interference of biphoton states of extremely high schmidt number. Phys. Rev. X 10, 031031 (2020)

2020
[91]

Ndagano, B. et al. Quantum microscopy based on hong–ou–mandel interference. Nat. Photonics 16, 384–389 (2022)

2022
[92]

Lyons, A. et al. Attosecond-resolution hong-ou-mandel interferometry. Sci. advances 4, eaap9416 (2018)

2018
[93]

Lopaeva, E. et al. Experimental realization of quantum illumination. Phys. review letters 110, 153603 (2013)

2013
[94]

Defienne, H., Reichert, M., Fleischer, J. W. & Faccio, D. Quantum image distillation. Sci. advances 5, eaax0307 (2019)

2019
[95]

& Padgett, M

Gregory, T., Moreau, P.-A., Toninelli, E. & Padgett, M. J. Imaging through noise with quantum illumination.Sci. advances 6, eaay2652 (2020)

2020
[96]

Zhao, J. et al. Light detection and ranging with entangled photons. Opt. Express 30, 3675–3683 (2022)

2022
[97]

G., Balaji, B

England, D. G., Balaji, B. & Sussman, B. J. Quantum-enhanced standoff detection using correlated photon pairs. Phys. Rev. A 99, 023828 (2019)

2019
[98]

Liu, H., Qin, C., Papangelakis, G., Iu, M. L. & Helmy, A. S. Compact all-fiber quantum-inspired lidar with over 100 db noise rejection and single photon sensitivity. Nat. Commun. 14, 5344 (2023)

2023
[99]

Quantum imaging of biological organisms through spatial and polarization entanglement

Zhang, Y .et al. Quantum imaging of biological organisms through spatial and polarization entanglement. Sci. Adv. 10, eadk1495 (2024)

2024
[100]

& Lantz, E

Devaux, F., Mosset, A., Bassignot, F. & Lantz, E. Quantum holography with biphotons of high schmidt number. Phys. Rev. A 99, 033854 (2019)

2019
[101]

& Faccio, D

Defienne, H., Ndagano, B., Lyons, A. & Faccio, D. Polarization entanglement-enabled quantum holography. Nat. Phys. 17, 591–597 (2021)

2021
[102]

& Sussman, B

Zhang, Y ., England, D. & Sussman, B. Snapshot hyperspectral imaging with quantum correlated photons.Opt. Express 31, 2282–2291 (2023)

2023
[103]

& Sussman, B

Hodgson, H., Zhang, Y ., England, D. & Sussman, B. Reconfigurable phase contrast microscopy with correlated photon pairs. Appl. Phys. Lett. 122 (2023)

2023
[104]

Cameron, P. et al. Adaptive optical imaging with entangled photons. Science 383, 1142–1148 (2024)

2024
[105]

Aspden, R. S. et al. Photon-sparse microscopy: visible light imaging using infrared illumination. Optica 2, 1049–1052 (2015)

2015
[106]

Bornman, N. et al. Ghost imaging using entanglement-swapped photons. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 63 (2019)

2019
[107]

Somaschi, N. et al. Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state. Nat. Photonics 10, 340–345 (2016)

2016
[108]

& Mandel, L

Wang, L., Zou, X. & Mandel, L. Observation of induced coherence in two-photon downconversion. JOSA B 8, 978–980 (1991)

1991
[109]

Cardoso, A. C. et al. Classical imaging with undetected light. Phys. Rev. A 97, 033827 (2018)

2018
[110]

B., Lahiri, M., Ramelow, S., Lapkiewicz, R

Lemos, G. B., Lahiri, M., Ramelow, S., Lapkiewicz, R. & Plick, W. N. Quantum imaging and metrology with undetected photons: tutorial. JOSA B 39, 2200–2228 (2022)

2022
[111]

Lahiri, M., Hochrainer, A., Lapkiewicz, R., Lemos, G. B. & Zeilinger, A. Nonclassicality of induced coherence without induced emission. Phys. Rev. A 100, 053839 (2019)

2019
[112]

H., Venkatraman, D

Shapiro, J. H., Venkatraman, D. & Wong, F. N. C. Classical imaging with undetected photons. Sci. Rep. 5, 10329 (2015)

2015
[113]

I., Giese, E., Lemieux, S., Fickler, R

Kolobov, M. I., Giese, E., Lemieux, S., Fickler, R. & Boyd, R. W. Controlling induced coherence for quantum imaging. J. Opt. 19, 054003 (2017). 13/18

2017
[114]

Viswanathan, B., Lemos, G. B. & Lahiri, M. Position correlation enabled quantum imaging with undetected photons. Opt. letters 46, 3496–3499 (2021)

2021
[115]

Fuenzalida, J. et al. Resolution of quantum imaging with undetected photons. Quantum 6, 646 (2022)

2022
[116]

Basset, M. G. et al. Experimental analysis of image resolution of quantum imaging with undetected light through position correlations. Phys. Rev. A 108, 052610 (2023)

2023
[117]

A., Pertsch, T., Setzpfandt, F

Santos, E. A., Pertsch, T., Setzpfandt, F. & Saravi, S. Subdiffraction quantum imaging with undetected photons. Phys. review letters 128, 173601 (2022)

2022
[118]

Kviatkovsky, I., Chrzanowski, H. M. & Ramelow, S. Mid-infrared microscopy via position correlations of undetected photons. Opt. Express 30, 5916–5925 (2022)

2022
[119]

Kutas, M. et al. Terahertz quantum sensing. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8065 (2020)

2020
[120]

V ., Maniam, S

Paterova, A. V ., Maniam, S. M., Yang, H., Grenci, G. & Krivitsky, L. A. Hyperspectral infrared microscopy with visible light. Sci. advances 6, eabd0460 (2020)

2020
[121]

V ., Yang, H., Toa, Z

Paterova, A. V ., Yang, H., Toa, Z. S. & Krivitsky, L. A. Quantum imaging for the semiconductor industry.Appl. Phys. Lett. 117 (2020)

2020
[122]

Gilaberte Basset, M. et al. Video-rate imaging with undetected photons. Laser & Photonics Rev. 15, 2000327 (2021)

2021
[123]

Pearce, E. et al. Practical quantum imaging with undetected photons. Opt. Continuum 2, 2386–2397 (2023)

2023
[124]

Töpfer, S. et al. Quantum holography with undetected light. Sci. advances 8, eabl4301 (2022)

2022
[125]

Vallés, A., Jiménez, G., Salazar-Serrano, L. J. & Torres, J. P. Optical sectioning in induced coherence tomography with frequency-entangled photons. Phys. Rev. A 97, 023824 (2018)

2018
[126]

V ., Yang, H., An, C., Kalashnikov, D

Paterova, A. V ., Yang, H., An, C., Kalashnikov, D. A. & Krivitsky, L. A. Tunable optical coherence tomography in the infrared range using visible photons. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 025008 (2018)

2018
[127]

Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography with undetected mid-infrared photons

Vanselow, A.et al. Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography with undetected mid-infrared photons. Optica 7, 1729–1736 (2020)

2020
[128]

J., Frascella, G., Torres, J

Machado, G. J., Frascella, G., Torres, J. P. & Chekhova, M. V . Optical coherence tomography with a nonlinear interferometer in the high parametric gain regime. Appl. Phys. Lett. 117 (2020)

2020
[129]

A., Paterova, A

Kalashnikov, D. A., Paterova, A. V ., Kulik, S. P. & Krivitsky, L. A. Infrared spectroscopy with visible light.Nat. Photonics 10, 98–101 (2016)

2016
[130]

M., Vanselow, A

Kaufmann, P., Chrzanowski, H. M., Vanselow, A. & Ramelow, S. Mid-ir spectroscopy with nir grating spectrometers. Opt. Express 30, 5926–5936 (2022)

2022
[131]

Placke, M. et al. Fourier-transform mid-ir hyperspectral imaging with undetected photons. In CLEO: Applications and Technology, AM2N–4 (Optica Publishing Group, 2023)

2023
[132]

Hashimoto, K., Horoshko, D. B. & Chekhova, M. V . Broadband spectroscopy and interferometry with undetected photons at strong parametric amplification. Adv. Quantum Technol. 2300299 (2023)

2023
[133]

Lindner, C. et al. High-sensitivity quantum sensing with pump-enhanced spontaneous parametric down-conversion. APL Photonics 8 (2023)

2023
[134]

Thiel, C. et al. Quantum imaging with incoherent photons. Phys. review letters 99, 133603 (2007)

2007
[135]

& von Zanthier, J

Oppel, S., Büttner, T., Kok, P. & von Zanthier, J. Superresolving multiphoton interferences with independent light sources. Phys. review letters 109, 233603 (2012)

2012
[136]

& Enderlein, J

Dertinger, T., Colyer, R., Iyer, G., Weiss, S. & Enderlein, J. Fast, background-free, 3d super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (sofi). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 22287–22292 (2009)

2009
[137]

& Silberberg, Y

Israel, Y ., Tenne, R., Oron, D. & Silberberg, Y . Quantum correlation enhanced super-resolution localization microscopy enabled by a fibre bundle camera. Nat. communications 8, 14786 (2017)

2017
[138]

Lubin, G. et al. Quantum correlation measurement with single photon avalanche diode arrays. Opt. Express 27, 32863– 32882 (2019)

2019
[139]

Sroda, A. et al. Sofism: Super-resolution optical fluctuation image scanning microscopy. Optica 7, 1308–1316 (2020)

2020
[140]

Classen, A., von Zanthier, J., Scully, M. O. & Agarwal, G. S. Superresolution via structured illumination quantum correlation microscopy. Optica 4, 580–587 (2017). 14/18

2017
[141]

Resolution enhancement in random illumination microscopy using photon correlations

Liu, P. Resolution enhancement in random illumination microscopy using photon correlations. Appl. Opt. 61, 2910–2914 (2022)

2022
[142]

Field, J. J. et al. Superresolved multiphoton microscopy with spatial frequency-modulated imaging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 6605–6610 (2016)

2016
[143]

Weston, K. D.et al. Measuring the number of independent emitters in single-molecule fluorescence images and trajectories using coincident photons. Anal. chemistry 74, 5342–5349 (2002)

2002
[144]

Wayne, M. et al. A 500× 500 dual-gate spad imager with 100% temporal aperture and 1 ns minimum gate length for flim and phasor imaging applications. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 69, 2865–2872 (2022)

2022
[145]

V .et al

Resta, G. V .et al. Gigahertz detection rates and dynamic photon-number resolution with superconducting nanowire arrays. Nano Lett. (2023)

2023
[146]

Rossman, U. et al. Rapid quantum image scanning microscopy by joint sparse reconstruction. Optica 6, 1290–1296 (2019)

2019
[147]

Kudyshev, Z. A. et al. Machine learning assisted quantum super-resolution microscopy. Nat. communications 14, 4828 (2023)

2023
[148]

Courme, B. et al. Quantifying high-dimensional spatial entanglement with a single-photon-sensitive time-stamping camera. Opt. Lett. 48, 3439–3442 (2023)

2023
[149]

& Moerner, W

Lounis, B., Bechtel, H., Gerion, D., Alivisatos, P. & Moerner, W. Photon antibunching in single cdse/zns quantum dot fluorescence. Chem. Phys. Lett. 329, 399–404 (2000). 15/18 Figure 1. Spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE) for optimal separation estimation. SPADE decomposes inc...

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Pirandola, S

Lupo, C. & Pirandola, S. Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging. Phys. review letters 117, 190802 (2016). 9/18

2016

[2] [2]

& Maccone, L

Giovannetti, V ., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Advances in quantum metrology.Nat. photonics 5, 222–229 (2011)

2011

[3] [3]

Casacio, C. A. et al. Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy. Nature 594, 201–206 (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

Tenne, R. et al. Super-resolution enhancement by quantum image scanning microscopy. Nat. Photonics 13, 116–122 (2019)

2019

[5] [5]

M., Avery, E

Kviatkovsky, I., Chrzanowski, H. M., Avery, E. G., Bartolomaeus, H. & Ramelow, S. Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd0264 (2020)

2020

[6] [6]

Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination

Lloyd, S. Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination. Science 321, 1463–1465 (2008)

2008

[7] [7]

Boto, A. N. et al. Quantum interferometric optical lithography: exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000)

2000

[8] [8]

Crawford, J. et al. Towards quantum telescopes: demonstration of a two-photon interferometer for precision astrometry. Opt. Express 31, 44246–44258 (2023)

2023