Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Strong nanophotonic quantum squeezing exceeding 3.5 dB in a foundry-compatible Kerr microresonator

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper reports 3.7 ± 0.2 dB of directly detected quantum squeezing from a foundry-fabricated silicon nitride microring, the largest ever seen from a microresonator, with an inferred on-chip squeezing of 10.7 dB.

desk verdict Direct 3.7 dB squeezing is real and well-calibrated; the inferred on-chip number and the excess-noise-free claim need more support. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11679 v1 pith:5O3AE4PQ submitted 2024-11-18 physics.optics quant-ph

Yichen Shen , Ping-Yen Hsieh , Sashank Kaushik Sridhar , Samantha Feldman , You-Chia Chang , Thomas A. Smith , Avik Dutt This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords squeezedlightsiliconnitrideKerrmicroresonatortwin-beamsqueezingfour-wavemixingopticalparametricoscillatorquantumsensingCMOS-compatiblephotonics
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 paper reports the highest level of quantum squeezing ever directly detected from a microresonator: 3.7 ± 0.2 dB of twin-beam intensity-difference squeezing, generated by a foundry-fabricated silicon nitride microring pumped above its four-wave-mixing threshold. The authors argue that the measured squeezing matches the analytic overcoupling model with no excess classical noise, allowing them to infer that the squeezing generated on-chip reaches 10.7 dB (up to 11.5 dB in the most overcoupled device). They also show that using small-radius rings with a 450 GHz free spectral range lowers the parametric oscillation threshold and stabilizes the squeezed state against thermally induced drifts. If correct, this establishes silicon nitride as a practical CMOS-compatible platform for on-chip quantum light sources, with direct relevance to quantum-enhanced sensing and information processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the above-threshold optical parametric oscillator model for four-wave mixing in a point-coupled microresonator, whose predicted squeezing level is $SL = 10 \log_{10}(1 - \eta_D \eta_{\mathrm{path}} \theta)$, where $\theta = 1 - Q_L/Q_i$ is the overcoupling coefficient. This formula, derived from the quantum noise theory of non-degenerate OPOs, converts a directly measured noise reduction into an on-chip squeezing level after accounting for detector inefficiency and optical loss, and it provides the quantitative test that the authors use to show their devices are free of excess noise. The second key mechanism is the dependence of the oscillation threshold on free spectral range, $P_{\mathrm{th}} \propto 1/\mathrm{FSR}$, which motivates the use of 450 GHz FSR rings to reach low thresholds and stable operation.

What would settle it

A direct, loss-independent measurement of the on-chip squeezing on the same device—for example, via heterodyne or homodyne tomography—that returned a value clearly below the inferred 10.7 dB, or a demonstration that detected squeezing improves less than the model predicts when detection efficiency is raised above the current 64%, would falsify the claim of loss-limited, excess-noise-free squeezing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Kerr microresonator in the strongly overcoupled regime, operated just above parametric oscillation threshold, produces twin beams whose intensity-difference noise is 3.7 ± 0.2 dB below the shot noise level when detected directly, and that this value is consistent with the simple formula $SL = 10 \log_{10}(1 - \eta_D \eta_{\mathrm{path}} \theta)$ given the known detector efficiency, path loss, and overcoupling coefficient. Across three device configurations with different overcoupling ($\theta = 0.87, 0.91, 0.93$), the measured squeezing follows the predicted curve with a single fitted parameter—the path efficiency—which matches its independently measured value of 77%, indicating that excess classical noise does not measurably degrade the squeezing in these devices. The best device implies 11.5 dB of on-chip squeezing, and the paper reports that the detected squeezing is stable for minutes and robust to small pump detuning changes, thanks to active feedback and the lower threshold of larger-FSR rings.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the residual classical noise from the erbium-doped fiber amplifier, thermal drift, and pump is fully rejected by the 7 nm filter and the balanced detector's common-mode rejection at 5 MHz, so that the measured intensity-difference noise reflects only the quantum state and the inferred on-chip squeezing of 10.7–11.5 dB is accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Improving the total detection efficiency from its current 64% toward the 98% achieved in off-chip experiments would translate the inferred 10.7 dB on-chip squeezing into multi-dB directly detected squeezing from a chip, likely above 6 dB.
  • Because the squeezing matches the predictive model without excess-noise corrections, the same foundry process can be used to mass-produce squeezers that need no special noise mitigation, simplifying integration with CMOS electronics.
  • The combination of low threshold (via large FSR) and stable feedback locking makes these devices candidates for quantum-enhanced absorption spectroscopy and microscopy, where one twin beam probes a sample and the other serves as the reference.
  • Demonstrating that squeezing survives with 91% overcoupling suggests that further increasing overcoupling—if excess noise can be controlled—could push on-chip squeezing even higher, toward the 15 dB levels now available only off-chip.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Although the paper demonstrates squeezing only at a 5 MHz detection sideband, its finding that excess noise is absent in small rings suggests the same devices may also squeeze at lower frequencies where thermorefractive noise typically dominates; testing this could widen the usable bandwidth for quantum sensors.
  • The paper reports that the most overcoupled device ($\theta = 0.93$) failed to squeeze stably, attributing this to excess noise at higher pump power; this hints at a design trade-off between overcoupling (which raises on-chip squeezing) and pump threshold (which raises noise), so an intermediate $\theta$ might maximize usable squeezing.
  • Because the 10.7 dB on-chip value is inferred from the model rather than measured, an independent tomographic measurement of the same chip would be a natural validation step; the paper's framework gives a concrete prediction for what such a measurement should find.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the direct detection of 3.7 ± 0.2 dB of twin-beam intensity-difference squeezing from a foundry-fabricated Si3N4 microring operated as a Kerr optical parametric oscillator above threshold. The authors demonstrate stability of the squeezing over ~10 s, robustness to small pump detuning changes, and consistency with the prediction of Eq. (1) across three devices/resonances with overcoupling coefficients θ = 0.875, 0.914, and 0.93. A one-parameter fit to the θ-trend returns ηpath = 77%, matching an independent measurement, and a loss-dilution scan in Fig. 3b shows the detected squeezing approaching shot noise as added loss increases. The paper also reports an on-chip inferred squeezing level, quoted as 10.7 dB in the abstract and 11.5 dB in Section III, and attributes the low oscillation threshold of 450-GHz-FSR rings to reduced thermal/excess noise.

Significance. If the excess-noise-free interpretation is correct, this is a significant advance: it would be the largest squeezing directly detected from a microresonator, in a CMOS-compatible platform, with an inferred on-chip squeezing level above 10 dB. The paper's strengths include an external shot-noise calibration (Fig. 2b), an independent verification of the single fitted parameter ηpath, repeated measurements across devices and detunings, and an explicit threshold-power comparison between 450-GHz and 210-GHz FSR rings. The central limitation is that the 'no noticeable degradation from excess classical noise' claim is not fully established: the paper itself concedes that nearby devices and even the most overcoupled θ = 0.93 device show signs of excess-noise contamination, and the loss-dilution test in Fig. 3b cannot distinguish squeezed vacuum from excess optical noise added before the loss.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, final paragraph; Abstract] The abstract states that the squeezing is 'consistent with the overcoupling degree without noticeable degradation from excess classical noise,' but Section III explicitly reports that for the most overcoupled device (θ = 0.93, the orange point in Fig. 3a used for the 11.5 dB inference) 'the stable squeezing measurement in Fig. 2 was not seen,' with the stated explanation being 'increased excess noise associated with higher pump power.' This is an internal contradiction that directly affects the validity of the 11.5 dB on-chip claim. Please either provide a quantitative excess-noise characterization at that operating point that justifies including it, or exclude the θ = 0.93 point from the on-chip inference and restrict the headline on-chip claim to the θ = 0.914 point (10.7 dB).
  2. [Fig. 3b and surrounding text] The loss-dilution test in Fig. 3b is presented as evidence that the measured squeezing is free of excess classical noise, but this test cannot distinguish squeezed vacuum from excess noise added before the loss element. If an excess-noise term N is present before the attenuation η, the detected variance is η(S + N) + (1 − η), which still approaches the shot-noise level as η → 0. Thus the observed linear degradation toward shot noise is equally consistent with a contaminated squeezed state. A control measurement that directly bounds the excess noise at 5 MHz is needed, for example measuring the intensity-difference noise with the pump below threshold, measuring the EDFA RIN at the detection frequency, or characterizing the balanced detector's CMRR in situ.
  3. [Abstract and Section III] The inferred on-chip squeezing is quoted as 10.7 dB in the abstract and as 11.5 dB in Section III. These numbers correspond to different data points (θ = 0.914 versus θ = 0.93, respectively). The inconsistency is confusing and undermines the quantitative headline. Please harmonize the numbers and state explicitly which operating point supports each value.
  4. [Fig. 3a and paragraph containing Eq. (1)] The θ-trend fit in Fig. 3a uses only three points spanning a narrow range (θ = 0.875 to 0.93) with ηpath as the single free parameter. While the agreement with the independently measured ηpath = 77% is a good cross-check, the fit cannot rule out a θ-dependent excess-noise component, especially because the highest-θ point is the one for which excess noise is explicitly acknowledged. Please report the fit residuals, the confidence interval for ηpath, and the result of excluding the θ = 0.93 point, so the reader can judge the robustness of the 'no degradation' conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2a caption] The caption labels the shot-noise trace both as 'Shot noise (yellow)' and later as 'Shot noise in black'; please clarify which curve corresponds to the directly measured trace and which is derived from the calibration in Fig. 2b.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'SL ¿3 dB' appears to be a rendering artifact for 'SL > 3 dB'; please correct it.
  3. [Fig. 3a caption] The caption notes that the spectral dependence of ηD and the grating efficiency are not accounted for; a short sensitivity estimate would help the reader understand how this uncertainty propagates to the fitted ηpath and the inferred on-chip squeezing.
  4. [Section III, θ = 0.93 discussion] The statement that 'the stable squeezing measurement in Fig. 2 was not seen' for the θ = 0.93 device should be quantified (e.g., fluctuation amplitude or Allan deviation) so that it is clear why the corresponding data point is nevertheless retained in Fig. 3a.
  5. [Eq. (1)] The denominator 1 + Ω²τc² is neglected because Ωτc ≪ 1; please state the maximum value of Ωτc for the three reported devices to make this approximation quantitatively transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 3.7 dB result is measured against an external shot-noise calibration, the fitted ηpath is independently verified, and the on-chip inference follows from measured θ and standard OPO theory.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and tested against external benchmarks. The directly detected 3.7 dB is obtained by comparing the twin-beam intensity-difference noise on the ESA to an independent shot-noise calibration (Fig. 2b) that is linear over a 24-dBm power span, so the headline number is not derived from Eq. (1) or from any fitted parameter. Eq. (1) is not a self-citational crutch: it is attributed to the standard OPO theory of Fabre et al. and Chembo, with the authors' earlier work only one of three references. The overcoupling coefficient θ is extracted from Lorentzian fits of low-power linear transmission, ηD is known a priori (79%), and ηpath is fit as the sole free parameter but then matches the independently measured value (77%), i.e., the fit validates rather than generates the result. The inferred on-chip values (10.7–11.5 dB) are computed from θ via Eq. (1) at unity detection efficiency, not from the measured detected squeezing, so no quantity is defined in terms of the target. The paper's own caveat that the most-overcoupled device and devices with threshold power above 250 mW did not show commensurate squeezing is a genuine excess-noise risk and weakens the universality of the 'no degradation' claim, but it is a correctness and falsifiability concern, not a circularity: those failures are not used to define the reported values, and the successful points are compared to an external calibration. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim rests on self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard OPO squeezing formula (Eq. 1), the assumption that detection noise is quantum-limited after filtering and balanced detection, and the extrapolation from measured to on-chip squeezing by setting detection efficiency to unity. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ηpath (detection path efficiency in Fig. 3a fit) = 77%
    Used as the only free parameter to fit the squeezing-versus-θ trend; the fitted value matches the independently measured ηpath = 77%, so it does not carry the central claim.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Equation 1 (from Fabre et al. and Chembo) describes the detected squeezing level of a bright twin-beam OPO in terms of ηD, ηpath, θ, Ω, and τc.
    Invoked in Methods without derivation; the paper relies on its validity for Kerr microresonator OPOs.
  • domain assumption The 7 nm bandpass filter and balanced detection reject EDFA and thermal excess noise at 5 MHz, so the measured noise difference is limited by quantum noise.
    Section II and Section III; the paper's 'no excess noise' conclusion depends on this rejection being complete.
  • ad hoc to paper On-chip squeezing can be inferred by evaluating Eq. 1 with ηDηpath = 1, i.e., detection inefficiency is the only difference between measured and on-chip squeezing.
    Used to convert measured 3.7 dB to roughly 10.7 dB on-chip; if excess noise or nonlinear loss is present on-chip, the inference overestimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong nanophotonic quantum squeezing exceeding 3.5 dB in a foundry-compatible Kerr microresonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5O3AE4PQ

@misc{pith2026241111679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong nanophotonic quantum squeezing exceeding 3.5 dB in a foundry-compatible Kerr microresonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5O3AE4PQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11679}
}
abstract

Squeezed light, with its quantum noise reduction capabilities, has emerged as a powerful resource in quantum information processing and precision metrology. To reach noise reduction levels such that a quantum advantage is achieved, off-chip squeezers are typically used. The development of on-chip squeezed light sources, particularly in nanophotonic platforms, has been challenging. We report 3.7 $\pm$ 0.2 dB of directly detected nanophotonic quantum squeezing using foundry-fabricated silicon nitride (Si$_3$N$_4$) microrings with an inferred squeezing level of 10.7 dB on-chip. The squeezing level is robust across multiple devices and pump detunings, and is consistent with the overcoupling degree without noticeable degradation from excess classical noise. We also offer insights to mitigate thermally-induced excess noise, that typically degrades squeezing, by using small-radius rings with a larger free spectral range (450 GHz) and consequently lower parametric oscillation thresholds. Our results demonstrate that Si$_3$N$_4$ is a viable platform for strong quantum noise reduction in a CMOS-compatible, scalable architecture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the measurement setup. OSA: optical spectrum analyzer. PC: polarization controller. BS: beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Shot noise (yellow) and twin-beam intensity difference noise (blue) taken at 5 MHz measurement frequency, 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Measured squeezing level versus overcoupling coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (d) Variation of the optical parametric oscillation power threshold with the overcoupling coefficienct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

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

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics 7, 613 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    E. S. Polzik, J. Carri, and H. J. Kimble, Spectroscopy with squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3020 (1992). 7

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    R. B. de Andrade, H. Kerdoncuff, K. Berg-Sørensen, T. Gehring, M. Lassen, and U. L. Andersen, Quantum- enhanced continuous-wave stimulated raman scattering spectroscopy, Optica 7, 470 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Boyer et al., Entangled images from four-wave mixing, Science 321, 544 (2008)

    V. Boyer et al., Entangled images from four-wave mixing, Science 321, 544 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Treps, U

    N. Treps, U. Andersen, B. Buchler, P. K. Lam, A. Ma ˆ ıtre, H.-A. Bachor, and C. Fabre, Surpassing the standard quantum limit for optical imaging using nonclassical mul- timode light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 203601 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    A. M. Marino and P. D. Lett, Absolute calibration of photodiodes with bright twin beams, Journal of Modern Optics 58, 328 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Detection of 15 db squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110801 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, S. Goßler, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Observation of squeezed light with 10-db quantum-noise reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 033602 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    C. F. McCormick, A. M. Marino, V. Boyer, and P. D. Lett, Strong low-frequency quantum correlations from a four-wave-mixing amplifier, Phys. Rev. A 78, 043816 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Mehmet, S

    M. Mehmet, S. Ast, T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, H. Vahlbruch, and R. Schnabel, Squeezed light at 1550 nm with a quantum noise reduction of 12.3 db, Opt. Ex- press 19, 25763 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Eberle, S

    T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, V. H¨ andchen, H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, H. M¨ uller-Ebhardt, and R. Schnabel, Quantum enhancement of the zero-area sagnac interferometer topology for gravitational wave de- tection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 251102 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Yokoyama, R

    S. Yokoyama, R. Ukai, S. Armstrong, et al., Ultra-large- scale continuous-variable cluster states multiplexed in the time domain, Nature Photonics 7, 982 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Asavanant, Y

    W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoen- sombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J. ichi Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Generation of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 373 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 369 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    M. Chen, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Experimental realization of multipartite entanglement of 60 modes of a quantum optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Roslund, R

    J. Roslund, R. de Ara´ ujo, S. Jiang, et al., Wavelength- multiplexed quantum networks with ultrafast frequency combs, Nature Photonics 8, 109 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Kouadou, F

    T. Kouadou, F. Sansavini, M. Ansquer, J. Henaff, N. Treps, and V. Parigi, Spectrally shaped and pulse- by-pulse multiplexed multimode squeezed states of light, APL Photonics 8, 086113 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photon...

    2020

  13. [21]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, et al., Quantum computational advantage with a pro- grammable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    R. C. Pooser and B. Lawrie, Ultrasensitive measure- ment of microcantilever displacement below the shot- noise limit, Optica 2, 393 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Dowran, A

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

    2018

  16. [24]

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

    2016

  17. [25]

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

    2022

  18. [26]

    Samantaray, I

    N. Samantaray, I. Ruo-Berchera, A. Meda, et al., Real- ization of the first sub-shot-noise wide field microscope, Light: Science & Applications 6, e17005 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    F. Li, T. Li, M. O. Scully, and G. S. Agarwal, Quan- tum advantage with seeded squeezed light for absorption measurement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 044030 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    T. Li, V. Cheburkanov, V. V. Yakovlev, G. S. Agar- wal, and M. O. Scully, Harnessing quantum light for microscopic biomechanical imaging of cells and tissues, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2413938121 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    C. A. Casacio, L. S. Madsen, A. Terrasson, et al., Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy, Nature 594, 201 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    J. U. F¨ urst, D. V. Strekalov, D. Elser, A. Aiello, U. L. Andersen, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Quantum light from a whispering-gallery-mode disk resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 113901 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, On-chip optical squeez- ing, Phys. Rev. Applied 3, 044005 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    A. Dutt, S. Miller, K. Luke, J. Cardenas, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, Tunable squeezing using coupled ring resonators on a silicon nitride chip, Opt. Lett. 41, 223 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    R. A. K¨ ogler, G. C. Rickli, R. R. Domeneguetti, X. Ji, A. L. Gaeta, M. Lipson, M. Martinelli, and P. Nussen- zveig, Quantum state tomography in a third-order inte- grated optical parametric oscillator, Opt. Lett. 49, 3150 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Z. Wang, K. Li, Y. Wang, X. Zhou, Y. Cheng, B. Jing, F. Sun, J. Li, Z. Li, Q. Gong, Q. He, B.-B. Li, and Q.- F. Yang, Chip-scale generation of 60-mode continuous- variable cluster states (2024), arXiv:2406.10715

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Z. Yang, M. Jahanbozorgi, D. Jeong, S. Sun, O. Pfister, H. Lee, and X. Yi, A squeezed quantum microcomb on a chip, Nature Communications 12, 4781 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Okawachi, J. K. Jang, X. Ji, M. Lipson, and A. L. Gaeta, Near-degenerate quadrature-squeezed vacuum generation on a silicon-nitride chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 193601 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    P.-K. Chen, I. Briggs, S. Hou, and L. Fan, Ultra- broadband quadrature squeezing with thin-film lithium niobate nanophotonics, Opt. Lett. 47, 1506 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Jahanbozorgi, Z

    M. Jahanbozorgi, Z. Yang, S. Sun, H. Chen, R. Liu, B. Wang, and X. Yi, Generation of squeezed quantum microcombs with silicon nitride integrated photonic cir- cuits, Optica 10, 1100 (2023). 8

    2023

  31. [39]

    Cernansky and A

    R. Cernansky and A. Politi, Nanophotonic source of quadrature squeezing via self-phase modulation, APL Photonics 5, 101303 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    V. D. Vaidya, B. Morrison, L. G. Helt, R. Shahrokshahi, D. H. Mahler, M. J. Collins, K. Tan, J. Lavoie, A. Re- pingon, M. Menotti, N. Quesada, R. C. Pooser, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, and Z. Vernon, Broad- band quadrature-squeezed vacuum and nonclassical pho- ton numbe...

    2020

  33. [41]

    H. S. Stokowski, T. P. McKenna, T. Park, et al., Inte- grated quantum optical phase sensor in thin film lithium niobate, Nature Communications 14, 3355 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    T. Park, H. Stokowski, V. Ansari, S. Gyger, K. K. S. Mul- tani, O. T. Celik, A. Y. Hwang, D. J. Dean, F. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, M. M. Fejer, and A. Safavi-Naeini, Single-mode squeezed-light generation and tomography with an integrated optical parametric oscillator, Sci. Adv. 10...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Takanashi, A

    N. Takanashi, A. Inoue, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, All-optical phase-sensitive detection for ultra-fast quan- tum computation, Opt. Express 28, 34916 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Few-cycle vacuum squeezing in nanophotonics, Science 377, 1333 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Brusaschi, M

    E. Brusaschi, M. Borghi, M. Bacchi, M. Liscidini, M. Galli, and D. Bajoni, Photon number distribution of squeezed light from a silicon nitride microresonator mea- sured without photon number resolving detectors, Optica Quantum 2, 214 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Fabre, E

    C. Fabre, E. Giacobino, A. Heidmann, and S. Reynaud, Noise characteristics of a non-degenerate optical para- metric oscillator - application to quantum noise reduc- tion, J. Phys. France 50, 1209 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Y. K. Chembo, Quantum dynamics of kerr optical fre- quency combs below and above threshold: Spontaneous four-wave mixing, entanglement, and squeezed states of light, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033820 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    X. Ji, F. A. S. Barbosa, S. P. Roberts, A. Dutt, J. Carde- nas, Y. Okawachi, A. Bryant, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lip- son, Ultra-low-loss on-chip resonators with sub-milliwatt parametric oscillation threshold, Optica 4, 619 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    A. Dutt, A. Mohanty, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lipson, Non- linear and quantum photonics using integrated optical materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 9, 321 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    B. J. M. Hausmann, I. Bulu, V. Venkataraman, P. Deotare, and M. Lonˇ car, Diamond nonlinear photon- ics, Nat Photon 8, 369 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    T. Herr, K. Hartinger, J. Riemensberger, et al., Universal formation dynamics and noise of kerr-frequency combs in microresonators, Nature Photonics 6, 480 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Huffman, D

    T. Huffman, D. Baney, and D. J. Blumenthal, High ex- tinction ratio widely tunable low-loss integrated si3n4 third-order filter (2017), arXiv:1708.06344 [physics.app- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X. Nie, N. Turk, Y. Li, Z. Liu, and R. Baets, High extinc- tion ratio on-chip pump-rejection filter based on cascaded grating-assisted contra-directional couplers in silicon ni- tride rib waveguides, Opt. Lett. 44, 2310 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    A. E. Afifi, M. Hammood, N. A. F. Jaeger, S. Shekhar, L. Chrostowski, and J. F. Young, Contra-directional pump reject filters integrated with a micro-ring resonator photon-pair source in silicon, Opt. Express 29, 25173 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Singh, R

    A. Singh, R. Belansky, and M. Soltani, Ultraflat band- pass, high extinction, and tunable silicon photonic filters, Opt. Express 30, 43787 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    J. Gao, T. C. Tzu, T. Fatema, X. Guo, Q. Yu, G. Navick- aite, M. Zervas, M. Geiselmann, and A. Beling, Hetero- geneous balanced photodetector on silicon nitride with 30 ghz bandwidth and 26 db common mode rejection ra- tio, in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2023 ...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Costanzo, J

    R. Costanzo, J. Gao, X. Shen, Q. Yu, A. Alabdulwa- hab, A. Beling, and S. M. Bowers, Low-noise balanced photoreceiver with inp-on-si photodiodes and sige bic- mos transimpedance amplifier, J. Lightwave Technol.39, 4837 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Bruynsteen, M

    C. Bruynsteen, M. Vanhoecke, J. Bauwelinck, and X. Yin, Integrated balanced homodyne photonic– electronic detector for beyond 20 ghz shot-noise-limited measurements, Optica 8, 1146 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Raffaelli, G

    F. Raffaelli, G. Ferranti, D. H. Mahler, P. Sibson, J. E. Kennard, A. Santamato, G. Sinclair, D. Bonneau, M. G. Thompson, and J. C. F. Matthews, A homodyne detector integrated onto a photonic chip for measuring quantum states and generating random numbers, Quantum Sci- ence an...

    2018

  52. [60]

    J. F. Tasker, J. Frazer, G. Ferranti, and J. C. F. Matthews, A bi-cmos electronic photonic integrated circuit quantum light detector, Science Advances 10, eadk6890 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    J. F. Tasker, J. Frazer, G. Ferranti, et al., Silicon pho- tonics interfaced with integrated electronics for 9 ghz measurement of squeezed light, Nature Photonics 15, 11 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Gurses, D

    V. Gurses, D. Sarkar, S. Davis, and A. Hajimiri, An in- tegrated photonic-electronic quantum coherent receiver for sub-shot-noise-limited optical links, in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2024 (Optica Pub- lishing Group, 2024) p. Tu2C.1

    2024

  55. [63]

    Lustig, M

    E. Lustig, M. A. Guidry, D. M. Lukin, S. Fan, and J. Vuckovic, Emerging Quadrature Lattices of Kerr Combs, arXiv:2407.13049 10.48550/arXiv.2407.13049 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. Pu, H. Hu, L. Ottaviano, E. Semenova, D. Vukovic, L. K. Oxenløwe, and K. Yvind, Ultra-Efficient and Broadband Nonlinear AlGaAs-on-Insulator Chip for Low-Power Optical Signal Processing, Laser & Photonics Reviews 12, 1800111 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    W. Xie, L. Chang, H. Shu, J. C. Norman, J. D. Peters, X. Wang, and J. E. Bowers, Ultrahigh-Q AlGaAs-on- insulator microresonators for integrated nonlinear pho- tonics, Opt. Express 28, 32894 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    M. A. Guidry, D. M. Lukin, K. Y. Yang, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Multimode squeezing in soliton crystal microcombs, Op- tica 10, 694 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Pontula, Y

    S. Pontula, Y. Salamin, C. Roques-Carmes, and M. Sol- jacic, Multimode amplitude squeezing through cascaded nonlinear optical processes, arXiv:2405.05201 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Moody, V

    G. Moody, V. J. Sorger, D. J. Blumenthal, P. W. Juodawlkis, W. Loh, C. Sorace-Agaskar, A. E. Jones, K. C. Balram, J. C. F. Matthews, A. Laing, M. Da- vanco, L. Chang, J. E. Bowers, N. Quack, C. Gal- land, I. Aharonovich, M. A. Wolff, C. Schuck, N. Sin- clair, M. Lonˇ car, T. K...

    2022

Pith tools

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