Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 63 references

A Trade-Off Between Path Entanglement and Quantum Sensitivity

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Entangling the paths of a squeezed-light interferometer reduces its phase sensitivity, and the best sensitivity comes from unentangled squeezed states.

desk verdict Solid and interesting trade-off result, but the main text has a factor-of-two error in Eq. (5) that makes the derivation as printed inconsistent; the final formula survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18832 v3 pith:F6IEAPC4 submitted 2024-11-28 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Benjamin Lou , Hudson A. Loughlin , Nergis Mavalvala This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords quantumFisherinformationGaussianstatessqueezedpathentanglementphaseestimationinterferometrymetrologytrade-off
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 tackles the common assumption that entanglement always helps quantum measurements. It shows the opposite for a broad and experimentally relevant class: squeezed-vacuum (zero-mean Gaussian) states used for phase estimation. For these states, path entanglement strictly reduces the quantum Fisher information (QFI): the single-mode phase-shift QFI is $H = H_{\rm sqz}(n_1) - (1/\mu^2 - 1)$, where $\mu$ is the purity of the reduced mode, and the entanglement penalty $1/\mu^2 - 1$ grows with entanglement. The same penalty hits two-mode differential-phase measurements hardest and vanishes for common-phase measurements. The paper concludes that optimal $N$-mode sensitivity is reached by decoupled, properly ordered squeezed states, with $H = 2\sum_a g_a^2 \sinh^2(2r_a)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the QFI of a pure zero-mean Gaussian state under a passive phase-shift unitary, $H = {\rm Tr}\big((V G)^2 - G^2\big)/2$, with $G = {\rm diag}(g_1,g_1,\dots,g_N,g_N)$, derived from symplectic properties. The argument converts this into an explicit function of entanglement through the purity–determinant relation ${\rm det}(V_1) = 1/\mu^2$ for the reduced 2×2 covariance block of the phase-shifted mode, where $\mu$ is the purity. The full $N$-mode optimality proof relies on the passivity structure $V = K V_{\rm in} K^{-1}$ with symplectic-orthogonal $K$, together with Proposition 1, which says $V$ is decoupled (no cross-mode covariances) if and only if the state is a tensor product of the input squeezed states in some order and orientation.

What would settle it

Directly measure the differential-phase QFI of a family of two-mode zero-mean Gaussian states with fixed per-mode squeezing but increasing entanglement (e.g., by passing two squeezed vacua through a variable beam splitter). Equation (12) predicts $H = (g_1^2 + g_2^2) H_{\rm sqz}(n) - (g_1-g_2)^2(1/\mu^2 - 1)$; any entangled state with differential QFI above the unentangled value $2 H_{\rm sqz}(n)$ would refute the trade-off. Alternatively, numerical search over the symplectic-orthogonal group $K$ for an $N$-mode state with $H > 2\sum_a g_a^2 \sinh^2(2r_a)$ at fixed $r_a$ would falsify Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any pure zero-mean Gaussian state obtained by a passive (photon-number-preserving) transformation $K$ acting on a product of squeezed states with covariance $V_{\rm in}$, the QFI for a phase shift on a single mode is exactly $H = H_{\rm sqz}(n_1) - (1/\mu^2 - 1)$, where $H_{\rm sqz}(n) = 8n^2 + 8n$ is the QFI of an unentangled squeezed state of mean photon number $n$. Because the reduced-state purity $\mu$ decreases monotonically with entanglement entropy, this identity imposes a strict trade-off: entanglement between the phase-shifted mode and the rest of the system lowers the QFI below the unentangled optimum, and the factor-of-two bounds $H_{\rm sqz}(n_1)/2 \le H \le H_{\rm sqz}(n_1)$ bracket all pure states. In the two-mode case the paper derives $H = (g_1^2 + g_2^2)H_{\rm sqz}(n) - (g_1 - g_2)^2(1/\mu^2 - 1)$ for equally squeezed inputs, showing that differential phase sensitivity is destroyed by maximal entanglement (EPR states give $H = (g_1+g_2)^2 H_{\rm sqz}(n)/2$), while common-phase QFI $H_{\rm com} = {\rm Tr}(V^2)/2 - 2$ is invariant under $K$. The paper's Theorem 1 then characterizes all optimal $N$-mode states: they are exactly the states reachable from decoupled, properly ordered squeezed states by passive transformations acting only within groups of modes sharing the same phase-shift coefficient $g_a$, and their QFI is $H = 2\sum_a g_a^2 \sinh^2(2r_a)$.

Load-bearing premise

The optimization assumes that every pure zero-mean Gaussian state with a fixed squeezing spectrum can be produced from a product of squeezed states by some passive transformation (beam splitters and phase shifts); if any such state lies outside this orbit, the optimality theorem would miss it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interferometers using squeezed vacuum should avoid path-entangling operations before the phase shift: differential-phase QFI decreases linearly with the entanglement monotone $1/\mu^2 - 1$, and maximally entangled EPR inputs are completely insensitive to differential phase.
  • The best possible $N$-mode phase sensitivity with fixed per-mode squeezing is $H = 2\sum_a g_a^2 \sinh^2(2r_a)$, achieved by decoupled, properly ordered squeezed states; no passive network can exceed it.
  • Common-phase measurements are immune to the trade-off, since the common-phase unitary commutes with every passive transformation $K$.
  • The trade-off extends beyond phase shifts to any parametrized passive symplectic transformation, as shown in the paper's Supplementary Information section IV.
  • With at most $r$ per-mode squeezing, the QFI is bounded by $H \le \|G\|^2 \sinh^2(2r)$, a per-mode alternative to total-photon-number bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's zero-mean restriction is crucial: for displaced inputs, passive networks can siphon displacement into one mode and make the QFI scale with $N$, so the per-mode squeezing bound would not apply. A natural next test is whether the same purity–QFI trade-off survives in the presence of photon loss.
  • The trade-off suggests a design rule for continuous-variable quantum sensors: place any entangling operation after the phase-sensing region rather than before it, so that entanglement is used at the measurement step rather than degrading the signal.
  • The identity $H = H_{\rm sqz}(n_1) - (1/\mu^2 - 1)$ is a candidate for a general resource-theoretic relation between QFI and a single-mode entanglement monotone; checking whether non-Gaussian states obey a similar bound with the same purity term would clarify its scope.
  • Because the formalism is frequency-independent, the paper's conclusions may need modification for continuous-wave light with optical cavities; whether the trade-off persists in a frequency-dependent treatment is an open question flagged by the authors themselves.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies zero-mean Gaussian states of N bosonic modes and asks how path entanglement affects the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for phase-shift estimation. Starting from the formula for the QFI of a pure zero-mean Gaussian state under a phase rotation, it derives a single-mode trade-off H = 8n_1^2 + 8n_1 - (1/µ^2 - 1), where µ is the purity of the reduced state of the phase-shifted mode; a two-mode decomposition showing that differential-phase sensitivity is degraded by entanglement while common-phase sensitivity is not; and an N-mode optimization theorem stating that optimal QFI states are exactly the decoupled, properly ordered squeezed states with H = 2 Σ_a g_a^2 sinh^2(2r_a). The argument is analytic and parameter-free, and the main results are stated as explicit formulas that can be checked independently.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a clean and somewhat counterintuitive result: for zero-mean Gaussian states, path entanglement is not a resource for phase sensitivity and in fact degrades it. The two-mode formulas are directly relevant to squeezed-light interferometry, and the explicit characterization of optimal states is useful for experiment design. The strengths include the absence of fitted parameters, the use of QFI as an estimator-independent figure of merit, and the explicit discussion of the limits of the result, including displaced states and frequency-dependent settings. The main weaknesses are a normalization error in Eq. (5), a missing factor of 2 in Eq. (15), and the fact that the proofs of Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 are deferred to the Supplementary Information, which is not present in the manuscript text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Trade-off in the Single Phase Shift Scenario, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is off by a factor of 2. From Eq. (4) with G = diag(1,1,0,...,0), one obtains H = (Tr(V_1^2) - 2)/2 = ||V_1||_F^2/2 - 1, not ||V_1||_F^2 - 1. Combining Eq. (6) with the printed Eq. (5) gives H = 16n_1^2 + 16n_1 + 3 - 2/µ^2, which contradicts the central result Eq. (7); the corrected normalization reproduces Eq. (7) exactly. This is not a cosmetic issue, because a reader following Eqs. (5)-(6) cannot derive Eq. (7). Please correct Eq. (5), adjust Eqs. (8)-(9) accordingly, and verify that the Supplementary Information proof of Theorem 1 uses the same corrected normalization.
  2. [Decoupled Squeezed States Optimize the QFI, Eq. (15)] The bound in Eq. (15) is missing the factor 2 from Eq. (14). Since Theorem 1 gives H = 2 Σ_a g_a^2 sinh^2(2r_a), constraining r_a ≤ r yields H ≤ 2 ||G||^2 sinh^2(2r), not H ≤ ||G||^2 sinh^2(2r). The printed inequality is false already for N = 1, g_1 = 1, where the exact value is H = 2 sinh^2(2r). Please correct this bound and revisit the comparison with the Schatten-norm bound of ref. [54] with consistent constants.
  3. [Decoupled Squeezed States Optimize the QFI, Proposition 1 and Theorem 1] The proofs of Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 are deferred entirely to the Supplementary Information, which is not available in the manuscript text. Since Theorem 1 is the central optimality claim, the submitted package should include the Supplementary Information, and the proof should be checked against the corrected QFI normalization. In addition, the main text states above Eq. (3) that every pure zero-mean Gaussian state can be generated from V_in by a passive transformation; this orbit assumption underlies the optimization in Theorem 1 and should be justified either in the main text or in the Supplementary Information.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation after Eq. (1)] The text says indices i,j,k range from 0 to 2N and indices a,b range from 0 to N, but the canonical operators are labelled q_1,...,q_2N and the modes are 1,...,N; the range should start at 1.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Eq. (8), notation for the Frobenius norm] After correcting Eq. (5), the notation ||V_1||^2 should be defined consistently as the squared Frobenius norm of the 2x2 block, since the text currently introduces ||·||_2 as 'the Frobenius norm squared' but Eq. (8) still displays the uncorrected expression.
  3. [Eq. (11), presentation of the two-mode formula] The derivation of Eq. (11) is algebraically clear, but it would help to state explicitly that the equality of the purities obtained by tracing either mode follows from the Schmidt decomposition argument already cited in the text; this is presently only asserted in a parenthetical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trade-off is derived from the standard Gaussian QFI formula and symplectic identities, with no fitted parameters, no self-citation load-bearing, and no definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central trade-off, Eq. (7), follows from the stated QFI formula Eq. (4) together with the standard identities Tr(V1) = 4n1 + 2 and det(V1) = 1/mu^2, and the optimization in Theorem 1 is a mathematical consequence of the QFI expression and the passive-transformation model V = K Vin K^{-1}. There are no fitted parameters, no normalizations chosen to force the conclusion, and no load-bearing self-citations. The only self-authored reference, [26], is used to demarcate future frequency-dependent extensions, not to justify the trade-off or the optimality theorem. The Supplementary assumption that every pure zero-mean Gaussian state lies in the passive orbit of a product squeezed state is a stated mathematical premise, not a circular redefinition; if it were false the optimality theorem would be incomplete, but that is an assumption-explicitness concern, not circularity. One concrete non-circular correctness caveat should be flagged: Eq. (5) as printed, H = ||V1||^2 - 1, is inconsistent with Eq. (4); substituting Eq. (6) into the printed Eq. (5) does not yield Eq. (7), whereas the corrected expression H = ||V1||^2/2 - 1 reproduces Eq. (7) exactly. This is an internal error or typo in the main-text derivation, not a circular reduction, and it does not affect the circularity verdict.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. It relies on standard results in Gaussian quantum information: the QFI formula, the passive decomposition of pure Gaussian states, the purity-determinant relation, and the Schmidt decomposition. All are cited or derived in the Supplementary Information.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The QFI of a pure zero-mean Gaussian state under phase shifts gaφ is H = Tr[(VG)^2 - G^2]/2 (Eq. 4).
    Derived in SI section I from symplectic properties; this is a known result in Gaussian quantum metrology and is the foundation of all subsequent formulas.
  • domain assumption Any pure zero-mean Gaussian state can be written as K V_in K^{-1} with K a symplectic orthogonal (passive) matrix acting on a product of squeezed vacua (Eq. 3).
    This Bloch-Messiah-style decomposition is stated in SI section II; it defines the search space for the optimality theorem.
  • standard math For a one-mode Gaussian state, the purity µ satisfies det(V1) = 1/µ^2.
    Standard purity formula for Gaussian states with the ℏ=2 convention, cited to Serafini et al. [44,51]; this links the QFI to the entanglement entropy.
  • standard math In a pure two-mode state, the two reduced states have equal purity by the Schmidt decomposition (extended to infinite dimensions).
    Used to write Eq. (11) with a single µ; the extension for trace-class operators is cited to Reed and Simon [62].
  • standard math For mixed Gaussian states, the pure-state QFI formula is an upper bound.
    The paper states this after Eq. (4); it extends the trade-off to mixed states without a full derivation in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Trade-Off Between Path Entanglement and Quantum Sensitivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6IEAPC4

@misc{pith2026241118832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Trade-Off Between Path Entanglement and Quantum Sensitivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6IEAPC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18832}
}
abstract

Entanglement often increases quantum measurement schemes' sensitivity. However, we find that in precision measurements with zero-mean Gaussian states, such as squeezed states, entanglement between different paths degrades measurement sensitivity. We prove an inverse relationship between entanglement entropy and sensitivity for measurements of single-mode phase shifts in multimode systems and for phase shifts on both modes in two-mode systems. In the two-mode case, which models devices such as interferometers, we find that entanglement strongly degrades differential phase sensitivity. Finally, we show that minimizing entanglement between paths maximizes the phase sensitivity of $N$-mode systems with zero-mean Gaussian state inputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The trade-off between entanglement and QFI. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    704-706 in [61] to an infinite-dimensional set- ting by noting that density operators are trace class and therefore compact ([62] Theorem VI.21)

    We can extend the proof of the Schmidt decomposition from pg. 704-706 in [61] to an infinite-dimensional set- ting by noting that density operators are trace class and therefore compact ([62] Theorem VI.21). This means a countable spectral decomposition can still be furnished for the reduced density operators ([62] Theorem VI.16), which is a key step of the proof

    work page

  2. [1]

    The purity 3 of this one-mode state monotonically decreases with its Von Neumann entropy, S, the standard measure of en- tanglement of a bipartite system

    its purity. The purity 3 of this one-mode state monotonically decreases with its Von Neumann entropy, S, the standard measure of en- tanglement of a bipartite system. This follows from S = 1−µ 2µ ln 1+µ 1−µ − ln 2µ 1+µ [44]. Furthermore, the purity is related to the determinant as det( V1) = 1 /µ2 [44][51]. Using the formulas for trace and determinant in ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  4. [3]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  5. [4]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  6. [5]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2188 (1976)

    1976

  7. [6]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  8. [7]

    W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1047 (1984)

    work page 1984

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Israel, Physics Letters A 57, 107 (1976)

    W. Israel, Physics Letters A 57, 107 (1976)

    1976

  2. [9]

    Bombelli, R

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D 34, 373 (1986)

    1986

  3. [10]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 459, 2011 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 390, 575 (1997)

    1997

  5. [12]

    T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429 (1995)

    1995

  6. [13]

    Nielson and I

    M. Nielson and I. Chuang, Cambridge, England (2000)

    2000

  7. [14]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 10.1103/revmodphys.91.025001 (2019)

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Huang, C

    Z. Huang, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Physical Review A 94, 012101 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Sil- berberg, Science 328, 879 (2010), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1188172

    2010 doi

  10. [17]

    T. B. Mieling, C. Hilweg, and P. Walther, Phys. Rev. A 106, L031701 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Barbieri, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. E. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, L. McCuller, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. X. Ad- hikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, K. Arai, S. M. Aston, M. Ball, S. W. Ballmer, D. Barker, L. Barsotti, B. K. Berger, J. Be...

    2023

  13. [20]

    W. Jia, V. Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, N. Mavalvala, members of the LIGO Scien- tific Collaboration †, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. X. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, K. Arai, N. Aritomi, S. M. Aston, M. Ball, S. W. Ballmer, D. Barker, B. K. Berger, J. ...

    2024

  14. [21]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, and J. F. Valley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2409 (1985)

    1985

  15. [22]

    Yurke, P

    B. Yurke, P. G. Kaminsky, R. E. Miller, E. A. Whittaker, A. D. Smith, A. H. Silver, and R. W. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 764 (1988)

    1988

  16. [23]

    U. L. Andersen, T. Gehring, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Physica Scripta 91, 053001 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    McCuller, C

    L. McCuller, C. Whittle, D. Ganapathy, K. Komori, M. Tse, A. Fernandez-Galiana, L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. MacInnis, F. Matichard, K. Mason, N. Mavalvala, R. Mittleman, H. Yu, M. E. Zucker, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171102 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 513–577 (2005)

    2005

  19. [26]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  20. [27]

    J. Ding, H. A. Loughlin, and V. Sudhir, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09976 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00786 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    R. P. Kornfeld, B. W. Arnold, M. A. Gross, N. T. Dahya, W. M. Klipstein, P. F. Gath, and S. Bettadpur, Journal of spacecraft and rockets 56, 931 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    T. E. H. T. Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L2 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  26. [33]

    Rarity, P

    J. Rarity, P. Tapster, E. Jakeman, T. Larchuk, R. Cam- pos, M. Teich, and B. Saleh, Physical review letters 65, 1348 (1990)

    1990

  27. [34]

    H. F. Hofmann and T. Ono, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 031806 (2007)

    2007

  28. [35]

    Pezz´ e and A

    L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Physical review letters 100, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Physical review letters 107, 083601 (2011)

    2011

  30. [37]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  31. [38]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical re- view letters 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  32. [39]

    Monras, Physical Review A 73, 10.1103/phys- reva.73.033821 (2006)

    A. Monras, Physical Review A 73, 10.1103/phys- reva.73.033821 (2006)

    2006 doi

  33. [40]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  34. [41]

    M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A 90, 025802 (2014)

    2014

  35. [42]

    P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, K. Nemoto, J. A. Dunning- ham, and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A 90, 033846 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Tilma, S

    T. Tilma, S. Hamaji, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022108 (2010)

    2010

  37. [44]

    Simon, N

    R. Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1567 (1994)

    1994

  38. [45]

    Serafini, F

    A. Serafini, F. Illuminati, and S. De Siena, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 37, L21 (2003)

    2003

  39. [46]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optica 3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  40. [47]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Physical review letters 73, 58 (1994). 7

    1994

  41. [48]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  42. [49]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

  43. [50]

    R. D. Gill and B. Y. Levit, Bernoulli 1, 59 (1995)

    1995

  44. [51]

    M. Ma, Y. Li, and J. Shang, Fundamental Research (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    The formula in the citation differs by factors of 1/2 be- cause we use ℏ = 2 instead of their ℏ = 1 convention

  46. [53]

    J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 123603 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Matsubara, P

    T. Matsubara, P. Facchi, V. Giovannetti, and K. Yuasa, New Journal of Physics 21, 033014 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Bhatia, Matrix Analysis, 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol

    R. Bhatia, Matrix Analysis, 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 169 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidel- berg, New York, NY, 1997) pp. XI, 349

    1997

  49. [57]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Physical review letters 117, 110801 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, Phys. Rev. A31, 3068 (1985)

    1985

  51. [59]

    B. L. Schumaker and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A31, 3093 (1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    McCuller, S

    L. McCuller, S. E. Dwyer, A. C. Green, H. Yu, K. Kuns, L. Barsotti, C. D. Blair, D. D. Brown, A. Effler, M. Evans, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Fritschel, V. V. Frolov, N. Kijbunchoo, G. L. Mansell, F. Matichard, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, T. McRae, A. Mullavey, D. Sigg, B. J...

    2021

  53. [61]

    Ganapathy, V

    D. Ganapathy, V. Xu, W. Jia, C. Whittle, M. Tse, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, and L. McCuller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 122005 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Zwiebach, Mastering quantum mechanics: essentials, theory, and applications(MIT Press, 2022)

    B. Zwiebach, Mastering quantum mechanics: essentials, theory, and applications(MIT Press, 2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    M. Reed, B. Simon, B. Simon, and B. Simon, Methods of modern mathematical physics, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1972)

    1972

Pith tools

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