Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Enhancing the sensitivity of quantum optomechanical gyroscope by optical Kerr effect

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Kerr nonlinearity inside a quantum optomechanical gyroscope can push rotation-rate precision beyond the Heisenberg limit, and a quadrature measurement reaches that bound.

desk verdict Real analytic QFI result, but the super-Heisenberg figures rely on unstated and likely unphysical coupling strengths. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23453 v1 pith:KLCEC26N submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph

Ying Liu , Rui Zhang , Wen-Quan Yang , Ya-Feng Jiao , Wang-Jun Lu , Qing-Shou Tan , Le-Man Kuang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P5081V80
keywords quantumoptomechanicalgyroscopeopticalKerreffectFisherinformationsuper-HeisenbergscalingquadraturemeasurementCramér-Raoboundangularvelocityestimationsensing
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

Adding a Kerr medium to the cavity of a quantum optomechanical gyroscope makes the photon-photon interaction depend on the mechanical mirror's position, and the paper claims this sharply increases the precision with which the rotation rate can be estimated. The authors compute the quantum Fisher information and find that the Kerr coupling raises sensitivity by about two orders of magnitude at the parameters chosen, and that precision scales with total photon-plus-phonon number faster than the Heisenberg limit. They further show that a standard quadrature measurement of the cavity field attains this bound, and that while optical loss degrades the QFI, the enhancement remains orders of magnitude above the Heisenberg limit for moderate loss. The case of interest is that photon nonlinearity, usually treated as a nuisance in cavity QED, can be a usable resource for rotation sensing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the position-dependent Kerr coupling term in the Hamiltonian, specifically $\hbar G_{\rm NL}(a^\dagger a)^2(b+b^\dagger)$, which couples the square of the photon number to the mechanical displacement. Because the square of the photon number appears, the parameter-translation generator acquires terms of order $n^4$, $n^3$, and $n^2$ whose variances and covariances grow as high powers of the photon number, which is what pushes the quantum Fisher information above Heisenberg scaling. The QFI is computed from a standard generator expansion for pure-state parameter estimation, and the attainability claim is tested by computing the classical Fisher information for the quadrature POVM.

What would settle it

Compute the value of $\chi^{(3)}$ required to make $G_{\rm NL}=0.3\,g_0$ through $\eta_0=3\hbar\omega_c^2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\chi^{(3)}/(2\epsilon_0 V_0)$ with the paper's $\omega_c=10^{15}$ Hz, $L_0=10^{-4}$ m, $D=10^{-3}$ m, and $m=10^{-7}$ kg; if the required nonlinearity is not available in a low-loss medium, or if the QFI contrast between $G_{\rm NL}=0$ and $G_{\rm NL}=0.3g_0$ disappears when mechanical damping is included, the central enhancement claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optical Kerr interaction, modeled by the position-dependent term $\hbar \eta(q) a^{\dagger 2}a^2$ with $\eta(q)\simeq\eta_0+g_{\rm NL}q$, qualitatively improves a quantum optomechanical gyroscope. In the absence of driving, the Hamiltonian is exactly solvable, and the quantum Fisher information for the angular velocity $\Omega$ can be evaluated in closed form; numerically the Kerr terms $G_{\rm NL}=0.1\,g_0$ and $0.3\,g_0$ increase the QFI by roughly two orders of magnitude over the Kerr-free case, and the QFI grows with total photon-plus-phonon number faster than $N^2$, i.e. beyond the Heisenberg limit. The quadrature measurement of the cavity field gives a classical Fisher information that essentially coincides with the QFI, meaning this feasible measurement saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound. External driving produces an oscillatory modulation of the QFI, and optical cavity loss reduces it, but the reported sensitivity remains several orders of magnitude above the Heisenberg limit for $\kappa=0.1$ and $0.3$ in the parameters studied.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that a position-dependent Kerr coupling can reach $G_{\rm NL}=0.1\,g_0$ and $0.3\,g_0$ in a cavity with the listed $\omega_c$, $L_0$, $D$, and $m$; the size of every claimed sensitivity gain scales with these values, so if a real Kerr medium cannot produce them the enhancement is not physically available.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Kerr-filled optomechanical cavity can estimate angular velocity with a precision that surpasses the standard quantum limit and the Heisenberg limit in the idealized no-driving regime.
  • The quadrature measurement is the optimal practical readout: its classical Fisher information coincides with the QFI, so the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is saturated.
  • Increasing the photon fraction of the input coherent state, e.g. from $u=0.1$ to $u=0.9$, can raise the sensitivity by over an order of magnitude at fixed total particle number.
  • The driving amplitude and phase tune the QFI in an oscillatory way, providing a control knob for the gyroscope.
  • At cavity decay rates $\kappa=0.1$ and $0.3$ the QFI is reduced but still sits several orders of magnitude above the Heisenberg limit, suggesting tolerance to optical loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the super-Heisenberg scaling is demonstrated in a closed-system, pure-state model, so whether it survives mechanical thermal noise and mechanical damping, which the paper does not include, remains open.
  • Beyond the paper: the nonlinear strengths $G_{\rm NL}=0.1g_0$ and $0.3g_0$ are not tied to a specific material, so realizing them at $\omega_c=10^{15}$ Hz requires a Kerr medium whose $\chi^{(3)}$ and absorption are compatible with the listed cavity geometry.
  • Beyond the paper: a clean experiment would swap the Kerr medium in and out of the same cavity; the model predicts a QFI gap of about two orders of magnitude at $\Omega=2$ kHz, which a homodyne readout should reveal.
  • Beyond the paper: the same position-dependent photon-number-squared coupling could be produced by a transmon or other engineered nonlinearity, so the enhancement mechanism may transfer to integrated photonic rotation sensors.
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 proposes a quantum optomechanical gyroscope (QOMG) whose cavity is filled with a Kerr medium, and studies how the Kerr nonlinearity affects the precision of angular-velocity estimation. In the absence of driving, the model is solved exactly: the authors derive a closed-form expression for the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of the rotation rate, assuming the optical and mechanical modes are initially in coherent states. They report that the Kerr interaction enhances the QFI by about two orders of magnitude, leads to 'super-Heisenberg' scaling beyond F ∝ N^2, and that a quadrature measurement of the cavity field saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound. Numerical simulations with QuTiP are used to include the effects of a coherent drive and optical dissipation, showing that driving can tune the QFI while dissipation reduces it.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the work would be a useful theoretical demonstration that photon-photon nonlinearities can enhance optomechanical rotation sensing, with an analytic QFI derivation that goes beyond the usual linearized treatments. The closed-form variances and covariances in Appendix A are a concrete strength, as is the direct CFI/QFI comparison for a realistic measurement scheme. However, the manuscript's central quantitative claims are not yet anchored to a physical parameter regime: the absolute optomechanical coupling g0 and Kerr coefficient η0 are never specified, and the comparison to the standard quantum and Heisenberg limits is schematic. These gaps currently prevent the results from being a prediction for a concrete QOMG implementation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6); Sec. III, Figs. 2-4] The manuscript fixes only the ratios G_NL/g0 = 0.1 and 0.3, together with ωc, ωm, L0, D, and m, but never states the absolute values of g0 (or G) and η0. For the natural Fabry-Pérot identification G = ωc/L0, the choice G_NL = 0.3g0 implies η0 = 0.1ωc ≈ 10^14 Hz, an ultra-strong Kerr nonlinearity, and the listed m = 10^-7 kg, L0 = 10^-4 m give g0/ω̃m ≈ 0.09. Using the dominant QFI term H1 = R1 n^4 with R1 = 6G_NL^2 C1/ω̃m (Appendix A, Eq. (A10)), the QFI at N = 30 would be around log10 F ≈ 1-2, not the 14-16 plotted in Fig. 4. Thus the magnitude of the claimed enhancement is not a prediction of the proposed physical system. The authors must provide absolute coupling values, justify their realizability, or clearly present the plots as an abstract parameter study.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 4; Sec. V, Fig. 10] The 'SQL' and 'HL' curves in Figs. 4 and 10 are drawn as straight lines of slope 1 and 2, but their vertical positions are never defined. Since the QFI for the parameter Ω carries units of inverse Ω^2 and depends on the evolution time, initial state, and the optomechanical couplings, a comparison such as 'several orders of magnitude above the Heisenberg limit' is not quantitative unless the SQL/HL curves are derived from the same estimation problem (for example, the QFI of the same initial state and time with G_NL = 0). I recommend replacing the schematic lines with a properly computed baseline.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (6); Sec. V] Equation (6) presents the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame of the driving field as ℏ(ωc − η0)n + ℏη0 n^2 + ... . In a frame rotating at the drive frequency ωd, the linear cavity term should be ℏ(ωc − ωd)n; the drive frequency ωd is never specified. As written, the Hamiltonian is only valid if ωd = ωc − η0, which is not stated and would be a highly unusual choice given η0 ≈ 10^14 Hz. This affects the interpretation of the driving and dissipation results in Sec. V. The Hamiltonian and the numerical simulations should be corrected and the detuning specified.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (22), Fig. 5] The classical Fisher information in the quadrature measurement depends on the quadrature angle φ through the factor e^{i(n−n′)φ} in Eq. (22). The text claims that the quadrature measurement saturates the QCRB but does not state which value of φ is used in Fig. 5 or whether φ is optimized. To support the optimality claim, the authors should report the CFI as a function of φ or specify the optimal angle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (22)] The phase factor in Eq. (22) appears as e^{i(n−n′)φ}, whereas the quadrature eigenstates in Eq. (20) contain e^{−imφ}; please check the sign convention.
  2. [Sec. IV and Appendix B] There are inconsistent equation references: Section IV refers to Eq. (17) when meaning the reduced density operator (Eq. (18)), and Appendix B refers to Eq. (14) when the Hamiltonian is Eq. (15) in the main text.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains typos: 'Hesenberg' should be 'Heisenberg' and 'Crmam\'er-Rao' should be 'Cramér-Rao'.
  4. [Figs. 2-10] The QFI has units of s^2 for the parameter Ω; the plots show log10 F without specifying units, which makes the vertical scale ambiguous. Please state the units or plot a dimensionless combination.
  5. [Sec. V] In the dimensionless units of Sec. V, the dissipation rate κ = 0.1 corresponds to κ = 0.1ωc ≈ 10^14 Hz, an extremely large cavity decay; please comment on the physical relevance of this regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QFI and CFI results are computed from the stated Hamiltonian by exact algebra; no parameter is fitted to the target output.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (6), obtained by quantizing the radiation-pressure and Kerr terms with standard optomechanical identifications. The QFI in Eqs. (12)-(13) is generated by the exact commutator expansion of the parameter translation generator (Appendix A), and the variances and covariances are evaluated directly on the assumed coherent product state. No free parameter is adjusted to reproduce a Fisher-information value, so the super-Heisenberg scaling and the numerically large QFI are mathematical consequences of the nonlinear n^2 (and hence n^4 generator) term, not fitted outputs. The Sec. IV claim that quadrature measurement saturates the quantum Cramer-Rao bound rests on an explicit calculation of P(x|Omega) and of the classical Fisher information integral (Eqs. 22-23); the near-overlap with QFI in Fig. 5 is an independent numerical result, not an identity built into the definitions. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [23], [52], [65]) appear only in the background discussion and play no role in deriving the QFI or the Kerr-enhanced scaling. The main scientific weakness is that the absolute coupling constants (g0, eta0, and hence G_NL/omega_tilde) are never specified, so the plotted QFI magnitudes are not anchored to a concrete experimental realization; however, that is an under-specification of parameters, not circular reasoning. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-picked nonlinear coupling ratios and an unstated absolute g0. The paper adds no new entities, but the physical realizability of the Kerr coupling is the main unpaid input.

free parameters (5)
  • Nonlinear optomechanical coupling ratio G_NL/g0 = 0.1, 0.3
    The enhancement is driven by the G_NL n^2 (b+b^dagger) term, and the paper chooses these ratios by hand without deriving them from a concrete Kerr medium.
  • Absolute linear optomechanical coupling g0 = not specified
    All QFI magnitudes in Figs. 2-5 and the super-Heisenberg comparison depend on g0, yet no value is given. If G=omega_c/L0 is assumed, g0 is roughly 10^3 Hz for the chosen parameters, but this is not stated.
  • Kerr coefficient eta0 (or chi^(3)) = not specified
    eta0 sets g_NL=3 eta0/L0 and hence G_NL. The implied eta0 for G_NL=0.3 g0 is a substantial fraction of the cavity frequency, which is physically demanding and not flagged.
  • Initial photon and phonon numbers N_c, N_m = N_c=5, N_m=1; u swept 0.1-0.9
    The QFI values depend on the chosen coherent-state amplitudes; the population ratio is a hand-picked resource allocation, not an optimized or measured quantity.
  • Evolution time omega_m t = 2 pi
    All scaling plots fix the dimensionless evolution time to one mechanical period; choosing a different time changes the QFI and the apparent scaling.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The rotating-frame Hamiltonian Eq. (6) with position-dependent Kerr coefficient and linearized centripetal force is the correct description of a QOMG.
    Adopted from Refs. [77,78] in Sec. II without a microscopic derivation; the entire QFI computation rests on this model.
  • domain assumption Mirror displacement is small compared with cavity length, q << L0, so the Kerr coefficient linearizes as eta(q) approximately eta0 + g_NL q.
    Sec. II, Eq. (4). This linearization produces the n^2(b+b^dagger) term that is the actual source of the predicted enhancement.
  • domain assumption The optical and mechanical modes are initially in product coherent states |alpha>|beta>.
    Sec. III. The closed-form variances in Appendix A depend on this input state, which is chosen for solvability rather than justified by an experimental preparation scheme.
  • domain assumption In the dissipative analysis, mechanical damping is negligible compared with optical cavity decay and only the Lindblad operator sqrt(kappa) a is included.
    Sec. V, citing Ref. [84]. Omitting mechanical damping and other decoherence channels may be optimistic for a practical gyroscope.
  • standard math The pure-state QFI formula and the Pang-Brun generator expansion Eq. (10) apply to the closed-system evolution.
    Standard quantum estimation theory, invoked in Sec. III and Appendix A.
  • standard math The commutator recurrence Eq. (A5) closes with period two, allowing the infinite generator series to be summed exactly.
    Appendix A, Eq. (A5). The closed form is central to the analytic QFI and is consistent with the Hamiltonian structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing the sensitivity of quantum optomechanical gyroscope by optical Kerr effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLCEC26N

@misc{pith2026250523453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing the sensitivity of quantum optomechanical gyroscope by optical Kerr effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLCEC26N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23453}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a theoretical scheme to enhance the sensitivity of a quantum optomechanical gyroscope (QOMG) by optical Kerr effect. We utilize quantum Fisher information (QFI) to evaluate the metrological potential of the QOMG scheme. It is found that the Kerr interaction can significantly enhances the sensitivity of the QOMG. We observe the super-Hesenberg scaling of parameter estimation precision. Furthermore, we also evaluate the performance of QOMG for the quadrature measurement. It is indicated that the sensitivity in the quadrature measurement scheme can saturate the quantum Crmam\'{e}r-Rao bound. We study the effect of the driving and dissipation of the optical cavity on the QFI, and find that the sensitivity can be manipulated by changing the driving while dissipation decreases the sensitivity. The work shows that the photon nonlinear interaction can improve sensitivity of QOMG, and demonstrates a valuable quantum resource for the QOMG. These results could have a wide-ranging impact on developing high-performance QOMG in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the quantum optomechanical gyroscope with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The QFI with respect to the angular velocity of the QOMG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dynamic evolution of the QFI for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The QFI with respect to total number of particles in the input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The classical Fisher information on the quadrature measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The QFI as a function of parameters of the driving field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Dynamic evolution of the QFI for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The QFI with respect to total number of particles in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3 (g0−G NL)2 + 4 ˜ω2 m Ω2−6 ! χGNL # , R5 = (g0−G NL) [3C2−˜ωmt], R6 = (g0−G NL) 8 ˜ωm Ω2 − 12 ˜ωm ! χC1, R7 =2 ˜ωmt, R8 =

    The evolution dimensionless timeT=2π gram (Grant No. 2023ZJ1010) and XJ-Lab key project (Grant No. 23XJ02001). Y .-F.J. is supported by the NSFC (Grant No. 12405029) and the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province (Grant No. 252300421221). W.-J.L. is supported by the NSFC (Grant No. 12205092). Q.-S.T. is supported by the NSFC (Grant No. 12275077). Ap...

  2. [2]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity op- tomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    W. P. Bowen and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optomechanics, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    T. J. Kippenberg and K. J. Vahala, Cavity Optomechanics:Back- Action at the Mesoscale, Science321, 1172 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Huang, A

    G. Huang, A. Beccari, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippenberg, Room-temperature quantum optomechanics using an ultralow noise cavity, Nature626, 512 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Mercier de L´epinay, C

    L. Mercier de L´epinay, C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp ¨a¨a, Quantum mechanics-free subsystem with mechanical oscillators, Science372, 625 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    E.Wollman, C

    E. E.Wollman, C. U. Lei, A.J. Weinstein, and et al., Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator, Science349, 952(2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    T. P. Purdy, P. L. Yu, R. Peterson, N.S. Kampel, and C.A. Re- gal, Strong optomechanical squeezing of light, Phys. Rev. X,3, 031012(2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Chegnizadeh, M

    M. Chegnizadeh, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Youssefi, S. Kono, E. Gu- zovskii, and T. J. Kippenberg, Quantum collective motion of macroscopic mechanical oscillators, Science386, 1383 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kiesewetter, R

    S. Kiesewetter, R. Y . Teh, P. D. Drummond, and M. D. Reid, 11 Pulsed entanglement of two optomechanical oscillators and Furry’s hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 023601 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Jiao, S.-D

    Y .-F. Jiao, S.-D. Zhang, Y .-L. Zhang, A. Miranowicz, L-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal optomechanical entan- glement against backscattering Losses, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 143605 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Jiao, J.-X

    Y .-F. Jiao, J.-X. Liu, Y . Li, R. Yang, L.-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal enhancement of remote entanglement be- tween nonidentical mechanical oscillators, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 064008 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    B. B. Li, L. Ou, Y . Lei, and Y .-C. Liu, Cavity optomechanical sensing, Nanophotonics10, 2799 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Forstner, S

    S. Forstner, S. Prams, J.Knittel, and et al., Cavity optomechan- ical magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 120801 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    W. J. Westerveld, M. Mahmud- ˙Ul-Hasan, R. Shnaiderman, and et al., Sensitive, small, broadband and scalable optomechanical ultrasound sensor in silicon photonics, Nat. Photonics15, 341 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Arcizet, P.F

    O. Arcizet, P.F. Cohadon, T. Briant, and et al., High-sensitivity optical monitoring of a micromechanical resonator with a quantum-imited optomechanical sensor, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 133601 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Davuluri, Optomechanics for absolute rotation detection, Phys

    S. Davuluri, Optomechanics for absolute rotation detection, Phys. Rev. A94, 013808 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Davuluri, K

    S. Davuluri, K. Li, and Y . Li, Gyroscope with two-dimensional optomechanical mirror, New J. Phys.19, 113004 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    K. Li, S. Davuluri, and Y . Li, Improving optomechanical gyro- scopes by coherent quantum noise cancellation processing, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.61, 090311 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    K. Li, S. Davuluri, and Y . Li, Three-mode optomechanical sys- tem for angular velocity detection, Chin. Phys. B27, 084203 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Mahdavi, H

    V . Mahdavi, H. Saghafifar, M. Davoud-Darareh, Improvement of rotation rate sensitivity in a double moving mirrors cavity of a quantum optomechanical gyroscope, Appl. Phys. B130, 99 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Li and J

    H. Li and J. Cheng, Quantum estimation of rotational speed in optomechanics. Chin. Phys. B32, 100602 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    G. Li, X. M. Lu, X. G. Wang, J. Xin, and X. Li, Optomechani- cal gyroscope simultaneously estimating the position of the ro- tation axis, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B39, 98 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Q. S. Tan, Y . F. Jiao, L. Zuo, L. Xu, J. Q. Liao, and L. M. Kuang, Reinforcement learning assisted non-reciprocal optomechani- cal gyroscope, arXiv:2503.08319 (2025)(unpublished)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nat. Photon.5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    T ´oth and I

    G. T ´oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quantum3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quantum3, 010202 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photon. 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    H. Kwon, K. C. Tan, T. V olkoff, and H. Jeong, Nonclassicality as a quantifiable resource for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040503 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    Phys.7, 962(2011)

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wave ob- servatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys.7, 962(2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbottet al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photon.7, 613(2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    A. W. Goodwin-Jones, R. Cabrita, M. Korobko, M. Van Beuzekom, D. D. Brown, V . Fafone, J. Van Heijningen, A. Roc- chi, M. G. Schiworski, and M. Tacca, Transverse mode con- trol in quantum enhanced interferometers: A review and rec- ommendations for a new generation, Optica11, ...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ganapathyet al

    D. Ganapathyet al. (LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broad- band Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO Detectors with Frequency-Dependent Squeezing, Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum metrology with two-mode squeezed vacuum: Parity detection beats the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 103602 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers, Phys

    R. Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers, Phys. Rep.648, 1 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    X. Zuo, Z. Yan, Y . Feng, J. Ma, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Quantum interferometer combining squeezing and parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 173602 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Zhao, S.-D

    W. Zhao, S.-D. Zhang, A. Miranowicz, and H. Jing, Weak-force sensing with squeezed optomechanics, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 224211 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Pezz ´e and A

    L. Pezz ´e and A. Smerzi, Ultrasensitive two-mode interferome- try with single-mode number squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 163604 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic quantum phase estimation beyond N00N states, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 123603 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. You, O. S. Maga ˜na-Loaiza, R. Fickler, R. de J. Le´on-Montiel, J. P. Torres, T. S. Humble, S. Liu, Y . Xia, and Q. Zhuang, Entanglement-based quantum information technology: A tutorial, Adv. Opt. Photon.16, 60 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Wasilewski, K

    W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V . Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    W. Zhao, X. Tang, X. Guo, X. Li, and Z. Y . Ou, Quantum en- tangled sagnac interferometer, Appl. Phys. Lett.122, 064003 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Belliardo and V

    F. Belliardo and V . Giovannetti, Achieving Heisenberg scal- ing with maximally entangled states: An analytic upper bound for the attainable root-mean-square error, Phys. Rev. A102, 042613 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    S. Hao, H. Shi, C. N. Gagatsos, M. Mishra, B. Bash, I. Djord- jevic, S. Guha, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhang, Demonstration of entanglement-enhanced covert sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 010501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum Interferometric Opti- cal Lithography: exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2733 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    P. Kok, A. N. Boto, D. S. Abrams, C. P. Williams, S. L. Braunstein, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum-interferometric optical lithography: Towards arbitrary two-dimensional patterns, Phys. Rev. A63, 063407 (2001). 12

    2001

  44. [52]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Quantum metrology with entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 083601 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    X. T. Chen, R. Zhang, W. J. Lu, Y . L. Zuo, Y . F. Jiao, and L. M. Kuang, Asymmetry-enhanced phase sensing via asymmetric entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. A109, 042609 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Maccone and C

    L. Maccone and C. Ren, Quantum radar, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 200503 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Li and C

    Y . Li and C. Ren, Entanglement-enhanced quantum strate- gies for accurate estimation of multibody-group motion and moving-object characteristics, Phys. Rev. A108, 062605 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Zhuang, Quantum ranging with gaussian entanglement, Phys

    Q. Zhuang, Quantum ranging with gaussian entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 240501 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    S. H. Tan, B. I. Erkmen, V . Giovannetti, S. Guha, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, P. Stefano, and J. H. Shapiro, Quantum Illumination with Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 253601 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    R. G. Torrom `e, Quantum illumination with multiple entangled photons, Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2100101 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum enhanced positioning and clock synchronization, Nature412, 417 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    S.-Y . Lee, Y . S. Ihn, and Z. Kim, Optimal entangled coherent states in lossy quantum-enhanced metrology, Phys. Rev. A101, 012332 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    J. Joo, K. Park, H. Jeong, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, Quantum metrology for nonlinear phase shifts with entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. A86, 043828 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology - the lowdown on high-N00N states, Contemp. Phys.49, 125 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    C. Chen, P. Wang, and R.-B. Liu, Effects of local decoher- ence on quantum critical metrology, Phys. Rev. A104, L020601 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Y . Chu, S. Zhang, B. Yu, and J. Cai, Dynamic framework for criticality-enhanced quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 010502 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y . L. Zhou, Y . Zuo, H. Zhang, P. X. Chen, H. Jing, and L. M. Kuang, Exceptional Entanglement and Quantum Sensing with a Parity-Time-Symmetric Two-Qubit System, Adv. Quan- tum Tech.7, 2300350 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Y . Chu, Y . Liu, H. Liu, and J. Cai, Quantum Sensing with a single-qubit pseudo-Hermitian system, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 020501 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    H. L ¨u, S. K. ¨Ozdemir, L. M. Kuang, F. Nori, and H. Jing, Ex- ceptional points in random-defect phonon lasers, Phys. Rev. Applied8, 044020 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    X. W. Xu, J. Q. Liao, H. Jing, and L. M. Kuang, Anti-parity- time symmetry hidden in a damping linear resonator, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 100312 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    H. Jing, H. L ¨u, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, T. Carmon, and F. Nori, Nanoparticle sensing with a spinning resonator, Optica5, 1424 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Z. H. Peng, C. X.Jia, Y . Q. Zhang, Y . Yang, and L. M. Kuang, Single-lossy-nanoparticle sensor with a dissipatively coupled photonic molecule, Phys. Rev. A108, 033716 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Boixo, A

    S. Boixo, A. Datta, M. J. Davis, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Quantum metrology: dynamics versus entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 040403 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    Beltr ´an and A

    J. Beltr ´an and A. Luis, Breaking the Heisenberg limit with in- efficient detectors, Phys. Rev. A72, 045801 (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    Napolitano, M

    M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. J. Sewelh, and M.W . Mitchell, Interaction-based quantum metrology showing scaling beyond the Heisenberg limit, Na- ture471, 486 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Choi and B

    S. Choi and B. Sundaram, Bose-Einstein condensate as a non- linear Ramsey interferometer operating beyond the Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. A77, 053613 (2008)

    2008

  68. [76]

    B. A. Chase, B. Q. Baragiola, H. L. Partner, B. D. Black, and J. M. Geremia, Magnetometry via a double-pass continuous quantum measurement of atomic spin, Phys. Rev. A79, 062107 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    M. J. Woolley, G. J. Milburn, C. M. Caves, Nonlinear quantum metrology using coupled nanomechanical resonators, New J. Phys.10, 125018 (2008)

    2008

  70. [78]

    Kumar, A

    T. Kumar, A. B. Bhattacherjee, and ManMohan, Dynamics of a movable micromirror in a nonlinear optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A81, 013835 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    Mikkelsen, T

    M. Mikkelsen, T. Fogarty, J. Twamley, and T. Busch, Optome- chanics with a position-modulated Kerr-type nonlinear cou- pling, Phys. Rev. A96, 043832 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

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

    1969

  73. [81]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum detection and estimation theory, (Academic Press, New York 1976)

    1976

  74. [82]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Phys.7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    Pang and T

    S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Quantum metrology for a general Hamiltonian parameter, Phys. Rev. A90, 022117 (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    Li, X.-M

    G.-L. Li, X.-M. Lu, X.-G. Wang, J. Xin, and X. Li, Optome- chanical gyroscope simultaneously estimating the position of the rotation axis, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B39, 98 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    J. Liu, X. Jing, W. Zhong, and X.-G. Wang, Quantum Fisher information for density matrices with arbitrary ranks, Commun. Theor. Phys.61, 45 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.