Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Squeezing enhanced sensing at an exceptional point

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum sensor operated at both an exceptional point and the parametric oscillation threshold achieves a precision limit that scales as the fourth power of the perturbation strength.

desk verdict A genuinely new θ^{2n} precision scaling for squeezing-enhanced EP sensors, derived cleanly but with a real caveat about the linearized model at threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17961 v2 pith:LDJE6BKZ submitted 2025-07-23 quant-ph physics.app-ph

Changqing Wang , Deyuan Hu , Silvia Zorzetti , Anna Grassellino , Alexander Romanenko , Zheshen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.app-ph
keywords exceptionalpointparametricoscillationthresholdsqueezedlightquantumFisherinformationCramér–Raoboundnon-HermitianHamiltoniansensingprecisionscaling
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

Quantum sensing normally gains from two separate resources: squeezed light, which lowers noise in one quadrature, and exceptional points, non-Hermitian degeneracies where a small perturbation produces a large spectral response. This paper claims that combining both resources in one open bosonic system yields a precision that scales as the fourth power of the perturbation strength when the sensor is tuned to the parametric oscillation (PO) threshold. In concrete terms, for an nth-order exceptional point at the PO threshold, the Cramér–Rao bound behaves as δθ_CRB ∼ $θ^{{2n}}$, so a second-order EP gives $θ^{4}$. That is sharper than the θ^n scaling of EP sensors at the lasing threshold and than the $θ^{2}$ scaling of a single squeezed mode at the PO threshold, which suggests a new operating point for ultraweak-signal metrology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian matrix M in the quadrature basis, whose eigenvectors and eigenvalues encode the gain/loss balance and the squeezing. The argument hinges on two structural facts. First, at the parametric oscillation threshold the eigenvalue of the amplified mode is purely real and its response to a frequency perturbation θ is quadratic, λ ≈ -iγ/2 ± i|ϵ|(1 - $θ^{2}$/2|ϵ|^2), so the Green's function G_θ = -(ωI - M)^{-1}(I⊗Ω) picks up terms scaling as $θ^{{-2}}$. Second, when the modes are coupled to form an nth-order EP, the Hamiltonian is similar (via a P matrix) to a Jordan normal form with nilpotent blocks M_EP,n satisfying M_EP,n^n = 0. Expanding ($aθ^{2}$ I_n + M_EP,n)^{-1} using the Neumann series terminates at the (n-1)th term because of the nilpotency, leaving a leading contribution proportional to $θ^{{-2n}}$ M_EP,$n^{{n-1}}$. This $θ^{{-2n}}$ term enters the derivative dμ_θ/dθ and, through the quantum Fisher information, produces the δθ_CRB ∼ $θ^{{2n}}$ precision bound. The specific conditions for reaching the EP and PO threshold simultaneously, such as Eqs. (S81)–(S82) for the two-mode case, are what make the degenerate eigenvalues scale as $θ^{2}$ while the eigenstates merge.

What would settle it

Measure, for a two-mode sensor satisfying the PO-threshold/EP conditions (Supplemental Eqs. S81–S82), the output quadrature variances and the estimation error as a function of θ over at least two decades below the loss imbalance; the central claim is falsified if the empirical log-log slope of δθ vs θ is shallower than 4 (or than 2n for an nth-order EP), or if the anti-squeezed variance fails to diverge as $θ^{{-4n}}$, while the system remains in the linear regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an exceptional point (EP) and single-mode squeezing act jointly, not additively, to determine the ultimate sensing precision. The paper analyzes a generic chain of N coupled bosonic modes, each with degenerate parametric amplification, dissipation, and phase-insensitive gain, described by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian in the quadrature basis. When the system is tuned so that it sits at an nth-order EP and simultaneously at the parametric oscillation threshold—where net loss balances the squeezing-induced amplification—the Green's function, and hence the response to a perturbation θ, acquires a leading contribution scaling as $θ^{{-2n}}$. Substituting this into the quantum Fisher information for Gaussian states gives I(θ) ∼ $θ^{{-4n}}$ and therefore a Cramér–Rao lower bound δθ_CRB ∼ $θ^{{2n}}$, i.e., quartic scaling for n=2. The mechanism is that squeezing creates a large coherent displacement along the anti-squeezed quadrature, the perturbation rotates the squeezing eigenbasis, and the Jordan-block structure of the EP (with M_EP^n = 0) causes the series for G_θ to terminate, leaving the enhanced $θ^{{-2n}}$ term. The same scaling is reached by homodyne and heterodyne detection, is invariant to external attenuation, and holds for higher-order EPs with appropriately engineered coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling assumes the linearized quantum-noise model stays valid exactly at the parametric oscillation threshold, where the mean photon number diverges as $θ^{{-4n}}$; real gain saturation and pump depletion will eventually break this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sensor at a second-order EP and the PO threshold can in principle estimate a weak perturbation θ with an absolute uncertainty proportional to θ^4, improving without bound as θ → 0 within the linearized model.
  • Higher-order EPs extend the scaling to θ^{2n}, so an EP3 sensor at the PO threshold is predicted to reach δθ_CRB ∼ θ^6.
  • The θ^{2n} precision is attainable with standard homodyne or heterodyne detection and is robust to transmission-line loss and detector inefficiency, since the classical Fisher information matches the quantum Fisher information.
  • The sensor consumes resources only at the standard quantum limit (QFI ∝ N, sensitivity ∝ √N), requiring neither squeezed probe states nor dynamic state-preparation protocols, only steady-state linear response.
  • Slightly imperfect tuning (operating below the PO threshold) preserves the advantage as long as the loss imbalance is much smaller than the perturbation θ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A resource-corrected comparison that includes measurement time could convert the θ^{2n} precision into a constant advantage rather than a divergent one, because the bandwidth narrows as θ^2 near the threshold.
  • In any real device, gain saturation and pump depletion will set a floor on the achievable perturbation, so the θ^{2n} scaling is best tested at an intermediate perturbation range where the linearized model still holds but the photon number has not yet diverged unstably.
  • The mechanism suggests that the sensing advantage is tied to the rotation of the squeezing eigenbasis by the perturbation, pointing to a general design principle where the parameter of interest is mapped onto a rotation of the noise ellipse rather than onto its amplitude.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a unified quantum-noise framework for bosonic sensors that combine single-mode squeezing with non-Hermitian exceptional-point (EP) physics. The central claim is that when a sensor is operated simultaneously at the parametric-oscillation (PO) threshold and at an nth-order exceptional point, the Cramér-Rao bound for estimating a weak detuning perturbation θ scales as δθ_CRB ∼ θ^{2n}, with the second-order case giving a quartic scaling θ^4. The authors derive this scaling from a linearized quantum Langevin treatment, evaluate quantum and classical Fisher information for single-mode and coupled-mode configurations, discuss imperfect-threshold effects, and outline experimental implementations in photonic and circuit-QED platforms.

Significance. If the central result holds, it would identify a qualitatively new precision scaling in quantum metrology, going beyond both the linear scaling of passive sensors and the θ^n scaling previously reported for EP sensors at the lasing threshold. The paper is also valuable for proposing a concrete mechanism—the joint, non-additive interplay between squeezing-induced amplification and EP response—and for providing explicit parameter conditions and numerical QFI/CFI curves. The authors are honest about several limitations, including the divergence of the intracavity photon number and the narrowing bandwidth near the threshold. However, the analytic derivation contains a potentially load-bearing gap in the Green's function expansion, and the linearization validity in the θ→0 limit is not established; these issues must be resolved before the central scaling claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (10); Supplemental Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (S84)-(S86)] Equation (S85) correctly states that (aθ^2 I_2 + M_EP)^{-1} = a^{-1}θ^{-2} I_2 - a^{-2}θ^{-4} M_EP, i.e. the leading term is θ^{-2}, not θ^{-4}. Substituting this into Eq. (S84) yields diagonal θ^{-2} contributions from the f1 blocks. Equation (S86) and the corresponding Eq. (10), however, retain only the -a^{-2}θ^{-4} M_EP terms and omit the θ^{-2} identity terms. Since P is stated to have constant nonzero leading-order elements, the θ^{-2} terms cannot be assumed to vanish without a proof. The claimed leading behavior G_θ ∼ θ^{-2n} and the resulting QFI ∼ θ^{-4n}, δθ ∼ θ^{2n} therefore do not follow from the expansion as written. The authors need to either correct the expansion or demonstrate explicitly that the θ^{-2} terms cancel in the matrix products defining dμ/dθ and V_θ.
  2. [Supplemental Sec. IV.C.a and IV.C.d (also Eqs. S89, S94)] The same linearized Green's function that produces the claimed precision scaling also predicts that the mean intracavity photon number diverges as θ^{-4n} and that the response bandwidth vanishes as θ^2. This means the undepleted-pump approximation, which treats ϵ_j as a fixed parameter in Eq. (1) and Eqs. (6)-(7), breaks down precisely in the asymptotic limit θ→0 where the scaling is claimed. Gain saturation, pump depletion, and other nonlinearities will regularize the divergence. The paper should state a quantitative validity condition (e.g., θ^2 must remain large compared with the saturation-induced linewidth) or extend the model to include the leading nonlinearity; without this, the result is a property of an unregularized linear system rather than a validated prediction for a physical parametric-oscillator sensor.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (3); Supplemental Eq. (S94)] The Cramér-Rao bound in Eq. (3) counts N_m measurement rounds but does not include the duration of a single round. Because the bandwidth narrows as θ^2 (Eq. S94), the time required to reach steady state and perform a measurement grows as θ^{-2} per round. When this is accounted for, the precision per unit time scales less favorably than the per-round bound; at minimum, the authors should specify whether the quoted scaling is for a fixed integration time per round and justify why the diverging measurement time is not counted as a resource. This is especially important because the paper emphasizes that the scheme relies on linear steady-state response without state-preparation time.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Eq. (S54)] In Eq. (S54), the coupling to the intrinsic loss channel of mode 1 is written as √γ_02 b_in1, but it should presumably be √γ_01 b_in1 to match the notation used elsewhere; please check.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (2)] The Green's function G_θ[ω] in Eq. (2) uses the Hamiltonian M, but M is not defined before this equation; defining M explicitly in the main text (rather than only in the Supplemental Material) would improve readability.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists the dashed, dotted, and dash-dotted lines as linear, quadratic, and quartic scalings, but the colors and line styles in the figure are not described in the body text; a brief identification of each curve in the caption would help the reader.
  4. [Main text, Discussion] The statement that the θ^{2n} scaling has 'no analog in existing CQS protocols' is stronger than the supporting discussion, which compares only I ∝ N versus I ∝ N^2; a more careful comparison with the measurement-time-normalized precision of critical quantum sensing would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the θ^{2n} precision scaling is derived from the linearized spectrum and Jordan-block expansion, not fitted or imported from self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim δθ_CRB ∼ θ^{2n} at an nth-order EP and the PO threshold is derived from the linearized quantum Langevin equations, not fitted. The single-mode case expands the exact eigenvalues λ± = -iγ/2 ± sqrt(δ² − |ϵ|²) around the PO-threshold condition |ϵ| = γ/2, giving λ ∼ θ² (Supplemental Eq. S7), hence Green's function ∼ θ^{−2} and QFI ∼ θ^{−4}. The coupled-mode case imposes the PO-threshold and EP conditions (S81)–(S82) by requiring the low-order θ coefficients of the determinant to vanish, then expands (aθ²I + M_EP)^{−1} using M_EP^n = 0, obtaining G ∼ θ^{−2n} and δθ ∼ θ^{2n} (Eq. S90). These are exact algebraic consequences of the stated operating point, not numerical fits. The cited prior result [47] for lasing-threshold EP sensors is external (no author overlap) and supplies only the baseline framework and comparison, not the new PO-threshold scaling. Self-citations [25, 57, 63, 22] support experimental realizability, not the derivation. The acknowledged divergences (photon number ∼ θ^{−4n}, bandwidth ∼ θ², critical slowing down) are validity limitations of the linearized model at θ→0, not circular reasoning. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the target scaling; therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling law is parameter-free: it follows from the eigenvalue spectrum and the Jordan-block structure of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. The model relies on standard open-quantum-system tools (Markovian Langevin equations, input-output theory, Gaussian-state QFI), listed as axioms. The only hand-chosen numbers are the illustrative parameters for the figures, which are not fitted and do not enter the scaling exponent. No new particles, forces, or exotic entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Example two-mode operating parameters (g, ε1, ε2, γ_01, γ_02, γ_c1, γ_c2) = g=0.1, ε1=2i, ε2=-2i, γ_c1=γ_c2=1, γ_01=2.8, γ_02=3.2
    These values satisfy the simultaneous EP and PO-threshold conditions (S81)-(S82) and are used for the curves in Fig. 3. They are illustrative, not fitted to experimental data, and the scaling law does not depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Markovian quantum noise model with input-output relations as in Gardiner and Zoller (ref. [60])
    The Langevin equations (S2)-(S3) and the input-output relation (S31) assume Markovian baths and linear coupling, invoked throughout Sec. II of the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption Gaussian-state quantum Fisher information formula (refs. [51,5])
    Eq. (S37) and the simplified I_V expression (S41) are used to compute the Cramér-Rao bound; these require the output state to be Gaussian and presume the specific form of the QFI for mixed Gaussian states.
  • domain assumption The output state remains Gaussian under squeezing, loss, and gain channels
    The scattering transformations (8)-(9) preserve Gaussianity because they are linear symplectic transformations on Gaussian inputs; this underpins the entire QFI calculation.
  • domain assumption Steady-state response is reached at the operating point
    The Green's function and QFI are evaluated at ω=0, which presumes the system has reached steady state; critical slowing down near the threshold may make this assumption questionable for finite measurement times.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Squeezing enhanced sensing at an exceptional point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDJE6BKZ

@misc{pith2026250717961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Squeezing enhanced sensing at an exceptional point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDJE6BKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17961}
}
read the original abstract

Pushing the boundaries of measurement precision is central for sensing and metrology, pursued by nonclassical resources such as squeezing, and non-Hermitian degeneracies with distinct spectral response. Their convergence, however, remains challenging. We find extraordinary enhancement of sensitivity by unifying both effects in a general framework for quantum sensing in open systems. At the parametric oscillation threshold and an exceptional point, the sensing precision exhibits a unique quartic scaling with the perturbation strength. The result generalizes to multimode squeezed-state sensors with higher-order exceptional points catered to various quantum sensing platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Zhang, W

    M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. D. Stone, and L. Jiang, Physical review letters123, 180501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photonics12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Loudon and P

    R. Loudon and P. L. Knight, Journal of modern optics 34, 709 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Photonics: Scientific Foundations, Tech- nology and Applications1, 121 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    B. J. Lawrie, P. D. Lett, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, ACS Photonics6, 1307 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. Blair, D. Brown, S. Dwyer, A. Effler,et al., Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, L. Aiello, A. Allocca, A. Am- ato, S. Ansoldi, S. Antier, M. Ar` ene, N. Arnaud, S. As- cenzi,et al., Physical review letters123, 231108 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    J. U. F¨ urst, D. V. Strekalov, D. Elser, A. Aiello, U. L. Andersen, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Physical review letters106, 113901 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    E. E. Wollman, C. Lei, A. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kron- wald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. Schwab, Science 349, 952 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Y. Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Nature Photonics17, 470 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux,et al., Nature590, 238 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Physical review letters121, 020402 (2018)

    2018

  6. [17]

    Alushi, A

    U. Alushi, A. Coppo, V. Brosco, R. Di Candia, and S. Fe- licetti, Communications Physics8, 74 (2025)

    2025

  7. [19]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  8. [20]

    L. Feng, R. El-Ganainy, and L. Ge, Nature Photonics11, 752 (2017)

    2017

  9. [21]

    K.¨Ozdemir, S

    S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Nature materials18, 783 (2019)

    2019

  10. [22]

    C. Wang, Z. Fu, W. Mao, J. Qie, A. D. Stone, and L. Yang, Adv. Opt. Photon.15, 442 (2023)

    2023

  11. [23]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Alu, Science363, eaar7709 (2019)

    2019

  12. [24]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. Murch, Nature Physics15, 1232 (2019)

    2019

  13. [26]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Physical Review Letters127, 140504 (2021)

    2021

  14. [27]

    Kononchuk, J

    R. Kononchuk, J. Cai, F. Ellis, R. Thevamaran, and T. Kottos, Nature607, 697 (2022)

    2022

  15. [28]

    Wang and A

    Y.-X. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Physical Review A99, 063834 (2019)

    2019

  16. [29]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, and F. Nori, Physical Review A100, 062131 (2019)

    2019

  17. [30]

    Wiersig, Physical review letters112, 203901 (2014)

    J. Wiersig, Physical review letters112, 203901 (2014). 6

    2014

  18. [31]

    Wiersig, Photonics research8, 1457 (2020)

    J. Wiersig, Photonics research8, 1457 (2020)

    2020

  19. [34]

    Zhong, J

    Q. Zhong, J. Ren, M. Khajavikhan, D. N. Christodoulides, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, and R. El-Ganainy, Physical review letters122, 153902 (2019)

    2019

  20. [35]

    Lai, Y.-K

    Y.-H. Lai, Y.-K. Lu, M.-G. Suh, Z. Yuan, and K. Vahala, Nature576, 65 (2019)

    2019

  21. [36]

    M. P. Hokmabadi, A. Schumer, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Nature576, 70 (2019)

    2019

  22. [37]

    J.-H. Park, A. Ndao, W. Cai, L. Hsu, A. Kodigala, T. Lepetit, Y.-H. Lo, and B. Kant´ e, Nature Physics16, 462 (2020)

    2020

  23. [39]

    Zhang, L

    M.-N. Zhang, L. Dong, L.-F. Wang, and Q.-A. Huang, Microsystems & Nanoengineering10, 12 (2024)

    2024

  24. [40]

    Langbein, Physical Review A98, 023805 (2018)

    W. Langbein, Physical Review A98, 023805 (2018)

    2018

  25. [41]

    W. Ding, X. Wang, and S. Chen, Physical Review Letters 131, 160801 (2023)

    2023

  26. [42]

    Lau and A

    H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, Nature communications9, 4320 (2018)

    2018

  27. [43]

    Duggan, S

    R. Duggan, S. A. Mann, and A. Alu, ACS Photonics9, 1554 (2022)

    2022

  28. [44]

    Loughlin and V

    H. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Physical Review Letters132, 243601 (2024)

    2024

  29. [45]

    Almanakly, R

    A. Almanakly, R. Assouly, H. H. Kang, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, M. E. Schwartz, K. Ser- niak, M. Hays, J. A. Grover,et al., Physical Review Let- ters136, 183601 (2026)

    2026

  30. [46]

    Wang, Y.-H

    H. Wang, Y.-H. Lai, Z. Yuan, M.-G. Suh, and K. Vahala, Nature communications11, 1610 (2020)

    2020

  31. [48]

    X.-W. Luo, C. Zhang, and S. Du, Physical Review Letters 128, 173602 (2022)

    2022

  32. [49]

    W. S. Teixeira, V. Vadimov, T. M¨ orstedt, S. Kundu, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Physical Review Research5, 033119 (2023)

    2023

  33. [50]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed definitions, calcu- lations, derivations, and additional analyses supporting the results presented in the main text

  34. [52]

    Y. Chu, S. Zhang, B. Yu, and J. Cai, Physical Review Letters126, 010502 (2021)

    2021

  35. [53]

    L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. Kimble, Journal of the Optical Society of America B4, 1465 (1987)

    1987

  36. [54]

    B.-H. Wu, R. N. Alexander, S. Liu, and Z. Zhang, Phys- ical Review Research2, 023138 (2020)

    2020

  37. [55]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, and J. F. Valley, Physical review letters55, 2409 (1985)

    1985

  38. [56]

    A. Dutt, S. Miller, K. Luke, J. Cardenas, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, Optics letters41, 223 (2016)

    2016

  39. [58]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  40. [59]

    Partanen, J

    M. Partanen, J. Goetz, K. Y. Tan, K. Kohvakka, V. Sevriuk, R. E. Lake, R. Kokkoniemi, J. Ikonen, D. Hazra, A. M¨ akinen,et al., Physical Review B100, 134505 (2019)

    2019

  41. [60]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic meth- ods with applications to quantum optics(Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2004)

    2004

  42. [63]

    C. Wang, X. Jiang, W. R. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, Y. Liu, G. Zhao, B. Peng, M. Zhang, L. Jiang, A. D. Stone,et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2012982118 (2021). Squeezing Enhanced Sensing at an Exceptional Point: Supplemental Material Changqing Wang,1,∗ D...

    2021

  43. [64]

    We denote the loss rates in thej-th resonators asγ 0j, the out-coupling loss rates asγ cj, and the amplification rates asκ j

    + iℏ 2 (ϵ2a†2 2 −ϵ ∗ 2a2 2).(S49) Following the analysis for the single-mode scheme, we get the equations of motion under probesa in,1 anda in,2 da1(t) dt = (−iδ1 − γ1 2 )a1 −iga 2 +ϵ 1a† 1 + √γc1ain,1 + √γ01bin,1 − √κ1c† in,1,(S50) da2(t) dt = (−iδ2 − γ2 2 )a2 −iga 1 +ϵ 2a† 2...

  44. [65]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic meth- ods with applications to quantum optics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  45. [66]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of modern physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  46. [67]

    Wang and A

    Y.-X. Wang and A. Clerk, Physical Review A99, 063834 (2019)

    2019

  47. [68]

    C. Wang, W. R. Sweeney, A. D. Stone, and L. Yang, Science373, 1261 (2021)

    2021

  48. [69]

    Zhang, W

    M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. Stone, and L. Jiang, Physical review letters123, 180501 (2019)

    2019

  49. [70]

    Jiang, Physical Review A89, 032128 (2014)

    Z. Jiang, Physical Review A89, 032128 (2014)

    2014

  50. [71]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Kha- javikhan, Nature548, 187 (2017)

    2017

  51. [72]

    Di Candia, F

    R. Di Candia, F. Minganti, K. Petrovnin, G. S. Paraoanu, and S. Felicetti, npj Quantum Information9, 23 (2023)

    2023

  52. [73]

    Alushi, W

    U. Alushi, W. G´ orecki, S. Felicetti, and R. Di Candia, Physical Review Letters133, 040801 (2024)

    2024

  53. [74]

    G´ orecki, F

    W. G´ orecki, F. Albarelli, S. Felicetti, R. Di Candia, and L. Maccone, PRX Quantum6, 020351 (2025)

    2025

  54. [75]

    Beaulieu, F

    G. Beaulieu, F. Minganti, S. Frasca, M. Scigliuzzo, S. Fe- licetti, R. Di Candia, and P. Scarlino, PRX Quantum6, 020301 (2025)

    2025

  55. [76]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Okawachi, J. K. Jang, X. Ji, M. Lipson, and A. L. Gaeta, Physical Review Letters124, 193601 (2020)

    2020

  56. [77]

    Peng, S ¸

    B. Peng, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, F. Lei, F. Monifi, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender, and L. Yang, Nature Physics10, 394 (2014)

    2014

  57. [78]

    Z. Dong, Z. Li, F. Yang, C.-W. Qiu, and J. S. Ho, Nature electronics2, 335 (2019)

    2019

  58. [79]

    Zhong, J

    Q. Zhong, J. Ren, M. Khajavikhan, D. N. Christodoulides, S ¸. ¨Ozdemir, and R. El-Ganainy, Physical review letters122, 153902 (2019)

    2019

  59. [80]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. Kaya ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  60. [81]

    C. Wang, X. Jiang, G. Zhao, M. Zhang, C. W. Hsu, B. Peng, A. D. Stone, L. Jiang, and L. Yang, Nat. Phys. 16, 334 (2020)

    2020

  61. [82]

    C. Wang, X. Jiang, W. R. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, Y. Liu, G. Zhao, B. Peng, M. Zhang, L. Jiang, A. D. Stone,et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2012982118 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.