Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Scalable Network of Mach-Zehnder Interferometers with a Single Entangled Resource

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single squeezed-vacuum state, split across six Mach-Zehnder interferometers, beats the standard quantum limit by 4.36 dB at 10^-9 phase uncertainty.

desk verdict Real experimental result—one squeezed source drives six MZIs with 4.36 dB sub-SQL joint noise suppression—but the abstract oversells a Heisenberg-limit crossover, and the loss bookkeeping is approximate, conservatively so. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08230 v1 pith:3EGITNF2 submitted 2025-09-10 quant-ph

Zhihui Yan , Yanni Feng , Luca Pezze , Zhaoqing Zeng , Jingxu Ma , Xiaoyu Zhou , Augusto Smerzi , Xiaojun Jia
show 1 more author
Kunchi Peng
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords distributedquantumsensingsqueezedvacuumMach-ZehnderinterferometermultiparameterestimationstandardlimitHeisenbergbalancedhomodynedetectionphotonlosses
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 sets out to show that distributed multi-parameter phase sensing can be made scalable without distributing many nonclassical resources: a single squeezed-vacuum state, split by a linear optical circuit, entangles a whole array of Mach-Zehnder interferometers. The central result is a compact formula for the phase variance of any linear combination of the local phases, and the experiment realizes it with six interferometers beating the standard quantum limit by 4.36 dB at an absolute phase uncertainty of about 10^-9. If correct, one nonclassical source, rather than one per sensor, is enough for quantum-enhanced networks, with sensitivity improving as 1/sqrt(d) and tolerating realistic losses. The paper also claims that, in the low-intensity regime and with optimal allocation of photons between squeezed and coherent inputs, the network crosses from standard-quantum-limit scaling to Heisenberg-limit scaling.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the multinomial splitting of one squeezed-vacuum state by a linear quantum circuit: a single nonclassical photon-number distribution is fractioned into d modes with probabilities P_j=|ν_j|, producing mode entanglement from one nonclassical input. Each mode b_j enters one port of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (a two-beam interferometer with two beam splitters), the other port receives a coherent state |α_j| with |α_j|^2/n_c=|ν_j|/Σ|ν_j|, and balanced homodyne detection reads one output quadrature. The carrying identity is the optimized phase variance Eq. (3), together with its optimization over squeezing, Eq. (4): it predicts SQL behavior at n_s=0, sub-SQL sensitivity when Λ<

What would settle it

Vary where the loss is introduced—before the first beam splitter, inside one arm, after the second beam splitter—while keeping the total transmission η fixed, and check whether the measured sub-SQL joint noise suppression (4.36 dB at K=1) stays constant. Eq. (3) predicts only η matters; any dependence on loss placement or modulation frequency would falsify the loss model and shift the quoted thresholds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a configurable optical network of d Mach-Zehnder interferometers can estimate any linear combination of local phases with variance (e^{-2r}+Λ)/(K n_T) when the joint photon budget is dominated by coherent states, provided the d nodes share a single squeezed-vacuum state split through a linear quantum circuit. This formula carries the argument: squeezing suppresses common noise, losses add a vacuum-noise term Λ=1/η-1, multipass interactions multiply sensitivity by K, and the total photon number n_T sets the shot-noise scale. The experiment realizes this with six MZIs, reporting joint noise suppression 4.36±0.35 dB below the standard quantum limit at phase uncertainty

Load-bearing premise

All photon losses are modeled as one effective transmission efficiency η with vacuum noise entering both quadratures; the sub-SQL region, the loss thresholds (65% and 20%), and the loss-limited SQL floor all follow from that single-beam-splitter model, which the paper calibrates but does not independently validate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The network reaches the same sensitivity as a separable scheme with d independent squeezed sources, using one squeezed-vacuum state; the nonclassical-resource count drops from d to one.
  • Increasing the number of sensors d improves the uncertainty on the average phase as 1/√d for fixed per-node coherent power, so the architecture scales without additional nonclassical resources.
  • Any linear combination of phases—average, staggered, antisymmetric—can be measured with the same optimized sensitivity by setting the quantum-circuit splitting and coherent phases, making gradient or parity-modulated field sensing accessible.
  • In the low-intensity regime with optimal photon allocation, the phase variance crosses from (1+Λ)/(K n_T) SQL-type scaling to 1/(K n_T^2) Heisenberg scaling when squeezed and coherent photon numbers are balanced; losses turn the asymptotic scaling back to Λ/(K n_T).
  • Multipass interaction multiplies the phase signal by K and, at 99.99% mirror efficiency, improves sensitivity and loss robustness, with the SQL beaten down to distribution efficiencies of about 65% (K=1) and 20% (K=5).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is gradient estimation: since Eq. (3) holds for any weight vector ν, choosing ν linear in the node index would let the same six-node network estimate first and second spatial derivatives of an inhomogeneous field; the paper demonstrates only sign-structured vectors, not continuous weight profiles.
  • The single-effective-transmission loss model will probably need refinement for deployed fiber networks, where losses are frequency-dependent and uneven across nodes; testing the 4.36 dB suppression with loss inserted asymmetrically or at different Fourier frequencies would reveal whether the gain depends only on total transmission.
  • The resource-allocation formula n_s,opt ≈ n_T/(1+√(1+4Λ n_T)) reads as a control algorithm: a network operator could tune squeezing and coherent power in real time from a measured efficiency and target photon budget, without recomputing the full covariance matrix.
  • Because the entanglement comes from linear splitting of a Gaussian state, the same architecture should port to other platforms with Gaussian nonclassical resources, such as spin-squeezed atomic ensembles, where the coherent state and quadrature readout have platform-specific analogues.
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 reports a six-interferometer distributed sensing network in which a single squeezed-vacuum state is split by a linear quantum circuit into six entangled modes, each injected into one input of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer whose second input is a coherent state. Balanced homodyne detection at the dark ports, with joint processing, is used to estimate linear combinations of the six phase shifts. The central analytic formula, Eq. (3), gives the optimized phase variance (e^{-2r}+Λ)/(K n_T) for the high-coherent-intensity regime, with losses collected into Λ=1/η−1. Experimentally, the authors report 4.36±0.35 dB joint noise suppression below the SQL, phase uncertainty near 1.4×10^{-9}, scaling of sensitivity with the number of sensors d, robustness against distribution losses down to η_dis≈65% (K=1) and ≈20% (K=5), and a low-intensity optimized behavior that they describe as a crossover from SQL to the Heisenberg limit. The Supplement derives the sensitivity formula from the input state, BHD measurement, and a single-beam-splitter loss model.

Significance. If the central derivation and loss bookkeeping are correct, the result is significant: it would demonstrate that one nonclassical resource, distributed passively, suffices for sub-SQL multiparameter phase estimation across a scalable interferometric network, with explicit formulas, analytical optimization, and a direct resource comparison against d independent squeezed states. Strengths of the manuscript include a self-contained analytic derivation in the Supplement, a clear experimental layout, systematic scans over photon number, loss, multipass number, number of sensors, and weight vector ν, and honest statements about remaining limitations (e.g., n_s≲1 in the low-intensity runs). The main technical risk is the loss model: the single-efficiency formula in Eq. (3) treats all losses as if they occurred at the output, while the experimentally varied η_dis is physically a pre-MZI loss on the squeezed mode only. This affects the claimed loss thresholds and the fitted theory curves. The abstract additionally overstates the low-intensity demonstration as a crossover to the Heisenberg limit when the data follow a loss-limited curve that asymptotes to Λ/(K n_T).

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement Eq. (17); main text Eq. (3) and Fig. 3(b)] The loss model used to derive Eq. (3) inserts a single beam splitter with efficiency η on both input quadratures and couples them to the same vacuum mode q0. At the working point θ=0 this is equivalent to an output loss, not to a distribution loss η_dis located on the squeezed mode before the MZI. Since the coherent mode a_j does not pass through the QC, η_dis should not multiply the signal derivative ∂⟨q_j⟩/∂θ. With two-stage loss (η_dis on b_j only, η_out on the measured output), the optimized variance becomes η_dis[V+(1−η_dis η_out)/(η_dis η_out)]/(K n_c) times (Σ|ν_j|)^2, with V=e^{-2r}, rather than [V+1/(η_dis η_out)−1]/(K n_c). For η_out=0.89 and r=0.75, the K=1 sub-SQL threshold becomes η_dis≳16% instead of 65%. Because the loss thresholds in Fig. 3(b) and the theory lines in Figs. 3–4 are load-bearing, please re-derive Eq. (3) with the actual loss topology or justify why the loss
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 4] The claim of a demonstrated crossover from the SQL to the Heisenberg limit is not supported by the data. The experimental dots in Fig. 4 follow the red solid line, which is the lossy optimization of Eq. (3); for n_T≫1 that line asymptotes to √(Λ/(K n_T)), not to the HL 1/(√K n_T). The violet dashed HL line is the lossless case, and the text itself states that reaching the HL would require lower losses and n_s≳1. Moreover, for n_T=3.29 the employed n_s=0.93 is far below the optimal n_s=n_T/2 required for the HL regime of Eq. (4). Please rephrase the abstract and conclusions to describe a loss-limited transition region, with the HL as a lossless asymptotic target rather than an experimentally demonstrated scaling.
  3. [Supplement Eq. (33) and main text Eq. (3)] The optimization step from Eq. (26) to Eq. (33) uses the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in a direction that depends on the sign of (Δ²q)−1. For squeezed vacuum this prefactor is negative, so the lower bound is obtained by maximizing the cross term; the final result in Eq. (33) appears algebraically inconsistent with the intermediate Eq. (28) unless the δ_jk term in Eq. (22) is carried through the calculation. Please check the derivation and state explicitly whether Eq. (3) includes the vacuum-noise contribution ηδ_jk correctly; otherwise the fitted value of the squeezing term and the loss term Λ cannot be separated from the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplement Eq. (17)] Typo: 'transitivity' should be 'transmissivity'.
  2. [Methods, first paragraph] The sentence 'The squeezing is distributed to six modes with of 5.30 ± 0.10 dB beyond standard quantum limit (SQL)' is grammatically incomplete; also 'beyond' should likely be 'below' when referring to squeezing noise suppression.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (5)] The notation ∥ν∥_2^2/3 in Eq. (5) is ambiguous; please define explicitly which norm and power are used, and verify the stated bounds [1,d] for the example ν_ave.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'Dots represent experimental results' but does not specify error bars, number of repetitions, or how the total photon numbers were calibrated; this information is needed to judge the goodness of the fit to the lossy curve.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core sensitivity derivation is self-contained; only the QCRB-saturation claim leans on a same-author citation.

  1. other [Main text, Results closing paragraph; Methods, 'Quantum Cramér-Rao bound'; Eq. (7)]
    "Finally, we emphasize that, at least in the noiseless case and for sufficiently large ¯nc, the sensitivity Eq.(3) achieved with the BHD measurements implemented in our setup saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound computed in Ref. [33] (see Methods for a detailed discussion)."

    The bound being saturated is not derived in this paper: Methods says 'The quantum Cramér-Rao bound for the scheme of Fig. 6(b), in the lossless case, has been provided in Ref. [33]' and Eq. (7) cites '[33,42]'; Ref. [33] (Pezzè & Smerzi) and Ref. [42] (this paper's Supplement) are both by the present authors. The saturation claim thus rests on a same-author citation rather than an independent QFI derivation here. It is minor because Eq. (3), the SQL/HL asymptotes, loss thresholds, and d-scaling are all derived in the Supplement from the explicit state, unitary, BHD, and loss model, with independent efficiency calibration.

full rationale

The main derivation is not circular. Eq. (3) is obtained in the Supplement by evaluating the error-propagation formula (Eq. 2 of the main text) on the explicit multimode probe state (Supplement Eq. 14), the MZI unitary (Eq. 15), the BHD quadrature (Eq. 16), a beam-splitter loss model (Eq. 17), and then analytically optimizing the coherent-state amplitudes and QC splitting probabilities (Eqs. 27-33). The SQL (n_s=0, Λ=0) and Heisenberg-limit (Λ=0, optimized r) asymptotes are limiting cases of the same expression, not imported benchmarks. The efficiencies used in the theory curves are independently calibrated (η_dis=99%, η_MZI=89%, η_m=99.99%) and are not adjusted to force the data. The single-η loss model (Eq. 17, with all losses lumped as one beam splitter on both arms) is a physical assumption whose topology could be questioned, but that is a modeling/correctness concern, not circularity. The only circularity-adjacent element is the QCRB-saturation claim, which quotes the bound from Refs [33,42] (same authors) rather than deriving it here; since the experimental sub-SQL, scalability, and loss-robustness claims do not depend on that bound, this is a minor self-citation and the paper is otherwise self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity formula Eq. (3) is a derived expression, not a fit, but it depends on several modeling assumptions and calibrated inputs: the single-beam-splitter loss model (eta or Lambda), the optimal working point theta_j=phi_j=0, the multinomial splitting of the squeezed state, and the imported QCRB from Ref. [33]. The Fig. 4 operating points set the squeezing photon number n_s to values used by the theory, which is the main hand-chosen component. No new entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Total transmission efficiency eta (loss factor Lambda = 1/eta - 1) = eta=88% (eta_dis=99%, eta_MZI~89%, eta_m=99.99%); Lambda~0.14
    Used in Eq. (3) and in the theory lines of Figs. 3 and 4 to model all photon losses as a single beam-splitter. The components are independently calibrated, but the combined eta is a fixed input to the model rather than derived, and the sub-SQL loss thresholds depend on it.
  • Squeezed-vacuum photon number n_s at each Fig. 4 operating point = 0.006, 0.04, 0.09, 0.21, 0.42, 0.68, 0.93 for n_T=0.09...3.29
    These values are set by the OPA pump to follow Eq. (36) under the constraint n_s<~1. They are experimental settings, but because they are chosen according to the very theory being tested, the agreement in Fig. 4 does not independently validate the optimization; they are a hand-chosen set of operating points rather than a free prediction.
  • Multipass coefficient mu = mu ~ 1/K for K=1..6
    Stated in the main text after Eq. (3) without derivation. It converts the 2K phase passes into an effective enhancement K in Eq. (3), so the predicted K-scaling and the loss tradeoff depend on this empirical coefficient.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The passive linear quantum circuit performs a real unitary mode transformation, splitting the input state into a multinomial distribution with probabilities P_j, Eqs. (8)-(11) of the Supplement.
    Invoked in the Supplement section 'Probe state'; standard for linear optics, but the multinomial form relies on only one non-vacuum input to the quantum circuit.
  • domain assumption All losses are modeled by a single beam-splitter of transmissivity eta on both quadratures, with vacuum noise injection, Eq. (17) of the Supplement.
    Required for Eq. (22) and for all loss-containing predictions in Figs. 3b and 4. The model is not independently validated, and frequency-dependent or phase-dependent losses would change the predicted thresholds.
  • domain assumption Measurements are performed at the optimal working point phi_j=0 and theta_j=0, with real coherent amplitudes and zero phase offsets, Eqs. (21)-(24) of the Supplement.
    The claimed sensitivity and QCRB saturation are computed at this point. The manuscript states that phases are locked using six high-gain detectors, but it does not report the accuracy of the locking.
  • domain assumption The quantum Cramer-Rao bound in Eq. (42) of the Supplement, taken from Ref. [33], is accepted as the bound for this setup.
    The saturation claim compares to a bound computed by the same authors in the cited reference; it is not re-derived from scratch in this paper.
  • standard math Gaussian squeezed-vacuum input and balanced homodyne detection are sufficient to saturate the QCRB in the regime n_c*e^(2r) >> sinh^2(r), Eq. (44) of the Supplement.
    Derived in the Supplement from error propagation and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation; this is a consistency step rather than an independent input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Network of Mach-Zehnder Interferometers with a Single Entangled Resource." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3EGITNF2

@misc{pith2026250908230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Network of Mach-Zehnder Interferometers with a Single Entangled Resource},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3EGITNF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08230}
}
abstract

Distributed quantum sensing exploits entanglement to enhance the estimation of multiple parameters across a network of spatially-separated sensors, achieving sensitivities beyond the classical limit. Potential applications cover a plethora of technologies, from precision navigation to biomedical imaging and environmental monitoring. However, practical implementations are challenged by the complex optimal distribution of entanglement throughout the sensing nodes, which affects scalability and robustness. Here we demonstrate a reconfigurable network of Mach-Zehnder interferometers entangled via a single shared squeezed-vacuum resource. We achieve joint noise suppression of $4.36 \pm 0.35$ dB below the standard quantum limit at the phase-uncertainty level of $10^{-9}$ . Furthermore, after full optimization in the low-intensity regime, we demonstrate a crossover from the standard quantum limit to the Heisenberg limit. The network estimates arbitrary linear combinations of phases, saturates the quantum Cramer-Rao bound in the ideal case, remains robust under realistic photon losses, and scales favorably with the number of sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) presents the experimental apparatus. A squeezed-vacuum state is generated by an optical para￾metric amplifier (OPA) and split through a quantum cir￾cuit (QC) composed of a cascade of beam splitters. The remaining inputs of the QC are vacuum states. The con￾figurable linear optical splitting [32, 33] generates multi- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In the limit n¯T ≫ 1, Eq. (42) can be optimized with respect to n¯s , giving min r ∆ 2 (ν ⊤ θ)QCRB = 1 n¯ 2 T (∑ d j=1 |νj | )2 , for ¯ns ≫ 1. (46) with n¯s,opt = n¯ c,opt = n¯T /2, and 2 min r ∆ 2 (ν ⊤ θ)QCRB = 1 n¯T (∑ d j=1 |νj | )2 , for ¯ns ≪ 1. (47) These limits …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hierarchy of saturation conditions for multiparameter quantum metrology bounds

    quant-ph 2026-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Commuting parameter-encoding generators do not guarantee saturability of the quantum Cramér-Rao bound for mixed probe states, and the hierarchy of commutativity conditions has strict gaps.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    C. A. Casacio, L. S. Madsen, A. Terrasson, M. Waleed, K. Barnscheidt, B. Hage, M. A. Taylor, and W. P. Bowen, Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy Nature 594, 201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Pirandola, B

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

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astron- omy. Nat. Commun. 1, 121 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Pho- tonic quantum metrology, A VS Quantum Sci. 2, 024703 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, G. Khoury, J. F. Hodelin, and D. Bouwmeester, Phase Detection at the Quantum Limit with Multiphoton Mach-Zehnder Interferometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 223602 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

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

    work page 1981

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Xiao, L.-A

    M. Xiao, L.-A. Wu, and H. J. Kimble, Precision mea- surement beyond the shot-noise limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 278 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    M. J. Holland, and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    Pezzè, and A

    L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Mach-Zehnder Interferometry at the Heisenberg Limit with Coherent and Squeezed- Vacuum Light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    M. D. Lang, C. M. Caves, Optimal Quantum-Enhanced Interferometry Using a Laser Power Source. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 173601 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Quantum Metrol- ogy with Entangled Coherent States. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 083601 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the Standard Quantum Limit with Four-Entangled Photons. Science 726 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, High-NOON States by Mixing Quantum and Classical Light. Science 328, 879 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Un- conditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology. Nat. Photon. 11, 700, (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Daryanoosh, S

    S. Daryanoosh, S. Slussarenko, D. W. Berry, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental optical phase mea- surement approaching the exact Heisenberg limit. Nat. Commun. 9, 4606 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    X. Zuo, Z. Yan, Y. Feng, J. Ma, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Quantum Interferometer Combining Squeez- ing and Parametric Amplification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 173602 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic Quantum Phase Estima- tion beyond N00N States. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 123603 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    K. Goda, O. Miyakawa, E. E. Mikhailov, S. Saraf, R. Adhikari, K. McKenzie, R. Ward, S. Vass, A. J. Wein- stein, and N. Mavalvala, A quantum-enhanced prototype gravitational-wave detector. Nat. Phys. 4, 472 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Aasi, et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravi- tational wave detector by using squeezed states of light

    J. Aasi, et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravi- tational wave detector by using squeezed states of light. Nat. Photon. 7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Abadie, et al., A gravitational wave observatory oper- ating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit Nat

    J. Abadie, et al., A gravitational wave observatory oper- ating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit Nat. Phys. 7, 962 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Tse, et al., Quantum-Enhanced Advanced LIGO De- tectors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy

    M. Tse, et al., Quantum-Enhanced Advanced LIGO De- tectors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Acernese, et al., Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light

    F. Acernese, et al., Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231108 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    W. Jia, V. Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M Evans, and N. Mavalvala, Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quan- tum limit. Science 385, 1318 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Juan-Colás, and T

    J. Juan-Colás, and T. F. Krauss, Multiparameter reso- nant imaging for studying cell interactions. Science 7, 45 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Hoffmann, et al., Multiparametric MRI for character- ization of the tumour microenvironment, Nat

    E. Hoffmann, et al., Multiparametric MRI for character- ization of the tumour microenvironment, Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 21, 428 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Defienne, W

    H. Defienne, W. P. Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. Barreto Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. Treps, and D Faccio, Advances in quantum imaging. Nat. Photon. 18, 1024 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    M. R. Grace, C. N. Gagatsos, Q. Zhuang, and S. Guha, Quantum-enhanced fiber-optic gyroscopes using quadra- ture squeezing and continuous-variable entanglement. Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 034065 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Marra, et al., Optical interferometry based array of seafloor environmental sensors using a transoceanic sub- marine cable

    G. Marra, et al., Optical interferometry based array of seafloor environmental sensors using a transoceanic sub- marine cable. Science 376, 874 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Pezzè, and A

    L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Advances in multiparameter quantum sensing and metrology. arXiv:2502.17396

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Malitesta, A

    M. Malitesta, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Distributed quan- tum sensing with squeezed-vacuum light in a configurable array of Mach-Zehnder interferometers. Phys. Rev. A 108, 032621 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Pezzè, and A

    L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Distributed quantum multi- parameter estimation with optimal local measurements. arXiv:2405.18404

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Liu, Y.-Z

    L.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, Y.-Y. Fei, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, and J.- W. Pan, Distributed quantum phase estimation with en- tangled photons, Nat. Phot. 15, 137 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Zhao, et al., Field demonstration of distributed quantum sensing without post-selection

    S.-R. Zhao, et al., Field demonstration of distributed quantum sensing without post-selection. Phys. Rev. X 11, 031009 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    S. Hong, J. U. Rehman, Y.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Cho, S.-W. Lee, H. Jung, S. Moon, S.-W. Han, and H.-T. Lim, Quan- tum enhanced multiple-phase estimation with multi- mode NOON states. Nat. Commun. 12, 5211 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    D. H. Kim, S. Hong, Y. S. Kim, Y. Kim, S. W. Lee, R. C. Pooser, K. Oh, S. Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H. T. Lim, Dis- 9 tributed quantum sensing of multiple phases with fewer photons. Nat. Commun. 15, 266 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Cimini, M

    V. Cimini, M. Valeri, E. Polino, S. Piacentini, F. Cec- carelli, G. Corrielli, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Deep reinforcement learning for quantum mul- tiparameter estimation, Advanced Photonics 5, 016005 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sens- ing in a continuous-variable entangled network. Nat. Phys. 16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Y. Xia, W. Li, W. Clark, D. Hart, Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, Demonstration of a Reconfigurable Entangled Radio- Frequency Photonic Sensor Network. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 150502 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Multiparameter squeezing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks. Nat. Comm. 11, 3817 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    1331 Project

    for details). In the ideal lossless case Λ = 0, Eq. ( 4) recovers the HL 1/(K ¯n2 T ), achieved when half of the ¯nT particles are in the squeezed-vacuum state and the other half are in the d coherent states, i.e. ¯ns = ¯nc = ¯nT /2. Finally, we recall that QCRB for our setup ...

  35. [43]

    See Supplementary Information

  36. [44]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary opera- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  37. [45]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for uni- versal multiport interferometers, Optica 3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Gută, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology. Nat. Commun. 3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

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

    2016

  41. [49]

    B. K. Malia, Y. Wu, J. Martínez-Rincón, and M. A. Kase- vich, Distributed quantum sensing with mode-entangled spin-squeezed atomic states, Nature 612, 661 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Corgier, M

    R. Corgier, M. Malitesta, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Quantum-enhanced differential atom interferometers and clocks with spin-squeezing swapping, Quantum 7, 965 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Y. Li, L. Joosten, Y. Baamara, P. Colciaghi, A. Sina- tra, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Multiparameter es- timation with an array of entangled atomic sensors, arXiv:2504.08677. Supplemental Material In the following, we derive all equations discussed in the main text. The deri...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.