Noise-Resilient Quantum Metrology

Benjamin Lou; Eric Oelker; Hudson A. Loughlin; Jacques Ding; Malo Le Gall; Masaya Ono; Melissa A. Guidry; Nergis Mavalvala; Vivishek Sudhir; Xinghui Yin

arxiv: 2509.25384 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.optics

Noise-Resilient Quantum Metrology

Hudson A. Loughlin , Melissa A. Guidry , Jacques Ding , Masaya Ono , Malo Le Gall , Benjamin Lou , Eric Oelker , Xinghui Yin

show 2 more authors

Vivishek Sudhir Nergis Mavalvala

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 12:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.optics

keywords quantum metrologysqueezed vacuumnoise resiliencephase estimationHeisenberg scalingBayesian estimationoptical interferometer

0 comments

The pith

A squeezed-vacuum interferometer uses nonlinear phase estimation to shift noise frequencies out of the signal band and reach Heisenberg scaling.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents an optical interferometer illuminated by squeezed vacuum light that incorporates a nonlinear phase estimation step. This step moves the frequency content of technical noise away from the band containing the desired signal. The resulting device preserves quantum advantage under realistic loss and noise conditions. It reaches the Heisenberg scaling of sensitivity with photon number when losses are absent and exceeds the standard quantum limit when losses are present. The same setup also supplies the first experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian estimation of a signal in a balanced interferometer.

Core claim

Inserting a nonlinear phase estimation procedure into a balanced interferometer driven by squeezed vacuum shifts noise frequencies away from the signal band. This produces sensitivity that follows Heisenberg scaling in the lossless limit and lies below the standard quantum limit under practical conditions. The architecture simultaneously realizes the first experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian signal estimation inside a balanced interferometer.

What carries the argument

nonlinear phase estimation procedure that shifts noise frequencies away from the signal band

If this is right

Sensitivity follows Heisenberg scaling in the lossless limit.
Sensitivity lies below the standard quantum limit under realistic loss and noise.
The architecture supplies the first experimental realization of quantum-optimal Bayesian signal estimation in a balanced interferometer.
The end-to-end design approach can be used to build other practical quantum measurement protocols.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The frequency-shift technique could be transplanted to other quantum sensors that encounter colored technical noise, such as atomic clocks or magnetometers.
Pairing the nonlinear step with existing quantum error-correction methods may allow operation at still higher noise levels.
The same noise-rejection principle might improve precision in quantum-enhanced imaging or gravitational-wave readout schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The nonlinear phase estimation procedure successfully shifts noise frequencies away from the signal band without introducing losses or other effects that cancel the claimed sensitivity gains.

What would settle it

A measurement of the output noise power spectrum that shows the shifted noise peak together with a recorded phase sensitivity that improves as 1/N rather than 1/sqrt(N) when total photon number N is increased.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25384 by Benjamin Lou, Eric Oelker, Hudson A. Loughlin, Jacques Ding, Malo Le Gall, Masaya Ono, Melissa A. Guidry, Nergis Mavalvala, Vivishek Sudhir, Xinghui Yin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (d) shows the squeezing level in a model of the experiment versus the physical phases. We observe close agreement between our measured data (fig. 2(b,c)) and a numerical model of quantum noise propagation through the interferometer, after accounting for the relation between the demodulation and physical phases (fig. 2(e)). We can use these maps to set all three demodulation angles to their optimal values… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (b) shows the observed scaling of the phase precision with photon flux. The solid black line (gray band) shows the model of the expected scaling of the precision with photon flux for the mean optical loss (range of measured losses), and the dashed black line shows the model of the expected phase precision in the absence of losses, which achieves Heisenberg scaling. These theoretical curves are determined… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Extended figure: Control scheme for the MZI experiment. All electronic generators for the same frequencies (95.5 MHz, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum metrology seeks to leverage the richness of quantum systems for making better measurements than are possible using only classical resources in order to gain a ``quantum advantage''. Quantum metrology schemes must also be resilient against noise to be useful in practice. Simultaneously achieving quantum advantage and noise resilience requires an end-to-end analysis of quantum measurement schemes to assess their theoretical sensitivity, feasibility, and noise robustness. We demonstrate this approach through the development of a novel optical interferometer based on squeezed vacuum light. We propose a scheme that relies on a nonlinear phase estimation procedure, which allows us to shift the frequency of noise away from the signal band, resulting in a high degree of noise resilience. This enables us to achieve sensitivity with Heisenberg scaling in the lossless limit and sensitivity below the standard quantum limit (SQL) in practice. It also enables the first experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian signal estimation in a balanced interferometer. We expect this end-to-end design approach to enable the development of a variety of useful quantum measurement protocols going forward.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper runs a squeezed-vacuum interferometer with a nonlinear phase-estimation step that shifts noise out of band, plus the first experimental quantum-optimal Bayesian estimation in that geometry, but the sub-SQL claim rests on how well the nonlinear element's losses are actually controlled.

read the letter

The main things to know are that the group built a balanced optical interferometer using squeezed vacuum and introduced a nonlinear phase estimation step to move noise frequencies away from the signal band, and they report an experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian signal estimation that they say is the first in this setup. They also claim Heisenberg scaling in the lossless limit and sensitivity below the standard quantum limit once losses are present. That combination of squeezed light with an explicit noise-relocation trick is what they present as new. The experiment itself is the part that stands out: actually implementing the Bayesian estimator in hardware and showing it works is concrete progress beyond pure theory. The end-to-end focus on making the scheme noise-resilient is a sensible direction for metrology work that aims at real devices. The soft spot is the nonlinear step. Any physical nonlinearity tends to bring some absorption, scattering, or pump-induced noise, and if those effects are not fully folded into the sensitivity calculation with measured loss numbers, the below-SQL performance could shrink or disappear. The stress-test note flags exactly this, and without a detailed error budget or a direct comparison to the linear case it is hard to judge how much margin the scheme actually has. The abstract states the claims, but the strength of the result depends on whether the full paper quantifies those losses tightly. This is for experimental quantum optics and precision sensing groups who care about moving squeezed-light techniques toward deployable sensors such as gravitational-wave detectors or optical clocks. Readers who want to see how Bayesian estimation looks in a real balanced interferometer will get something useful from the data. The work has enough experimental substance and a clear practical angle that it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject; the review can focus on tightening the loss analysis and checking the scaling claims against the measured numbers.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a novel optical interferometer scheme based on squeezed vacuum light combined with a nonlinear phase estimation procedure. This procedure shifts noise frequencies away from the signal band to achieve high noise resilience. The central claims are Heisenberg-limited sensitivity in the lossless limit, sub-standard quantum limit (SQL) sensitivity under realistic conditions, and the first experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian signal estimation in a balanced interferometer.

Significance. If the end-to-end analysis and experimental results hold, the work would offer a meaningful advance in practical quantum metrology by combining quantum advantage with explicit noise resilience. The emphasis on shifting noise spectra while preserving squeezed-vacuum benefits addresses a key barrier to real-world deployment of quantum sensors. No machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code are described, but the experimental demonstration of quantum-optimal Bayesian estimation is a concrete, falsifiable contribution.

major comments (1)

[Scheme description and sensitivity analysis] The central claim of sub-SQL sensitivity in practice rests on the assertion that the nonlinear phase estimation shifts noise without introducing losses or decoherence that would restore SQL-limited performance. No quantitative loss model, absorption/scattering budget, or pump-induced noise analysis for the nonlinear medium appears in the scheme description or error analysis. This is load-bearing for the practical-utility claim and must be supplied with explicit calculations or measurements.

minor comments (2)

Notation for the nonlinear phase shift and the frequency-shifting mechanism should be defined more explicitly, ideally with a diagram or equation showing how the signal band is isolated from the shifted noise.
The abstract states 'first experimental demonstration' of quantum-optimal Bayesian estimation; the main text should include a direct comparison to prior Bayesian estimation experiments in interferometers to substantiate novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will incorporate the requested analysis into the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim of sub-SQL sensitivity in practice rests on the assertion that the nonlinear phase estimation shifts noise without introducing losses or decoherence that would restore SQL-limited performance. No quantitative loss model, absorption/scattering budget, or pump-induced noise analysis for the nonlinear medium appears in the scheme description or error analysis. This is load-bearing for the practical-utility claim and must be supplied with explicit calculations or measurements.

Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative loss model for the nonlinear medium is necessary to fully support the practical-utility claims. The original manuscript emphasized the principle of noise-frequency shifting and presented overall experimental results, but did not include a dedicated absorption/scattering budget or pump-induced noise analysis specific to the nonlinear phase estimation stage. In the revision we will add a new subsection with these calculations, using the measured parameters of our nonlinear crystal and pump laser. The analysis will show that the additional losses and noise remain small enough to preserve sub-SQL performance; we will also include the corresponding error-propagation formulas. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims derive from independent analysis and experiment

full rationale

The paper proposes a nonlinear phase estimation scheme in a squeezed-vacuum interferometer that shifts noise frequencies, yielding Heisenberg scaling in the lossless limit and sub-SQL sensitivity in practice, plus the first experimental quantum-optimal Bayesian estimation in a balanced interferometer. These outcomes are presented as consequences of the end-to-end design rather than definitions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or procedures in the abstract reduce the target sensitivities to the inputs by construction; the derivation applies standard quantum optics to the new protocol without tautological closure. The central results remain falsifiable against external benchmarks and do not rely on unverified uniqueness theorems or ansatzes imported from the same authors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields minimal ledger entries; the central claims rest on the unverified effectiveness of the nonlinear estimation step and the assumption that noise can be frequency-shifted without net loss of sensitivity.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Nonlinear phase estimation shifts noise frequencies away from the signal band without introducing prohibitive losses.
This premise is required for the noise-resilience and sub-SQL claims but is not derived or measured in the provided abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5732 in / 1223 out tokens · 45567 ms · 2026-05-18T12:13:21.138460+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

nonlinear estimator acting on the measurement record produced by a pair of homodyne detectors... δϕ(t) = (q̃out1(t)² − q̃out2(t)²) / ((V+ − V−)ΔΩ/π)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

spectral QCRB... Heisenberg scaling for photon flux n ≫ 2

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

The other demodulation phase (θ ′

is swept. The other demodulation phase (θ ′

work page
[2]

SNR of unity indicates that the estimated signal lies below the measurement noise

is set to maximize anti-squeezing in panel (c). SNR of unity indicates that the estimated signal lies below the measurement noise. PPLs) and the physical ones. We therefore map out the squeezing level at the output by scanning all three de- modulation angles. Figure 2(b, c) shows such a map. Figure 2(d) shows the squeezing level in a model of the experime...

work page
[3]

Yurke, S

B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A33, 4033 (1986)

work page 1986
[4]

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

work page 1993
[5]

Giovannetti, S

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

work page 2006
[6]

Pezz´ e and A

L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dy- namics, and the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100401 (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

Leibfried, M

D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Toward heisenberg-limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states, Science304, 1476 (2004)

work page 2004
[9]

F. Sun, B. Liu, Y. Gong, Y. Huang, Z. Ou, and G. Guo, Experimental demonstration of phase measurement pre- cision beating standard quantum limit by projection measurement, Europhysics Letters82, 24001 (2008)

work page 2008
[10]

T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H¨ ansel, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506 (2011)

work page 2011
[11]

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, Nature Communications9, 4606 (2018)

work page 2018
[12]

Shaniv, T

R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, Y. Shapira, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Toward heisenberg-limited rabi spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 243603 (2018)

work page 2018
[13]

Meyer, M

V. Meyer, M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Exper- imental demonstration of entanglement-enhanced rota- tion angle estimation using trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5870 (2001)

work page 2001
[14]

Gross, T

C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature464, 1165 (2010)

work page 2010
[15]

M. F. Riedel, P. B¨ ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H¨ ansch, A. Sina- tra, and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of en- tanglement for quantum metrology, Nature464, 1170 (2010)

work page 2010
[16]

Grote, K

H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slutsky, and H. Vahlbruch, First long-term applica- tion of squeezed states of light in a gravitational-wave observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 181101 (2013)

work page 2013
[17]

Tse and et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys

M. Tse and et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

work page 2019
[18]

Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys

D. Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

work page 2023
[19]

Jiaet al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

W. Jiaet al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

work page 2024
[20]

J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic quantum phase estimation beyond n00n states, Physical Review Letters130, 123603 (2023)

work page 2023
[21]

M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Optimal quantum- enhanced interferometry, Physical Review A90, 025802 (2014)

work page 2014
[22]

C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(Academic Press, 1976)

work page 1976
[23]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

work page 1994
[24]

Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

M. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

work page 2009
[25]

Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum Limits in Optical Interfer- ometry, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, 2015) Chap. 4, pp. 345–435

work page 2015
[26]

P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. 7 Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum metrology with two-mode squeezed vacuum: Parity de- tection beats the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 103602 (2010)

work page 2010
[27]

Vahlbruch, S

H. Vahlbruch, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Coherent control of vac- uum squeezing in the gravitational-wave detection band, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 011101 (2006)

work page 2006
[28]

McCuller, C

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

work page 2020
[29]

J. Ding, H. A. Loughlin, and V. Sudhir, Quantum lin- ear time-translation-invariant systems: Conjugate sym- plectic structure, uncertainty bounds, and tomography, arXiv:2410.09976 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[30]

Y. Park, C. Depeursinge, and G. Popescu, Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine, Nature Photonics12, 578 (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

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, Nature594, 201 (2021)

work page 2021
[32]

P. P. Laissue, R. A. Alghamdi, P. Tomancak, E. G. Rey- naud, and H. Shroff, Assessing phototoxicity in live fluo- rescence imaging, Nature Methods14, 657 (2017)

work page 2017
[33]

J. Icha, M. Weber, J. C. Waters, and C. Norden, Photo- toxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it, BioEssays39, 1700003 (2017)

work page 2017
[34]

Wang, D.-Y

J. Wang, D.-Y. Huang, X.-L. Zhou, Z.-M. Shen, S.-J. He, Q.-Y. Huang, Y.-J. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Ultra- fast high-fidelity state readout of single neutral atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240802 (2025)

work page 2025
[35]

Tsang, H

M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Fundamen- tal quantum limit to waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 090401 (2011)

work page 2011
[36]

Pezz´ e and A

L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Mach-Zehnder interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 073601 (2008)

work page 2008
[37]

M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Optimal quantum- enhanced interferometry using a laser power source, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 173601 (2013)

work page 2013
[38]

Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K. Banaszek, and R. Schn- abel, Fundamental quantum interferometry bound for the squeezed-light-enhanced gravitational wave detector GEO 600, Physical Review A88, 041802 (2013)

work page 2013
[39]

Fernandez Galiana,Development of Precision, Field- Deployable, Opto-Mechanical Instrumentation, Ph.D

A. Fernandez Galiana,Development of Precision, Field- Deployable, Opto-Mechanical Instrumentation, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge, MA (2022), phD thesis

work page 2022
[40]

A. R. Wade, G. L. Mansell, T. G. McRae, S. S. Y. Chua, M. J. Yap, R. L. Ward, B. J. J. Slagmolen, D. A. Shad- dock, and D. E. McClelland, Optomechanical design and construction of a vacuum-compatible optical parametric oscillator for generation of squeezed light, Review of Sci- entific Instruments87, 063104 (2016)

work page 2016
[41]

Chelkowski, H

S. Chelkowski, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Coherent control of broadband vacuum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A75, 043814 (2007)

work page 2007
[42]

canonically as- sociated

T. Eberle, V. H¨ andchen, and R. Schnabel, Stable control of 10 db two-mode squeezed vacuum states of light, Opt. Express21, 11546 (2013). 8 METHODS In the following sections, we describe theoretical as- pects of the quantum Cramer-Rao bound (QCRB) for continuous-time signals, the optical and electronic layout, and data analysis procedures. The optical an...

work page 2013
[43]

,(9) which is slightly worse than that achieved by the scheme with two squeezed states. Additionally, an interferometer fed with one squeezed state input and one coherent state input with the same mean photon number, locked on a dark fringe, and mea- sured with a homodyne detector achieves a sensitivity of (see Supplementary Information) ¯Sδ ˜ϕδ ˜ϕ[Ω]≈ 1 ...

work page
[44]

We now describe the control loops used to stabilize ϕd toπ/2, and to stabilizeθ ′ s, θ′ 1, andθ ′ 2 to experimen- tally adjustable values

can be measured by taking beatnotes of the associated bright fields. We now describe the control loops used to stabilize ϕd toπ/2, and to stabilizeθ ′ s, θ′ 1, andθ ′ 2 to experimen- tally adjustable values. The demodulation anglesθ ′ i, i∈ {s,1,2}, are related to the physical phase anglesθ i, by monotonic, but nonlinear functions. The next section descri...

work page
[45]

to identify the value for whichθ 1 =−π/2 (θ2 = 0) as required by eq. (12). To set the demodulation phases such that the physical phases obtain their optimal values given in eq. (12), we proceed as described in the main text. We first lock the interferometer on a gray fringe and scan all three demod- ulation phases. We then take the resulting homodyne sign...

work page
[46]

The estimator is sufficiently un-biased: The mea- sured RMS phase modulation at 2 kHz is within 30% of the value obtained through a separate, clas- sical measurement

work page
[47]

2(f) is within 30% of the value measured while taking the heatmap

Demodulation phase stability: The phase estima- tion PSD noise floor obtained after returning to the optimal demodulation phases determined by the SNR heatmap in fig. 2(f) is within 30% of the value measured while taking the heatmap

work page
[48]

Photon number stability: The photon flux through the interferometer did not drift by more than 30% over the course of the measurement

work page
[49]

Low loss: The experimentally measured end-to-end loss is less than 30% before or after the phase PSD measurements and the mean measured loss before 12 and after the phase PSD measurements is less than 35%

work page
[50]

This seems to be a reasonable heuristic to enforce the desired degree of symmetry

Squeezer Symmetry: To ensure the squeezing levels are sufficiently symmetric after the OPA outputs are sent into the interferometer, we require that at the relative squeezing angle demodulation value corresponding to the lowest squeezing variance as the homodyne demodulation phase is scanned, the standard of deviation of homodyne variance divided by the m...

work page 2020

[1] [1]

The other demodulation phase (θ ′

is swept. The other demodulation phase (θ ′

work page

[2] [2]

SNR of unity indicates that the estimated signal lies below the measurement noise

is set to maximize anti-squeezing in panel (c). SNR of unity indicates that the estimated signal lies below the measurement noise. PPLs) and the physical ones. We therefore map out the squeezing level at the output by scanning all three de- modulation angles. Figure 2(b, c) shows such a map. Figure 2(d) shows the squeezing level in a model of the experime...

work page

[3] [3]

Yurke, S

B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A33, 4033 (1986)

work page 1986

[4] [4]

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

work page 1993

[5] [5]

Giovannetti, S

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

work page 2006

[6] [6]

Pezz´ e and A

L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dy- namics, and the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100401 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Leibfried, M

D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Toward heisenberg-limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states, Science304, 1476 (2004)

work page 2004

[9] [9]

F. Sun, B. Liu, Y. Gong, Y. Huang, Z. Ou, and G. Guo, Experimental demonstration of phase measurement pre- cision beating standard quantum limit by projection measurement, Europhysics Letters82, 24001 (2008)

work page 2008

[10] [10]

T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H¨ ansel, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506 (2011)

work page 2011

[11] [11]

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, Nature Communications9, 4606 (2018)

work page 2018

[12] [12]

Shaniv, T

R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, Y. Shapira, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Toward heisenberg-limited rabi spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 243603 (2018)

work page 2018

[13] [13]

Meyer, M

V. Meyer, M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Exper- imental demonstration of entanglement-enhanced rota- tion angle estimation using trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5870 (2001)

work page 2001

[14] [14]

Gross, T

C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature464, 1165 (2010)

work page 2010

[15] [15]

M. F. Riedel, P. B¨ ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H¨ ansch, A. Sina- tra, and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of en- tanglement for quantum metrology, Nature464, 1170 (2010)

work page 2010

[16] [16]

Grote, K

H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slutsky, and H. Vahlbruch, First long-term applica- tion of squeezed states of light in a gravitational-wave observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 181101 (2013)

work page 2013

[17] [17]

Tse and et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys

M. Tse and et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

work page 2019

[18] [18]

Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys

D. Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

work page 2023

[19] [19]

Jiaet al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

W. Jiaet al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

work page 2024

[20] [20]

J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic quantum phase estimation beyond n00n states, Physical Review Letters130, 123603 (2023)

work page 2023

[21] [21]

M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Optimal quantum- enhanced interferometry, Physical Review A90, 025802 (2014)

work page 2014

[22] [22]

C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(Academic Press, 1976)

work page 1976

[23] [23]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

work page 1994

[24] [24]

Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

M. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

work page 2009

[25] [25]

Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum Limits in Optical Interfer- ometry, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, 2015) Chap. 4, pp. 345–435

work page 2015

[26] [26]

P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. 7 Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum metrology with two-mode squeezed vacuum: Parity de- tection beats the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 103602 (2010)

work page 2010

[27] [27]

Vahlbruch, S

H. Vahlbruch, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Coherent control of vac- uum squeezing in the gravitational-wave detection band, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 011101 (2006)

work page 2006

[28] [28]

McCuller, C

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

work page 2020

[29] [29]

J. Ding, H. A. Loughlin, and V. Sudhir, Quantum lin- ear time-translation-invariant systems: Conjugate sym- plectic structure, uncertainty bounds, and tomography, arXiv:2410.09976 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[30] [30]

Y. Park, C. Depeursinge, and G. Popescu, Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine, Nature Photonics12, 578 (2018)

work page 2018

[31] [31]

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, Nature594, 201 (2021)

work page 2021

[32] [32]

P. P. Laissue, R. A. Alghamdi, P. Tomancak, E. G. Rey- naud, and H. Shroff, Assessing phototoxicity in live fluo- rescence imaging, Nature Methods14, 657 (2017)

work page 2017

[33] [33]

J. Icha, M. Weber, J. C. Waters, and C. Norden, Photo- toxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it, BioEssays39, 1700003 (2017)

work page 2017

[34] [34]

Wang, D.-Y

J. Wang, D.-Y. Huang, X.-L. Zhou, Z.-M. Shen, S.-J. He, Q.-Y. Huang, Y.-J. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Ultra- fast high-fidelity state readout of single neutral atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240802 (2025)

work page 2025

[35] [35]

Tsang, H

M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Fundamen- tal quantum limit to waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 090401 (2011)

work page 2011

[36] [36]

Pezz´ e and A

L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Mach-Zehnder interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 073601 (2008)

work page 2008

[37] [37]

M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Optimal quantum- enhanced interferometry using a laser power source, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 173601 (2013)

work page 2013

[38] [38]

Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K. Banaszek, and R. Schn- abel, Fundamental quantum interferometry bound for the squeezed-light-enhanced gravitational wave detector GEO 600, Physical Review A88, 041802 (2013)

work page 2013

[39] [39]

Fernandez Galiana,Development of Precision, Field- Deployable, Opto-Mechanical Instrumentation, Ph.D

A. Fernandez Galiana,Development of Precision, Field- Deployable, Opto-Mechanical Instrumentation, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge, MA (2022), phD thesis

work page 2022

[40] [40]

A. R. Wade, G. L. Mansell, T. G. McRae, S. S. Y. Chua, M. J. Yap, R. L. Ward, B. J. J. Slagmolen, D. A. Shad- dock, and D. E. McClelland, Optomechanical design and construction of a vacuum-compatible optical parametric oscillator for generation of squeezed light, Review of Sci- entific Instruments87, 063104 (2016)

work page 2016

[41] [41]

Chelkowski, H

S. Chelkowski, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Coherent control of broadband vacuum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A75, 043814 (2007)

work page 2007

[42] [42]

canonically as- sociated

T. Eberle, V. H¨ andchen, and R. Schnabel, Stable control of 10 db two-mode squeezed vacuum states of light, Opt. Express21, 11546 (2013). 8 METHODS In the following sections, we describe theoretical as- pects of the quantum Cramer-Rao bound (QCRB) for continuous-time signals, the optical and electronic layout, and data analysis procedures. The optical an...

work page 2013

[43] [43]

,(9) which is slightly worse than that achieved by the scheme with two squeezed states. Additionally, an interferometer fed with one squeezed state input and one coherent state input with the same mean photon number, locked on a dark fringe, and mea- sured with a homodyne detector achieves a sensitivity of (see Supplementary Information) ¯Sδ ˜ϕδ ˜ϕ[Ω]≈ 1 ...

work page

[44] [44]

We now describe the control loops used to stabilize ϕd toπ/2, and to stabilizeθ ′ s, θ′ 1, andθ ′ 2 to experimen- tally adjustable values

can be measured by taking beatnotes of the associated bright fields. We now describe the control loops used to stabilize ϕd toπ/2, and to stabilizeθ ′ s, θ′ 1, andθ ′ 2 to experimen- tally adjustable values. The demodulation anglesθ ′ i, i∈ {s,1,2}, are related to the physical phase anglesθ i, by monotonic, but nonlinear functions. The next section descri...

work page

[45] [45]

to identify the value for whichθ 1 =−π/2 (θ2 = 0) as required by eq. (12). To set the demodulation phases such that the physical phases obtain their optimal values given in eq. (12), we proceed as described in the main text. We first lock the interferometer on a gray fringe and scan all three demod- ulation phases. We then take the resulting homodyne sign...

work page

[46] [46]

The estimator is sufficiently un-biased: The mea- sured RMS phase modulation at 2 kHz is within 30% of the value obtained through a separate, clas- sical measurement

work page

[47] [47]

2(f) is within 30% of the value measured while taking the heatmap

Demodulation phase stability: The phase estima- tion PSD noise floor obtained after returning to the optimal demodulation phases determined by the SNR heatmap in fig. 2(f) is within 30% of the value measured while taking the heatmap

work page

[48] [48]

Photon number stability: The photon flux through the interferometer did not drift by more than 30% over the course of the measurement

work page

[49] [49]

Low loss: The experimentally measured end-to-end loss is less than 30% before or after the phase PSD measurements and the mean measured loss before 12 and after the phase PSD measurements is less than 35%

work page

[50] [50]

This seems to be a reasonable heuristic to enforce the desired degree of symmetry

Squeezer Symmetry: To ensure the squeezing levels are sufficiently symmetric after the OPA outputs are sent into the interferometer, we require that at the relative squeezing angle demodulation value corresponding to the lowest squeezing variance as the homodyne demodulation phase is scanned, the standard of deviation of homodyne variance divided by the m...

work page 2020