Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Below-shot-noise capacity in phase estimation using nonlinear interferometers

T0 review · 2 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 The paper claims that with intensity-only detection, the Mandel induced-coherence interferometer—shot-noise limited but insensitive to loss imbalance—outperforms the Yurke SU(1,1) interferometer at high photon numbers, where Yurke's phase s

desk verdict Genuinely useful asymptotics, but the 'Mandel beats Yurke for unbalanced loss' claim only holds under the equal-gain assumption; a simple gain imbalance flips the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04139 v2 pith:6KJ77345 submitted 2026-01-07 quant-ph physics.optics

Cristofero Oglialoro , Gerard J. Machado , Felix Farsch , Daniel F. Urrego , Alejandra A. Padilla , Raj B. Patel , Ian A. Walmsley , Markus Gräfe
show 2 more authors
Juan P. Torres Enno Giese
This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81V8081P50 PACS 42.50.-p
keywords nonlinearinterferometrySU(11)interferometerinducedcoherencephaseestimationshot-noiselimitquantummetrologyopticalloss
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

The paper asks which nonlinear interferometer gives the smallest phase uncertainty when the only readout is photon-number (intensity) detection and when losses are present. It finds that the ideal Yurke SU(1,1) interferometer, which can reach Heisenberg 1/n² scaling in the lossless case, is fragile: equal losses push it to shot noise, while unequal losses make its minimal variance saturate to a constant in the high-gain limit, worse than shot noise. The Mandel induced-coherence interferometer, using the difference of the two beam-splitter outputs, always maintains shot-noise scaling and therefore overtakes the Yurke configuration at sufficiently high photon numbers whenever losses are unbalanced. A hybrid parameter continuously interpolates between the two limits. The practical consequence is a design rule: choose a Yurke setup only at moderate gain with carefully balanced losses and operation near destructive interference; choose a Mandel setup with differential detection for high photon fluxes or sample-induced loss.

What carries the argument

The central mathematical objects are Bogoliubov (SU(1,1)) transformations describing each parametric amplifier, with losses included as SU(2) beam-splitter couplings to vacuum modes. The physical mechanism is the thermal photon statistics of squeezed vacuum, Var(N_s)=N_s(1+N_s), combined with Gaussian error propagation to convert interference patterns N_s=a+b cosϕ into phase uncertainties. For the Yurke setup, perfect destructive interference at the dark fringe can make the variance vanish only without loss; unbalanced loss leaves a term that does not shrink with photon number, causing saturation. For the Mandel setup, the differential signal N_−=2n√((n+1)T_iT_s) cosϕ has high contrast indep

What would settle it

Measure the optimal phase variance of a Yurke interferometer with fixed unbalanced losses (e.g., T_s=0.8, T_i=0.7) while increasing pump power well beyond n≈100. The paper predicts σ² saturates at (T_s−T_i)²/(4T_sT_i)≈0.0045; if the variance instead continues to decrease below that floor, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its heart, the paper establishes that the apparent metrological advantage of the Yurke setup depends on balanced losses. For a vacuum-input Yurke interferometer with equal gain in both crystals, the optimal phase variance in the high-gain regime becomes σ²_Y|min → (T_s−T_i)²/(4T_sT_i) when losses differ, a constant set by the loss imbalance; balanced losses instead give 1/n shot-noise scaling. Under the same assumptions, differential detection in the Mandel interferometer yields σ²_−|π/2 → (1/4n)(2/T_i+1/T_s−2), so its shot-noise scaling survives any loss values. Hence with unbalanced loss—the realistic case—Mandel eventually outperforms Yurke as photon number grows, even though both shar

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes equal parametric gain in the two nonlinear crystals and vacuum input; if the gains are allowed to differ, the Yurke interferometer may recover sub-shot-noise sensitivity even with unbalanced loss, which would overturn the paper's headline comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In high-gain operation with unbalanced losses, the Mandel interferometer with differential detection is the preferred configuration; the Yurke setup's phase uncertainty saturates to a loss-imbalance floor.
  • Even with balanced losses, the Yurke interferometer does not show Heisenberg scaling at high gain and offers at best a fourfold improvement over the Mandel setup.
  • Genuine Heisenberg-limited precision with intensity measurements requires a Yurke geometry at moderate gain, carefully balanced internal losses, and operation near destructive interference.
  • The hybrid setup provides a continuous tuning knob between Heisenberg and shot-noise behavior, useful for adapting to specific loss and gain constraints.
  • Because both configurations share the same quantum Fisher information, the shot-noise limitation of the Mandel setup is a property of the intensity readout, not of the state itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the comparison fixes equal parametric gain in both nonlinear crystals; because known gain-unbalancing strategies can compensate losses, allowing unequal gains might restore sub-shot-noise Yurke operation in regimes where the paper concludes Mandel wins.
  • Editorial inference: the single-mode approximation is a load-bearing simplification; multimode corrections could shift the quantitative thresholds and possibly soften the contrast drawn here.
  • Editorial inference: in imaging or spectroscopy, the sample itself sits in the idler arm, so sample-induced loss is inherently unbalanced; this makes the Mandel configuration the natural choice for lossy samples.
  • Editorial inference: a direct experiment comparing the phase variance versus photon number for a loss-imbalanced Yurke and a differential Mandel setup would cleanly test the predicted saturation versus 1/n scaling.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares three nonlinear interferometer configurations—Yurke-type SU(1,1), Mandel-type induced-coherence, and a hybrid interpolating between them—for phase estimation using only intensity or intensity-difference detection, under vacuum input and equal parametric gain in the two nonlinear media. It derives analytic expressions for the phase uncertainty in the lossless and lossy cases, identifies the optimal working point, and shows that in the high-gain regime the Yurke intensity measurement saturates for unbalanced loss, whereas the Mandel differential measurement maintains shot-noise scaling. The central practical claim is that the Mandel configuration is the most robust intensity-based scheme once realistic loss is present.

Significance. If the comparison is taken as stated, the paper provides a useful and clearly presented practical guide: it separates the quantum Fisher-information limits from what is actually accessible via simple intensity measurements, and it gives closed-form, parameter-free expressions for the phase variance in several regimes. The derivation of the thermal-light Fisher information in Appendix B is explicit, and the lossy formulas in Appendix A are internally consistent enough to reproduce the lossless limits. The main value is the concrete design guidance for choosing between Yurke and Mandel interferometers when only photon-number detection is available. However, the significance is limited by the equal-gain restriction: the comparison does not cover the gain-unbalanced strategies that the paper itself cites as loss-compensation mechanisms, and one of the paper's central claims is not robust once that restriction is lifted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and Appendix A.2, Eq. (27)] The Sec. 4 claim that the Mandel differential setup surpasses the Yurke setup for unbalanced loss is derived under the explicit restriction V_A = V_B = n. This restriction is load-bearing. For the general Yurke expressions in Eq. (27), with V_A = n large and V_B = y fixed, the high-gain baseline and fringe amplitude behave as a ≈ [T_s + (T_s+T_i)y]n and b ≈ 2√(T_s T_i y(1+y))n. When T_i > T_s, choosing y = T_s/(T_i−T_s) makes the leading coefficients equal. For T_s = 0.7, T_i = 0.8, y = 7, the corrected Eq. (10) gives σ²_Y|min ≈ 0.33/n, which is below the Mandel value 0.48/n from Eq. (18). Thus gain imbalance can remove the Yurke saturation and reverse the Sec. 4 ordering, contrary to the blanket wording 'for unbalanced loss.' The paper cites gain-unbalanced compensation [9,25,26] but does not include it in the comparison. The conclusions should either optimize over V_B or be explicitly
  2. [Eq. (10)] As printed, Eq. (10) appears to have a sign error. With the plus sign in the first term, the lossless balanced case T_s = T_i = 1 (where a = b) gives σ²_Y|min → 1 for large n, contradicting Eq. (2) and the high-gain expansion in Eq. (12). The correct minimum-variance formula for the thermal interference pattern requires [a(1+a) − b²]/(2b²) in the first term, not [a(1+a) + b²]/(2b²). Since Eq. (12) and the figures are consistent with the minus sign, I assume this is a typographical error, but it must be corrected because Eqs. (10)–(12) and the subsequent figures all depend on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.3, after Eq. (36)] The text defines N_+ = N_s − N'_s, but from Eq. (15) and the preceding context N_+ is the sum, N_+ = N_s + N'_s. This typo should be fixed.
  2. [Introduction and Ref. [39]] The multimode validity of the variance result is deferred to an unpublished manuscript, Ref. [39] ('Article in preparation'). Since the quantitative scaling claims rely on the single-mode model, the authors should either include the multimode derivation or state the restriction more prominently in the main text.
  3. [Sec. 3] The definition of the normalized classical Fisher information F_c/n and its comparison to the coherent-state benchmark should be stated more explicitly: the 'photon number n' is the number of generated probing photons, not the detected number, and this distinction matters when losses are present.
  4. [Fig. 2] The white dots marking optimal phases are hard to see against the bright background; using a different marker or an overlaid curve would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation chain is self-contained; no prediction reduces to a fit or to a definition, and the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central results are derived from stated physical models rather than imported as conclusions. Appendix A constructs all interference patterns and variances from SU(1,1) Bogoliubov transformations and SU(2) loss beam splitters, with the equal-gain assumption V_A = V_B = n explicitly imposed in Appendix A.2. Equation (12) is the algebraic large-n expansion of Eq. (10), and Eq. (18) follows from Eqs. (15)–(17); neither reuses the target claim. Appendix B computes the classical Fisher information for the thermal photon distribution and obtains F = 1/σ² by direct calculation rather than assuming it. The only self-referential element is Ref. [39], an in-preparation paper with overlapping coauthors, cited to support the multimode extension of the single-mode variance formula. This is a caveat about the scope of the approximation, not a load-bearing circular step: the comparison between Yurke and Mandel configurations is carried out within the paper’s explicitly stated single-mode, equal-gain model. The equal-gain restriction limits the generality of the Sec. 4 conclusion (gain imbalance can compensate loss, as the paper itself notes via Refs. [9,25,26]), but that is a stated assumption/scope limitation rather than a circular derivation. No fitted parameters are promoted to predictions, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors’ own work to force the conclusion.

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

The central claim rests on standard quantum-optics axioms plus two explicit simplifying choices (vacuum input, equal gain). No free parameters are fitted. The equal-gain choice is the most consequential assumption, since prior work shows gain imbalance changes SU(1,1) phase sensitivity under loss.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Parametric down-conversion in each medium is a Bogoliubov transformation with coefficients satisfying |u|²−|v|²=1 (SU(1,1)).
    Standard quantum-optics model; invoked in Appendix A.1, Eq. (19).
  • domain assumption Loss is modeled as a beam splitter with vacuum input; |t_j|²+|r_j|²=1.
    Standard loss model; Appendix A.1, Eq. (20).
  • domain assumption Input to medium A is vacuum in signal and idler modes.
    The paper explicitly focuses on vacuum-input scenario, Sec. 1.
  • domain assumption Detected signal is single-mode and follows thermal statistics, so Var(N_s)=N_s(1+N_s) and the classical Fisher information equals 1/σ².
    Used throughout; derived in Appendix B for thermal light; single-mode approximation stated in Sec. 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal gain in media A and B: V_A = V_B = n.
    The main comparison sets the gains equal (Appendix A.2). This is a simplifying choice, not a physical necessity; gain-unbalanced variants are cited [9,25,26] but not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Below-shot-noise capacity in phase estimation using nonlinear interferometers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KJ77345

@misc{pith2026260104139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Below-shot-noise capacity in phase estimation using nonlinear interferometers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KJ77345}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04139}
}
read the original abstract

Over the past decade, several schemes for imaging and sensing based on nonlinear interferometers have been proposed and demonstrated experimentally. These interferometers exhibit two main advantages. First, they enable probing a sample at a chosen wavelength while detecting light at a different wavelength with high efficiency (bicolor quantum imaging and sensing with undetected light). Second, they can show quantum-enhanced sensitivities below the shot-noise limit, potentially reaching Heisenberg-limited precision in parameter estimation. Here, we compare three quantum-imaging configurations using only easily accessible intensity-based measurements for phase estimation: a Yurke-type SU(1,1) interferometer, a Mandel-type induced-coherence interferometer, and a hybrid scheme that continuously interpolates between them. While an ideal Yurke interferometer can exhibit Heisenberg scaling, this advantage is known to be fragile under realistic detection constraints and in the presence of loss. We demonstrate that differential intensity detection in the Mandel interferometer provides the highest and most robust phase sensitivity among the considered schemes, reaching but not surpassing the shot-noise limit, even in the presence of loss. Intensity measurements in a Yurke-type configuration can achieve genuine sub-shot-noise sensitivity under balanced losses and moderate gain; however, their performance degrades in realistic high-gain regimes. Consequently, in this regime, the Mandel configuration with differential detection outperforms the Yurke-type setup and constitutes the most robust approach for phase estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketches of different nonlinear interferometers: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase uncertainty of the hybrid setup n σ2 H for n = 10, as a function of the mixing parameter ϱ and the phase ϕ. The phases minimizing the sensitivity for discrete values of ϱ are represented by white dots. The optimal working point for the Yurke setup (ϱ = 0) is at ϕmin = π, while the sensitivity is minimized at two phases for ϱ > 0. For the Mandel setup (ϱ = 1), these phases are ϕmin = π/2, 3π/2. The margin shows… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized classical Fisher information Fc/n = 1/(nσ2 Y |min) at the optimal phase setting ϕmin as a function of n and Ti , assuming Ts = 0.8. An increase of the normalized Fisher information with the number of probing photons implies better than shot-noise scaling, while a constant behavior corresponds to a shot-noise limited measurement. A decrease of the normalized Fisher information results in a deterioration of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized classical Fisher information as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Minimal phase uncertainty σ 2 Y |min as a function of n. For Ts = 0.9 and Ti = 0.85 (black), we observe a constant limit (gray line) in the high-gain regime, while for Ts = Ti = 0.9 (blue) we observe shot-noise scaling. For low photon numbers, both cases approach a Hei…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Minimal phase uncertainty σ 2 j |min as a function of n. For the Yurke setup (Y, black) we observe for σ 2 Y |min a saturation (gray line) in the high-gain regime for Ts = 0.8 and Ti = 0.7 . In contrast, in the differential Mandel setup (M, red), there is no saturation…

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.

  1. Improving the loss threshold for quantum advantage in photonic sensors by complete photon counting

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Full photon-number-resolving detection in a nonlinear interferometer yields a 2.37 dB unconditional shot-noise violation under realistic losses, delivering 44% better estimation precision than click detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Sensitivity of phase esti- mation with an SU(1,1) interferometer be- yond the single-mode approximation

    J. M. Gené, M. H. M. Passos, D. F. Urrego, and J. P. Torres. “Sensitivity of phase esti- mation with an SU(1,1) interferometer be- yond the single-mode approximation”. Arti- cle in preparation (2026)

    2026

  2. [1]

    Nonlinearin- terferometers in quantum optics

    M.V.ChekhovaandZ.Y.Ou. “Nonlinearin- terferometers in quantum optics”. Adv. Opt. Photon.8, 104 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder. “SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers”. Phys. Rev. A33, 4033–4054 (1986)

    1986

  4. [3]

    In- duced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference

    X. Y. Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel. “In- duced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference”. Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 318–321 (1991)

    1991

  5. [4]

    Quantum in- distinguishability by path identity and with undetected photons

    A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger. “Quantum in- distinguishability by path identity and with undetected photons”. Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025007 (2022). 12

    2022

  6. [5]

    Non- linear interferometry: A new approach for imaging and sensing

    J. Fuenzalida, E. Giese, and M. Gräfe. “Non- linear interferometry: A new approach for imaging and sensing”. Adv. Quantum Tech- nol.7, 2300353 (2024)

    2024

  7. [6]

    Quantum imaging with undetected photons

    G. Barreto Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. Zeilinger. “Quantum imaging with undetected photons”. Nature512, 409– 412 (2014)

    2014

  8. [7]

    Experimental quantum imaging distilla- tion with undetected light

    J. Fuenzalida, M. Gilaberte Basset, S. Töpfer, J. P. Torres, and M. Gräfe. “Experimental quantum imaging distilla- tion with undetected light”. Sci. Adv.9, eadg9573 (2023)

    2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Optical section- ing in induced coherence tomography with frequency-entangled photons

    A. Vallés, G. Jiménez, L. J. Salazar- Serrano, and J. P. Torres. “Optical section- ing in induced coherence tomography with frequency-entangled photons”. Phys. Rev. A 97, 023824 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Phase sensitivity of gain-unbalanced nonlinear interferometers

    E. Giese, S. Lemieux, M. Manceau, R. Fick- ler, and R. W. Boyd. “Phase sensitivity of gain-unbalanced nonlinear interferometers”. Phys. Rev. A96, 053863 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Metrological Advantages in Seeded and Lossy Nonlinear Interferome- ters

    J. Kranias, G. Thekkadath, K. Heshami, and A. Z. Goldberg. “Metrological Advantages in Seeded and Lossy Nonlinear Interferome- ters”. Quantum9, 1619 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    The phase sensi- tivity of a fully quantum three-mode non- linear interferometer

    J.Flórez, E. Giese, D.Curic, L.Giner, R. W. Boyd, and J. S. Lundeen. “The phase sensi- tivity of a fully quantum three-mode non- linear interferometer”. New J. Phys.20, 123022 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Engineering nonlinear optic sources of photonic entanglement

    J. P. Torres, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley. “Engineering nonlinear optic sources of photonic entanglement”. Progress in Optics 56, 227–331 (2011)

    2011

  6. [13]

    On the unitary representations ofSU(1,1)andSU(2,1)

    L. C. Biedenharn, J. Nuyts, and N. Strau- mann. “On the unitary representations ofSU(1,1)andSU(2,1)”. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré A3, 13–39 (1965). url:https://www.numdam.org/item/ AIHPA_1965__3_1_13_0/

    1965

  7. [14]

    Frustrated two-photon creation via interference

    T. J. Herzog, J. G. Rarity, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger. “Frustrated two-photon creation via interference”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 629–632 (1994)

    1994

  8. [15]

    Augmenting the sensing performance of en- tangled photon pairs through asymmetry

    Y. Michael, I. Jonas, L. Bello, M.-E. Meller, E. Cohen, M. Rosenbluh, and A. Pe’er. “Augmenting the sensing performance of en- tangled photon pairs through asymmetry”. Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 173603 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Non- linear interferometer for Fourier-transform mid-infrared gas spectroscopy using near- infrared detection

    C. Lindner, J. Kunz, S. J. Herr, S. Wolf, J. Kießling, and F. Kühnemann. “Non- linear interferometer for Fourier-transform mid-infrared gas spectroscopy using near- infrared detection”. Opt. Express29, 4035– 4047 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Ultra-broadband quan- tum infrared spectroscopy

    T. Tashima, Y. Mukai, M. Arahata, N. Oda, M. Hisamitsu, K. Tokuda, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi. “Ultra-broadband quan- tum infrared spectroscopy”. Optica11, 81– 87 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared

    I. Kviatkovsky, H. M. Chrzanowski, E. G. Avery, H. Bartolomaeus, and S. Ramelow. “Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared”. Sci. Adv.6, eabd0264 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Video-rate imaging with undetected photons

    M. Gilaberte Basset, A. Hochrainer, S. Töpfer, F. Riexinger, P. Bickert, J. R. León-Torres, F. Steinlechner, and M. Gräfe. “Video-rate imaging with undetected photons”. Laser Photonics Rev.15, 2000327 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Quantum holography with unde- tected light

    S. Töpfer, M. Gilaberte Basset, J. Fuen- zalida, F. Steinlechner, J. P. Torres, and M. Gräfe. “Quantum holography with unde- tected light”. Sci. Adv.8, eabl4301 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Off-axis holographic imaging with unde- tected light

    J. R. León-Torres, F. Krajinić, M. Ku- mar, M. Gilaberte Basset, F. Setzpfandt, V. Flavio Gili, B. Jelenković, and M. Gräfe. “Off-axis holographic imaging with unde- tected light”. Opt. Express32, 35449– 35461 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Synthetic quantum holography with undetected light

    S. Töpfer, S. Tovar-Perez, J. R. León Tor- res, D. Derr, E. Giese, J. Fuenzalida, and M. Gräfe. “Synthetic quantum holography with undetected light”. Optica Quantum3, 129–136 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Effect of losses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer

    A. M. Marino, N. V. Corzo Trejo, and P. D. Lett. “Effect of losses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer”. Phys. Rev. A 86, 023844 (2012)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Intramode- correlation-enhanced phase sensitivities in an SU(1,1) interferometer

    Q.-K. Gong, X.-L. Hu, D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang. “Intramode- correlation-enhanced phase sensitivities in an SU(1,1) interferometer”. Phys. Rev. A 96, 033809 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Improving the phase super-sensitivity of squeezing-assisted interferometers by squeeze factor unbalancing

    M. Manceau, F. Khalili, and M. Chekhova. “Improving the phase super-sensitivity of squeezing-assisted interferometers by squeeze factor unbalancing”. New J. Phys. 19, 013014 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Detection loss tolerant su- persensitive phase measurement with an SU(1,1) interferometer

    M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, and 13 M. Chekhova. “Detection loss tolerant su- persensitive phase measurement with an SU(1,1) interferometer”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223604 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    In- duced coherence without induced emission

    L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel. “In- duced coherence without induced emission”. Phys. Rev. A44, 4614–4622 (1991)

    1991

  21. [28]

    Induced coherence with and without induced emis- sion

    H. M. Wiseman and K. Mølmer. “Induced coherence with and without induced emis- sion”. Phys. Lett. A270, 245–248 (2000)

    2000

  22. [29]

    Controlling induced coherence for quantum imaging

    M.I.Kolobov, E.Giese, S.Lemieux, R.Fick- ler, and R. W. Boyd. “Controlling induced coherence for quantum imaging”. J. Opt.19, 054003 (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Complementarity relationship between coherence and path distinguishabil- ity in an interferometer based on induced co- herence

    G. J. Machado, L. Sendra, A. Vallés, and J. P. Torres. “Complementarity relationship between coherence and path distinguishabil- ity in an interferometer based on induced co- herence”. Phys. Rev. A110, 012421 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Optimal phase measurements with bright- and vacuum-seeded SU(1,1) interferome- ters

    B. E. Anderson, B. L. Schmittberger, P. Gupta, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett. “Optimal phase measurements with bright- and vacuum-seeded SU(1,1) interferome- ters”. Phys. Rev. A95, 063843 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Phase sens- ing beyond the standard quantum limit with a variation on the SU(1,1) interferometer

    B. E. Anderson, P. Gupta, B. L. Schmit- tberger, T. Horrom, C. Hermann-Avigliano, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett. “Phase sens- ing beyond the standard quantum limit with a variation on the SU(1,1) interferometer”. Optica4, 752–756 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Opti- mized phase sensing in a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer

    P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, B. E. An- derson, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett. “Opti- mized phase sensing in a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer”. Opt. Express26, 391– 401 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Reframing SU(1,1) inter- ferometry

    C. M. Caves. “Reframing SU(1,1) inter- ferometry”. Adv. Quantum Technol.3, 1900138 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Versatile Super-Sensitive Metrology Using Induced Coherence

    N. R. Miller, S. Ramelow, and W. N. Plick. “Versatile Super-Sensitive Metrology Using Induced Coherence”. Quantum5, 458 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Towards integrated sensors for optimized OCT with undetected photons

    F. Roeder, R. Pollmann, V. Quiring, C. Eigner, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn. “Towards integrated sensors for optimized OCT with undetected photons” (2025). arXiv:2508.05320

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Coupling undetected sensing modes by quantum era- sure

    N. R. Gemmell, Y. Ma, E. Pearce, J. Flórez, O. Czerwinski, M. S. Kim, R. F. Oulton, A. S. Clark, and C. C. Phillips. “Coupling undetected sensing modes by quantum era- sure”. APL Quantum1, 036121 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Generation of paired photons with controllable waveforms

    V. Balic, D. A. Braje, P. Kolchin, G. Y. Yin, and S. E. Harris. “Generation of paired photons with controllable waveforms”. Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 183601 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Optimal phase point for SU(1,1) interferometer

    J. Xin, X.-M. Lu, X. Li, and G. Li. “Optimal phase point for SU(1,1) interferometer”. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B36, 2824–2833 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Infrared spec- troscopy with visible light

    D. A. Kalashnikov, A. V. Paterova, S. P. Kulik, and L. A. Krivitsky. “Infrared spec- troscopy with visible light”. Nat. Photonics 10, 98–101 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Quantum imaging beyond the standard-quantum limit and phase distilla- tion

    S. Schaffrath, D. Derr, M. Gräfe, and E. Giese. “Quantum imaging beyond the standard-quantum limit and phase distilla- tion”. New J. Phys.26, 023018 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shotnoise, quantum interferometry

    W. N. Plick, J. P. Dowling, and G. S Agar- wal. “Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shotnoise, quantum interferometry”. New J. Phys.12, 083014 (2010). 14

    2010

Pith tools

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