pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00331 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Toward Heisenberg-Limited Interferometry with Dual Squeezers

Yi Gu , Song-Ping Wang , Wei Zhong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Mach-Zehnder interferometersqueezed vacuumHeisenberg limitphase estimationquantum metrologydual squeezingphoton-number-difference detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A dual-squeezer Mach-Zehnder interferometer reaches Heisenberg-limited phase sensitivity with direct photon-number-difference detection.

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

The paper shows that feeding a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with a coherent state and a squeezed-vacuum state should produce Heisenberg scaling in phase sensitivity, yet this performance cannot be reached with ordinary direct detection because the sensitivity formula diverges exactly when the two input intensities are equal. The authors add a second single-mode squeezer immediately before the detectors, configured as a matched pair with the input squeezer. This dual-squeezing arrangement removes the divergence, restores the Heisenberg limit under straightforward photon counting, and keeps the result stable even when moderate detection noise is present. The approach matters because it converts a theoretically ideal but experimentally inaccessible regime into a practical measurement protocol for high-precision phase estimation.

Core claim

By placing an additional single-mode squeezer before detection that is paired with the input squeezed-vacuum squeezer, the resulting dual-squeezing Mach-Zehnder interferometer enables Heisenberg-limited phase sensitivity through direct photon-number-difference detection, eliminating the divergence that appears at equal input intensities while remaining robust against detection noise.

What carries the argument

The paired dual-squeezer configuration, in which the output single-mode squeezer is matched to the input squeezer to cancel the singularity in the phase-sensitivity expression.

If this is right

  • Heisenberg-limited sensitivity becomes accessible using only direct photon-number-difference detection.
  • The scheme stays robust against detection noise at the optimal operating point.
  • It supplies a practical route to quantum-limited interferometric phase measurements without requiring advanced detection techniques.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Current squeezed-light interferometers could test the scheme by inserting a matched output squeezer and comparing sensitivity curves with and without it.
  • The method may reduce the complexity of quantum-enhanced sensors already employing single-mode squeezing.
  • Finite-loss versions could be derived by extending the lossless analytical model to include small propagation losses.

Load-bearing premise

The additional single-mode squeezer can be implemented with negligible extra loss and noise, and the ideal lossless beam-splitter and squeezing models remain valid at the operating point.

What would settle it

If an experiment with the dual-squeezer setup at equal input intensities shows either a persistent divergence in sensitivity or a scaling that falls short of the Heisenberg limit under low-noise conditions, the analytical claim is disproven.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00331 by Song-Ping Wang, Wei Zhong, Yi Gu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Color online) Scaled phase sensitivity √ n¯∆φ as a function of the squeezing parameter r for α = √ 10. The red dashed line represents the phase sensitivity for the Caves scheme (without S2), given by Eq. (1) in Ref. [25], while the black circles denote the result from Eq. (5). The blue solid line represents the minimum value of Eq. (3) with respect to φ, with the inset displaying the corresponding optimal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) Scaled phase sensitivity √ n¯∆φ as a function of the squeezing parameter r under imperfect detec￾tion for α = √ 10. Red lines correspond to the conventional MZI scheme (without S2) while blue lines represent the DS￾MZI scheme. Within each color set, curves from light to dark indicate detection efficiencies η = 0.8, 0.9, and the ideal case η= 1, respectively. second term (1−η)hN+i/η represent… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Performance comparison of the unba view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The canonical Mach-Zehnder interferometer fed with a coherent state and a squeezed-vacuum state of equal intensities is theoretically predicted to achieve Heisenberg scaling in phase sensitivity. However, this ultimate performance is unattainable using direct photon-number-difference detection due to a divergence arising precisely at the optimal equal-intensity regime. In this work, we introduce a dual-squeezing approach that overcomes this fundamental limitation. Our scheme employs an additional single-mode squeezer before detection, forming a paired configuration with the input squeezer used to generate the squeezed-vacuum state. We analytically demonstrate that the resulting dual-squeezing Mach-Zehnder interferometer enables Heisenberg-limited phase sensitivity with di rect photon-number-difference detection, while remaining robust against detection noise. Our work provides a feasible and robust route toward quantum-limited interferometric phase measurements

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a dual-squeezing Mach-Zehnder interferometer in which an input squeezed-vacuum state is paired with an additional single-mode squeezer placed before direct photon-number-difference detection. The authors analytically demonstrate that this configuration removes the divergence in phase sensitivity that appears at equal input intensities in the standard coherent-plus-squeezed-vacuum scheme, thereby recovering Heisenberg-limited (1/N) scaling while remaining robust to additive detection noise.

Significance. If the analytical result is correct, the work supplies a concrete and experimentally accessible route to Heisenberg-limited interferometry that avoids the need for more complex detection strategies such as homodyne or parity measurements. The explicit pairing of input and output squeezers and the demonstrated tolerance to detection noise constitute clear strengths that could influence precision metrology applications.

minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract: the phrase 'di rect photon-number-difference detection' contains a typographical space and should read 'direct photon-number-difference detection'.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit side-by-side comparison (perhaps in a table or in §4) of the phase-sensitivity expressions for the standard single-squeezer scheme and the dual-squeezer scheme, including the limiting cases of equal intensities and vanishing detection noise.
  3. A brief quantitative discussion of how small losses in the output squeezer affect the claimed 1/N scaling would strengthen the practical relevance of the result, even if the central derivation remains within the ideal lossless model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and recommendation of minor revision. The assessment correctly identifies the core contribution of the dual-squeezer configuration in eliminating the equal-intensity divergence while preserving Heisenberg-limited scaling under direct photon-number-difference detection and additive noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: self-contained analytical derivation from standard quantum optics

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an analytical demonstration that a dual-squeezer Mach-Zehnder setup yields Heisenberg-limited sensitivity under direct photon-number-difference detection. No equations, parameters, or results are shown to be defined in terms of the target sensitivity itself, no data fitting is described, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems from the same authors are invoked to force the result. The derivation rests on standard lossless beam-splitter and squeezing transformations applied to input states, which are independent of the final sensitivity scaling. The skeptic's concern about loss is a modeling assumption, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard quantum-optics assumptions about ideal squeezing and lossless beam splitters; no new free parameters, axioms, or entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ideal single-mode squeezing operations and lossless 50/50 beam splitters can be treated with standard quantum-optical input-output relations.
    Implicit in any analytical treatment of squeezed-light interferometers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5431 in / 1145 out tokens · 51343 ms · 2026-05-09T20:00:56.805410+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (1) in Ref

    The red dashed line represents the phase sensitivity for the Cav es scheme (without S2), given by Eq. (1) in Ref. [ 25], while the black circles denote the result from Eq. ( 5). The blue solid line represents the minimum value of Eq. ( 3) with respect to φ , with the inset displaying the corresponding optimal workin g points φ opt. The vertical gray dotte...

    work page

  2. [2]

    For comparison, the sensitivity of the Caves scheme (without S2) is obtained from Eq

    In the limit α 2 ≃ sinh2r ≃ e2r/ 4, we find φ opt = 2 arctan(e2r +e4r)1/ 4. For comparison, the sensitivity of the Caves scheme (without S2) is obtained from Eq. (1) in Ref. [ 25] with φ opt =π/ 2. From quantum estimation theory, the ultimate phase sensitivity of an interferometer fed with coherent-plus- squeezed-vacuum input states is given by [ 25, 49], ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The scaled detection-based sensitivity in Eq

    approaches 1/ √ 1 + 4α 2. The scaled detection-based sensitivity in Eq. ( 3) attains a minimum value 1/ (2α ) with g → 1 as φ → π . Consequently, the saturability S is independent of r and increases with α , exceeding 99% for α = 4. We plot in Fig. 2 the scaled phase sensitivity √ ¯n∆ φ as a function of r for fixed α = √

    work page

  4. [4]

    87 whereα 2 = sinh2r [25]

    Photon-number- difference detection without S2 achieves the ultimate sen- sitivity bound for r ≪ 1 corresponding to sinh2r ≪ α 2 [50], but diverges sharply near r ∼ 1. 87 whereα 2 = sinh2r [25]. This divergence arises because the expectation value ⟨N− ⟩ = (α 2 − sinh2r) cosφ vanishes in the optimal regime, rendering the signal insensitive to φ. In con- tra...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Within each color set, curves from light to dark indicate detection efficiencies η = 0

    Red lines correspond to the conventional MZI scheme (without S2) while blue lines represent the DS- MZI scheme. Within each color set, curves from light to dark indicate detection efficiencies η = 0. 8, 0. 9, and the ideal case η = 1, respectively. second term (1 − η)⟨N+⟩/η represents the contribution of detection noise. For the conventional MZI scheme (wit...

    work page

  6. [6]

    For non-ideal efficiencies η = 0

    The figure clearly shows that the conventional MZI scheme is highly vulnerable to detec- tion noise. For non-ideal efficiencies η = 0. 8 and 0. 9, the scaled sensitivity degrades significantly compared to the ideal case η = 1, and the scheme loses its sub-shot-noise scaling capability. Notably, the optimal working point for the conventional scheme remains fixe...

    work page

  7. [7]

    87, which lies in the equal-intensity regime α 2 = sinh2r1

    In panel (a), the input squeezing parameter r1 is fixed at r1 = 1. 87, which lies in the equal-intensity regime α 2 = sinh2r1. From light to dark, the lines represent detection efficiency η = 0. 8, 0. 9 and the ideal case η = 1, respectively. (a) Scaled phase sensitivity√ ¯n∆ φ as a function of the output squeezing parameter r2. The horizontal gray dot-dashe...

    work page

  8. [8]

    These results highlight the inherent resilience of the proposed dual- squeezing scheme. It is worth emphasizing that, while optical amplification (as applied in our scheme S2) has been normally employed to alleviate the impact of im- perfect detectors [ 51], our scheme realizes efficient noise suppression with only a single optical amplifier S2, rather than i...

    work page

  9. [9]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone for interferometry, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrol- ogy - the lowdown on high-noon states, Contemporary Physics 49, 125 (2008)

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    M. A. T. T. E. O. G. A. PARIS, Quan- tum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inform. 07, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vučković, Photonic quantum technologies, Nature Photonics 3, 687 (2009)

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kolodyński (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Barsotti, J

    L. Barsotti, J. Harms, and R. Schnabel, Squeezed vacuum states of light for gravitational wave detectors, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 016905 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Polino, M

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

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Jin, Z.-Q

    R.-B. Jin, Z.-Q. Zeng, C. You, and C. Yuan, Quantum interferometers: Principles and applications, Progress in Quantum Electronics 96, 100519 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Brit- ton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Toward heisenberg- limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states , Science 304, 1476 (2004)

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

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

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Moreau, E

    P.-A. Moreau, E. Toninelli, T. Gregory, and M. J. Padgett, Imaging with quantum states of light, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 367 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    C. Lee, B. Lawrie, R. Pooser, K.-G. Lee, C. Rock- stuhl, and M. Tame, Quantum plasmonic sensors, Chem. Rev. 121, 4743 (2021) . 5

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Schaffrath, D

    S. Schaffrath, D. Derr, M. Gräfe, and E. Giese, Quantum imaging beyond the standard-quantum limit and phase distillation, New Journal of Physics 26, 023018 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Defienne, W

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

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

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

    work page 1981

  26. [26]

    Xiao, L.-A

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

    work page 1987

  27. [27]

    Grangier, R

    P. Grangier, R. E. Slusher, B. Yurke, and A. La- Porta, Squeezed-light–enhanced polarization interferom- eter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2153 (1987)

    work page 1987

  28. [28]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nature Physics 7, 962 (2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics 7, 613 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    Hyllus, L

    P. Hyllus, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Entan- glement and sensitivity in precision measurements with states of a fluctuating number of particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 120501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé 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

  34. [34]

    H. F. Hofmann, All path-symmetric pure states achieve their maximal phase sensitivity in conventional two-path interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 79, 033822 (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Zhong, Y

    W. Zhong, Y. Huang, X. Wang, and S. L. Zhu, Optimal conventional measurements for quantum-enhanced inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Divochiy, F

    A. Divochiy, F. Marsili, D. Bitauld, A. Gaggero, R. Leon i, F. Mattioli, A. Korneev, V. Seleznev, N. Kaurova, O. Mi- naeva, G. Gol’tsman, K. G. Lagoudakis, M. Benkhaoul, F. Lévy, and A. Fiore, Superconducting nanowire photon- number-resolving detector at telecommunication wave- lengths, Nature Photonics 2, 302 (2008)

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Sahin, A

    D. Sahin, A. Gaggero, Z. Zhou, S. Jahanmirinejad, F. Mattioli, R. Leoni, J. Beetz, M. Lermer, M. Kamp, S. Höfling, and A. Fiore, Waveguide photon-number- resolving detectors for quantum photonic integrated cir- cuits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 111116 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Spagnolo, C

    N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, V. G. Lucivero, V. Giovan- netti, L. Maccone, and F. Sciarrino, Phase estima- tion via quantum interferometry for noisy detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 233602 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Ultrasensitive two-mode interferometry with single-mode number squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 163604 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Oh, S.-Y

    C. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, H. Nha, and H. Jeong, Practical resources and measurements for lossy optical quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    B. T. Gard, C. You, D. K. Mishra, R. Singh, H. Lee, T. R. Corbitt, and J. P. Dowling, Nearly opti- mal measurement schemes in a noisy mach-zehnder interferometer with coherent and squeezed vacuum, EPJ Quantum Technology 4, 4 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Davis, G

    E. Davis, G. Bentsen, and M. Schleier-Smith, Approach- ing the heisenberg limit without single-particle detectio n, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 053601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Linnemann, H

    D. Linnemann, H. Strobel, W. Muessel, J. Schulz, R. J. Lewis-Swan, K. V. Kheruntsyan, and M. K. Oberthaler, Quantum-enhanced sensing based on time reversal of nonlinear dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 013001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    S. P. Nolan, S. S. Szigeti, and S. A. Haine, Optimal and robust quantum metrology using interaction-based read- outs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 193601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Anders, L

    F. Anders, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Phase magnification by two-axis countertwist- ing for detection-noise robust interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043813 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    T.-W. Mao, Q. Liu, X.-W. Li, J.-H. Cao, F. Chen, W.-X. Xu, M. K. Tey, Y.-X. Huang, and L. You, Quantum-enhanced sensing by echoing spin-nematic squeezing in atomic bose-einstein condensate, Nature Physics 19, 1585 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Q. Liu, M. Xue, M. Radzihovsky, X. Li, D. V. Vasilyev, L.-N. Wu, and V. Vuletić, Enhancing dynamic range of sub-standard-quantum-limit measurements via quantum deamplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 040801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    work page 1993

  49. [49]

    C. C. Gerry, Heisenberg-limit interferometry with four-wave mixers operating in a nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. A 61, 043811 (2000)

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum interferometric optical lithography: Exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000)

    work page 2000

  51. [51]

    Krischek, C

    R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. We- infurter, P. Hyllus, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Useful multiparticle entanglement and sub-shot- noise sensitivity in experimental phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080504 (2011)

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

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

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    G. S. Thekkadath, M. E. Mycroft, B. A. Bell, C. G. Wade, A. Eckstein, D. S. Phillips, R. B. Patel, A. Buraczewski, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, M. Stobińska, A. I. Lvovsky, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum-enhanced in- terferometry with large heralded photon-number states, npj Quantum Information 6, 89 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    L. Xu, Z. Liu, A. Datta, G. C. Knee, J. S. Lundeen, Y.-q. Lu, and L. Zhang, Approaching quantum-limited metrology with imperfect detectors by using weak-value amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 080501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Generating quantum mechanical superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable state s via amplitude dispersion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986)

    work page 1986

  56. [56]

    Zhong, X

    W. Zhong, X. M. Lu, X. X. Jing, and X. G. Wang, Optimal condition for mea- surement observable via error-propagation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 385304 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Jarzyna and R

    M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Quantum in- terferometry with and without an external phase refer- ence, Phys. Rev. A 85, 011801(R) (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Ataman, A

    S. Ataman, A. Preda, and R. Ionicioiu, Phase sensitivity of a mach-zehnder interferometer with single-intensity and difference-intensity detection, 6 Phys. Rev. A 98, 043856 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Dall’Arno, G

    M. Dall’Arno, G. M. D’Ariano, and M. F. Sac- chi, Purification of noisy quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042315 (2010)

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    S. S. Szigeti, R. J. Lewis-Swan, and S. A. Haine, Pumped-up su(1,1) interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    work page 2004

  62. [62]

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

    work page 1976

  63. [63]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    work page 1982

  64. [64]

    J. Liu, X. X. Jing, and X. G. Wang, Phase-matching con- dition for enhancement of phase sensitivity in quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042316 (2013)

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    Ataman, Optimal mach-zehnder phase sensitivity with gaussian states, Phys

    S. Ataman, Optimal mach-zehnder phase sensitivity with gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 063821 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Zhong, F

    W. Zhong, F. Wang, L. Zhou, P. Xu, and Y. B. Sheng, Quantum enhanced- interferometry with asymmetric beam splitters, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 260312 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Ban, Decomposition formulas for su(1, 1) and su(2) lie algebras and their applications in quantum optics, J

    M. Ban, Decomposition formulas for su(1, 1) and su(2) lie algebras and their applications in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 1347 (1993) . APPENDIX A: OPTIMAL PHASE FOR INPUT ST ATES For a two-mode optical interferometer, the general beam-sp litter operator reads B =e− i(τ a† b+τ ∗ ab† ), (A1) where τ = |τ|eiϕ denotes the complex transmittance [ 53...

    work page 1993

  68. [68]

    (B9) Here, we have set B1 =B2 throughout the main text. Assuming equal squeezing strengths r1 =r2 =r, the output operators in the Heisenberg picture simplify to a5 =i sinφ 2a0 + cosφ 2 (coshrb0 + sinhrb† 0), (B10) b5 = −i sinφ 2b0 − cosφ 2 (coshra0 + sinhra† 0). (B11) We then compute the photon-number operators a† 5a5 andb† 5b5. Using the SU(2) and SU(1,1...

    work page

  69. [69]

    used in the main text. 11

    work page