pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10767 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.optics

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Passive optical superresolution at the quantum limit

A. I. Lvovsky , Michael R. Grace , Saikat Guha , Mankei Tsang , Gerardo Adesso , Nicolas Treps
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.optics
keywords quantum imagingsuperresolutionquantum estimationdiffraction limitspatial-mode demultiplexingCramér-Rao boundincoherent sources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reformulating imaging as quantum measurement identifies optimal receivers that recover sub-Rayleigh spatial details beyond the diffraction limit.

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

The paper shows that conventional optical imaging is limited by quantum noise in the light field itself, and that this limit can be overcome by recasting the task as one of quantum parameter estimation. Optimal measurement strategies, such as spatial-mode demultiplexing, extract more information from the incoming photons than direct intensity detection allows. The resulting bounds on classification error, localization variance, and image fidelity are provably tighter than those of classical receivers when sources lie inside the Rayleigh distance. The review assembles the necessary quantum information tools, demonstrates their application to incoherent sources, and connects estimation and discrimination tasks under a single framework.

Core claim

Treating passive optical imaging as a quantum estimation problem yields detection strategies, including spatial-mode demultiplexing, that attain the quantum Cramér-Rao and Chernoff bounds and thereby surpass the performance of conventional direct imaging for classifying, localizing, and imaging sub-Rayleigh incoherent sources.

What carries the argument

Quantum Cramér-Rao bounds together with spatial-mode demultiplexing receivers that perform the optimal projective measurement on the optical field.

Load-bearing premise

Practical receivers can be built and operated without adding classical noise or loss that would prevent reaching the quantum bounds.

What would settle it

A laboratory demonstration in which a spatial-mode demultiplexer measures two incoherent point sources separated by less than the Rayleigh distance and achieves the quantum-limited error rate or variance while direct imaging falls short.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10767 by A. I. Lvovsky, Gerardo Adesso, Mankei Tsang, Michael R. Grace, Nicolas Treps, Saikat Guha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual difference between (a) direct imaging and (b) spatial-mode demultiplexing. noise inevitably translates into an estimation error. In a quan￾tum mechanical treatment, the outcome distribution p(y|θ) ≡ Tr ρˆ(θ)Πy  is a function of the quantum state of light before the measurement ρˆ(θ) and a positive operator valued measure (POVM)  Πˆ y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Log-log plots of the Cramér-Rao bound for direct imag￾ing (CRB(direct) ) and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound (QCRB) on the mean-square error of estimating the two-point separa￾tion θ. The axes are normalized with respect to the root-mean￾square bandwidth ∆k of the optical transfer function (OTF), while the vertical axis is further normalized with respect to the average photon number N received in all modes. T… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The optical field due to each point source can be de￾composed in terms of the fundamental mode with mode function ψ(x) and the derivative mode with mode function ψ1(x) ∝ −∂ψ(x)/∂x for a sub-Rayleigh separation θ ≪ 1/∆k. With incoherent sources, the total energy in the derivative mode consists of the incoherent contributions from the sources and remains sensitive to the separation θ, while the fundamen￾tal … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerically computed normalized errors N MSE(θ) = N ∑ ∞ n=0 [(2/∆k) √ n/N − θ] 2 e −N∆k 2 θ 2/4(N∆k 2 θ 2/4) n/n! of SPADE and maximum likelihood estimation for two point sources with a Gaussian PSF for different detected photon numbers N, following Appendix E in Ref. [32]. The dashed lines show the bias-corrected CRBs computed from Eq. (32). These can go below the CRB from Eq. (2) because they account for… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-photon QFI for Gaussian Gaussian point-spread function Eq. (19) for different values of Re(γ). Top vs bot￾tom row represent to the QFI for emitted vs detected photon. The right column calculates the QFI corresponding to the spa￾tial shape of each photon, neglecting the additional informa￾tion contained in the dependence of the number of defected photons on the source separation. Part (a), first compute… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Chernoff bounds on error exponents for discrimination between two QR codes (inset) with a 2D Gaussian aperture. The CE of TriSPADE (green dashed line) converges to the QCE (black solid line) in the sub-Rayleigh limit √mx 2∆k ≪ 1. The CE of direct imaging (blue dashed line) decreases quadrati￾cally faster with respect to √mx 2∆k than the quantum limit. The thick solid gray and dashed blue lines show the sca… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Schematic of measuring the two-point source sep￾aration θ with unknown centroid ϕ imaged with a Gaussian aperture. (b) Per-photon simulated MSE for the estimation of θ with σ = 1/2∆k. Reproduced from Ref. [74] . Despite the detrimental effects of static misalignment, ad￾vantages over direct imaging are still possible with practical SPADE receivers. If the degree of misalignment is known a pri￾ori, the … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Dynamically programmable SPADE shown to im￾age a collection of point emitters. (b) Simulation results: black dots denote ground-truth emitter locations inside a 0.8 × 0.8 Rayleigh-Unit field of view; blue circle denotes the estimate of the location (diameter denotes estimated brightness) gener￾ated by image-plane direct imaging, which fails to resolve the emitters even with N = 90, 000 collected photon… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Optical receiver paradigms for spatial mode processing. A. Mode Processing Receiver Paradigms Measuring the input light field in a complete orthonormal spa￾tial mode basis, as prescribed by theoretically ideal SPADE, is not only prohibitive in experimental practice, but also unneces￾sary for many practical tasks. It often suffices to separate and measure only some of the modes, while allowing other modes t… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hardware implementations of spatial mode demul￾tiplexers. (a) Holographic mode sorting of Hermite-Gauss modes [110]. (b) Interferometric sorting of Laguerre-Gaussian mode by parity [111]. (c) Heterodyne detection of the mode of interest [112] (d) Multi-plane light conversion [113]. (e) SPLICE projective measurement for point source separation estimation [55]. B.2. Mode Projection Techniques An alternative… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The experiment of Pushkina et al. [160]. Top: Setup. Bottom: Results — the original (A), SPADE-reconstructed (B) and camera (C) images of the Oxford logo test sets. argument of Sec. 3.D.5 that SPADE allows determination of ar￾bitrary moments of the source intensity distribution, and hence the distribution itself, with arbitrarily high precision. However, accurate reconstruction of a distribution form its … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

For more than a century, the diffraction limit has defined the resolution achievable by passive optical imaging systems. Although some resolution improvement can be gained through classical data processing of the image, it is limited by the noise arising from quantum nature of light. Minimizing the effect of this noise requires quantum treatment of optical imaging. By reformulating imaging as a problem of quantum measurement and estimation, it becomes possible to identify optimal detection strategies that recover spatial information previously thought inaccessible. This review summarizes the theoretical framework that underpins this development, from the formulation of quantum Cram\'er-Rao bounds and Chernoff bounds to the construction of receivers that attain them, such as those based on spatial-mode demultiplexing. We show how these methods can beat conventional imaging in the classification, localization, and imaging of sub-Rayleigh incoherent sources. We then discuss extensions to multiparameter and partially coherent scenarios, and highlight the unifying connections between estimation and discrimination tasks. Finally, we survey recent experimental demonstrations that approach quantum-limited resolution and outline emerging applications in microscopy, astronomy, and optical sensing.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This review summarizes the quantum estimation framework for passive optical imaging, reformulating the diffraction limit via quantum Cramér-Rao bounds and Chernoff bounds. It presents optimal receivers such as spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE) that attain these bounds, shows improvements over conventional imaging for classification, localization, and imaging of sub-Rayleigh incoherent sources, discusses extensions to multiparameter and partially coherent cases, and surveys experimental demonstrations approaching the quantum limit.

Significance. If the summarized results hold, the review is significant for unifying quantum measurement theory with optical imaging, providing a consolidated resource on how quantum strategies recover information inaccessible to classical methods. It credits the theoretical attainability of bounds through standard quantum optics arguments and includes connections between estimation and discrimination tasks plus experimental progress, which can inform applications in microscopy, astronomy, and sensing.

minor comments (4)
  1. Abstract: the claim that optimal strategies 'recover spatial information previously thought inaccessible' would benefit from a brief qualifier noting this applies specifically in the sub-Rayleigh regime under the stated assumptions on source incoherence.
  2. Section on SPADE receivers: the description of how these attain the quantum bound could include a short note on the role of mode orthogonality to make the construction more self-contained for readers.
  3. Experimental survey: the discussion of demonstrations approaching quantum-limited resolution would be strengthened by explicitly stating the gap to the bound (e.g., in dB or factor) for at least one cited work.
  4. Notation: the multiparameter quantum Fisher information is introduced without a cross-reference to its single-parameter reduction; adding this would improve readability across sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and accurate summary of the manuscript, for recognizing its significance in unifying quantum measurement theory with optical imaging, and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; review summarizes independent prior results

full rationale

This is a review paper summarizing the quantum estimation framework, QCRB derivations, SPADE receivers, and extensions for sub-Rayleigh sources from established quantum optics literature. No new derivations are introduced that reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations within the paper itself. Central claims rest on standard quantum measurement arguments and externally verifiable prior results, with the derivation chain remaining self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review article; the central content consists of summaries of prior literature on quantum estimation applied to imaging. No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5497 in / 1124 out tokens · 56078 ms · 2026-05-12T04:48:35.950558+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

171 extracted references · 171 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Photon tunneling microscopy ,

    J. M. Guerra, “Photon tunneling microscopy , ” Appl. Opt.29, 37413752 (1990)

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Scanning near-field optical microscopy with aperture probes: Fundamentals and applications,

    B. Hecht, B. Sick, U. P . Wild, V . Deckert, R. Zenobi, O. J. Martin, and D. W. Pohl, “Scanning near-field optical microscopy with aperture probes: Fundamentals and applications, ” The J. Chem. Phys. 112, 77617774 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Tip-enhanced near-field optical microscopy ,

    A. Hartschuh, “Tip-enhanced near-field optical microscopy , ” Ange- wandte Chemie Int. Ed. 47, 81788191 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Progress of high-resolution photon scanning tunneling mi- croscopy due to a nanometric fiber probe,

    M. Ohtsu, “Progress of high-resolution photon scanning tunneling mi- croscopy due to a nanometric fiber probe, ” J. lightwave technology 13, 12001221 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Introduction to fourier optics. 3rd,

    J. W. Goodman, “Introduction to fourier optics. 3rd, ” Roberts Co. Publ. 3 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy ,

    S. W. Hell and J. Wichmann, “Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy , ” Opt. letters19, 780782 (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (storm),

    M. J. Rust, M. Bates, and X. Zhuang, “Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (storm), ” Nat. methods 3, 793796 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolu- tion,

    E. Betzig, G. H. Patterson, R. Sougrat, O. W. Lindwasser, S. Olenych, J. S. Bonifacino, M. W. Davidson, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, and H. F . Hess, “Imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolu- tion, ” science313, 16421645 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy ,

    S. T . Hess, T . P . Girirajan, and M. D. Mason, “Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy , ” Bio- phys. journal 91, 42584272 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Beitrage zur theorie des mikroskops und der mikroskopis- chen wahrnehmung,

    E. Abbe, “Beitrage zur theorie des mikroskops und der mikroskopis- chen wahrnehmung, ” Arch. fur mikroskopische Anat. 9, 413418 (1873)

    work page

  11. [11]

    Xxxi. investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope,

    F . Lord Rayleigh, “Xxxi. investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope, ” The London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 8, 261274 (1879)

    work page

  12. [12]

    On spectroscopic resolving power,

    C. M. Sparrow, “On spectroscopic resolving power, ” Astrophys. J. 44, 76 (1916)

    work page 1916

  13. [13]

    de Villiers and E

    G. de Villiers and E. R. Pike, The Limits of Resolution (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    CramérRao sensitivity limits for astronomical instru- ments: implications for interferometer design,

    J. Zmuidzinas, “CramérRao sensitivity limits for astronomical instru- ments: implications for interferometer design, ” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 218233 (2003)

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    E. D. Feigelson and G. J. Babu, Modern Statistical Methods for As- tronomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Fisher information theory for parameter estimation in single molecule microscopy: tutorial,

    J. Chao, E. Sally Ward, and R. J. Ober, “Fisher information theory for parameter estimation in single molecule microscopy: tutorial, ” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 33, B36 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Three- Dimensional Localization of Single Molecules for Super-Resolution Imaging and Single-Particle T racking,

    A. von Diezmann, Y . Shechtman, and W. E. Moerner, “Three- Dimensional Localization of Single Molecules for Super-Resolution Imaging and Single-Particle T racking, ” Chem. Rev. 117, 72447275 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    E. L. Lehmann and G. Casella, Theory of Point Estimation (Springer, 2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    H. L. Van T rees and K. L. Bell, eds., Bayesian Bounds for Parameter Estimation and Nonlinear Filtering/T racking (Wiley-IEEE, Piscataway , 2007)

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    Conservative classical and quantum resolution limits for incoherent imaging,

    M. Tsang, “Conservative classical and quantum resolution limits for incoherent imaging, ” J. Mod. Opt.65, 13851391 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Quantum-inspired multi-parameter adaptive bayesian estimation for sensing and imag- ing,

    K. K. Lee, C. N. Gagatsos, S. Guha, and A. Ashok, “Quantum-inspired multi-parameter adaptive bayesian estimation for sensing and imag- ing, ” IEEE J. Sel. T op. Signal Process. (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory (Academic Press, 1976)

    work page 1976

  23. [23]

    A new approach to cramér-rao bounds for quantum state estimation,

    H. Nagaoka, “A new approach to cramér-rao bounds for quantum state estimation, ” IEICE T ech. Rep.IT 89-42, 914 (1989)

    work page 1989

  24. [24]

    Statistical distance and the geom- etry of quantum states,

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, “Statistical distance and the geom- etry of quantum states, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 34393443 (1994)

    work page 1994

  25. [25]

    Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer, Berlin, 2017), 2nd ed

    M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer, Berlin, 2017), 2nd ed

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    H. L. Van T rees and K. Bell,Detection Estimation and Modulation The- ory , Part I: Detection, Estimation, and Filtering Theory (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey , 2013), 2nd ed

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    On the chernoff bound for efficiency of quantum hypoth- esis testing,

    V . KARGIN, “On the chernoff bound for efficiency of quantum hypoth- esis testing, ” The Ann. Stat.33, 959–976 (2005)

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    The Chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,

    M. Nussbaum and A. Szkoa, “The Chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing, ” The Ann. Stat. 37 (2009). ArXiv:quant- ph/0607216. Research Article 19

    work page arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,

    K. M. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Munoz-T apia, E. Bagan, L. Masanes, A. Acin, and F . Verstraete, “Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound, ” Phys. review letters 98, 160501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics (Willey , New Jersey , 2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Quantum nonlocality in weak-thermal-light interferometry ,

    M. Tsang, “Quantum nonlocality in weak-thermal-light interferometry , ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 270402 (2011)

    work page 2011

  32. [33]

    Estimation of object parameters by a quantum-limited optical system,

    C. W. Helstrom, “Estimation of object parameters by a quantum-limited optical system, ” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 233239 (1970)

    work page 1970

  33. [34]

    Reading out fisher information from the zeros of the point spread function,

    M. Paúr, B. Stoklasa, D. Koutn, J. eháek, Z. Hradil, J. Grover, A. Krzic, and L. Sánchez-Soto, “Reading out fisher information from the zeros of the point spread function, ” Opt. letters 44, 31143117 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [35]

    Performance Limitations on Parameter Es- timation of Closely Spaced Optical T argets Using Shot-Noise Detector Model,

    M.-J. Tsai and K.-P . Dunn, “Performance Limitations on Parameter Es- timation of Closely Spaced Optical T argets Using Shot-Noise Detector Model, ” T ech. Rep. ADA073462, Lincoln Laboratory , MIT (1979)

    work page 1979

  35. [36]

    Model-based two-object resolution from observations having counting statistics,

    E. Bettens, D. Van Dyck, A. J. den Dekker, J. Sijbers, and A. van den Bos, “Model-based two-object resolution from observations having counting statistics, ” Ultramicroscopy77, 3748 (1999)

    work page 1999

  36. [37]

    High- resolution electron microscopy and electron tomography: resolution versus precision,

    S. Van Aert, A. J. den Dekker, D. Van Dyck, and A. van den Bos, “High- resolution electron microscopy and electron tomography: resolution versus precision, ” J. Struct. Biol.138, 2133 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [38]

    Beyond Rayleigh’s criterion: A resolution measure with application to single-molecule microscopy ,

    S. Ram, E. S. Ward, and R. J. Ober, “Beyond Rayleigh’s criterion: A resolution measure with application to single-molecule microscopy , ” Proc. National Acad. Sci. United States Am. 103, 44574462 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [39]

    The "transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, “The "transition probability" in the state space of a*- algebra, ” Reports on Math. Phys.9, 273279 (1976)

    work page 1976

  39. [40]

    Poisson Quantum Information,

    M. Tsang, “Poisson Quantum Information, ” Quantum5, 527 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [41]

    Far-field superresolution of thermal electro- magnetic sources at the quantum limit,

    R. Nair and M. Tsang, “Far-field superresolution of thermal electro- magnetic sources at the quantum limit, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [42]

    Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging,

    C. Lupo and S. Pirandola, “Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 190802 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [43]

    Optimal measurements for resolution beyond the rayleigh limit,

    J. Rehacek, M. Paúr, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil, and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, “Optimal measurements for resolution beyond the rayleigh limit, ” Opt. Lett. 42, 231234 (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [44]

    Fundamental limit of resolving two point sources limited by an arbitrary point spread function,

    R. Kerviche, S. Guha, and A. Ashok, “Fundamental limit of resolving two point sources limited by an arbitrary point spread function, ” IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory - Proc. (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [45]

    Attaining the quantum limit of passive imaging,

    H. Krovi, S. Guha, and J. H. Shapiro, “Attaining the quantum limit of passive imaging, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.00684 (2016)

    work page arXiv 2016

  45. [46]

    Quantum-optimal detection of one- versus-two incoherent sources with arbitrary separation,

    X.-M. Lu, R. Nair, and M. Tsang, “Quantum-optimal detection of one- versus-two incoherent sources with arbitrary separation, ” arXiv [quant- ph] (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [47]

    Quantum- optimal detection of one-versus-two incoherent optical sources with arbitrary separation,

    X.-M. Lu, H. Krovi, R. Nair, S. Guha, and J. H. Shapiro, “Quantum- optimal detection of one-versus-two incoherent optical sources with arbitrary separation, ” npj Quantum Inf. 4, 64 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [48]

    Quantum limits and optimal receivers for passive sub- diffraction imaging,

    M. R. Grace, “Quantum limits and optimal receivers for passive sub- diffraction imaging, ” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Arizona (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    The quantum theory of optical coherence,

    R. J. Glauber, “The quantum theory of optical coherence, ” Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    work page 1963

  49. [50]

    Quantum limits on optical resolution,

    M. I. Kolobov and C. Fabre, “Quantum limits on optical resolution, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 37893792 (2000)

    work page 2000

  50. [51]

    Real applications of quantum imaging,

    M. Genovese, “Real applications of quantum imaging, ” J. Opt. 18, 073002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [52]

    Quantum metrology and its application in biology ,

    M. A. T aylor and W. P . Bowen, “Quantum metrology and its application in biology , ” Phys. Reports615, 159 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [53]

    Modes and states in quantum optics,

    C. Fabre and N. T reps, “Modes and states in quantum optics, ” Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [54]

    Advances in quantum imaging,

    H. Defienne, W. P . Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. B. Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. T reps, and D. Faccio, “Advances in quantum imaging, ” Nat. Photonics 18, 1024–1036 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    Beating rayleigh’s curse by imaging using phase information,

    W.-K. Tham, H. Ferretti, and A. M. Steinberg, “Beating rayleigh’s curse by imaging using phase information, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070801 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [56]

    A generalization of the Fréchet-Cramér in- equality to the case of Bayes estimation,

    M. P . Schützenberger, “A generalization of the Fréchet-Cramér in- equality to the case of Bayes estimation, ” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 63, 142 (1957)

    work page 1957

  56. [57]

    Quantum limits to optical point-source localization,

    M. Tsang, “Quantum limits to optical point-source localization, ” Optica 2, 646653 (2015)

    work page 2015

  57. [58]

    Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence,

    W. Larson and B. E. A. Saleh, “Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence, ” Optica 5, 13821389 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [59]

    Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the pres- ence of partial coherence: comment,

    M. Tsang and R. Nair, “Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the pres- ence of partial coherence: comment, ” Optica 6, 400401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [60]

    Surpassing rayleigh limit: Fisher infor- mation analysis of partially coherent source(s),

    K. K. Lee and A. Ashok, “Surpassing rayleigh limit: Fisher infor- mation analysis of partially coherent source(s), ” in Proceedings Vol- ume 11136, Optics and Photonics for Information Processing XIII, vol. 11136 (SPIE, 2019), p. 9096

    work page 2019

  60. [61]

    Back to sources the role of losses and coherence in super-resolution imaging revisited,

    S. Kurdzialek, “Back to sources the role of losses and coherence in super-resolution imaging revisited, ” Quantum6, 697 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [62]

    Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence: reply ,

    W. Larson and B. E. A. Saleh, “Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence: reply , ” Optica6, 402403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [63]

    Quantum Fisher information with coherence,

    Z. Hradil, J. eháek, L. Sánchez-Soto, and B.-G. Englert, “Quantum Fisher information with coherence, ” Optica6, 14371440 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [64]

    Coherence effects on estimating two-point separation,

    K. Liang, K. Liang, S. A. Wadood, S. A. Wadood, A. N. Vamivakas, A. N. Vamivakas, A. N. Vamivakas, A. N. Vamivakas, and A. N. Vami- vakas, “Coherence effects on estimating two-point separation, ” Optica 8, 243248 (2021)

    work page 2021

  64. [65]

    Experimental demonstration of superresolution of partially coherent light sources using parity sorting,

    S. A. Wadood, K. Liang, Y . Zhou, J. Y ang, M. A. Alonso, X.-F . Qian, T . Malhotra, S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, A. N. Jordan, R. W. Boyd, and A. N. Vamivakas, “Experimental demonstration of superresolution of partially coherent light sources using parity sorting, ” Opt. Express 29, 2203422043 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [66]

    Quantum channel identification problem,

    A. Fujiwara, “Quantum channel identification problem, ” Phys. Rev. A 63, 042304 (2001)

    work page 2001

  66. [67]

    Fisher in- formation for far-field linear optical superresolution via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode,

    F . Y ang, R. Nair, M. Tsang, C. Simon, and A. I. Lvovsky , “Fisher in- formation for far-field linear optical superresolution via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode, ” Phys. Rev. A 96, 063829 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [68]

    Quantum hypothesis testing for exoplanet de- tection,

    Z. Huang and C. Lupo, “Quantum hypothesis testing for exoplanet de- tection, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [69]

    Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,

    T . Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, “Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing, ” IEEE T rans. on Inf. Theory 46, 2428– 2433 (2000)

    work page 2000

  69. [70]

    Quantum limited spatial resolution of NV-diamond magnetometry ,

    N. Deshler, D. Daly , A. Majumder, K. Saha, and S. Guha, “Quantum limited spatial resolution of NV-diamond magnetometry , ” arXiv [quant- ph] (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [71]

    Identifying objects at the quantum limit for superresolution imaging,

    M. R. Grace and S. Guha, “Identifying objects at the quantum limit for superresolution imaging, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 180502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  71. [72]

    Discriminating quantum states: The multiple chernoff distance,

    K. Li, “Discriminating quantum states: The multiple chernoff distance, ” The Ann. Stat. 44, 1661–1679 (2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [73]

    Achieving quantum-limited sub-rayleigh identification of incoherent optical sources with arbitrary intensities,

    D. T riggiani and C. Lupo, “Achieving quantum-limited sub-rayleigh identification of incoherent optical sources with arbitrary intensities, ” Quantum Sci. T echnol. 11, 015028 (2026)

    work page 2026

  73. [74]

    Approaching quantum-limited imaging resolution without prior knowledge of the ob- ject location,

    M. R. Grace, Z. Dutton, A. Ashok, and S. Guha, “Approaching quantum-limited imaging resolution without prior knowledge of the ob- ject location, ” JOSA A 37, 12881299 (2020). Publisher: Optica Pub- lishing Group

    work page 2020

  74. [75]

    Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology ,

    S. Ragy , M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzaski, “Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology , ” Phys. Rev. A94, 052108 (2016)

    work page 2016

  75. [76]

    Modern description of Rayleigh’s criterion,

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, “Modern description of Rayleigh’s criterion, ” Phys. Rev. A 99, 013808 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    Discrimination and estimation of incoherent sources under misalignment,

    J. De Almeida, J. Kołody ´nski, C. Hirche, M. Lewenstein, and M. Sko- tiniotis, “Discrimination and estimation of incoherent sources under misalignment, ” Phys. Rev. A103, 022406 (2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [78]

    Quantum theory of superresolu- tion for two incoherent optical point sources,

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu, “Quantum theory of superresolu- tion for two incoherent optical point sources, ” Phys. Rev. X 6, 031033 (2016)

    work page 2016

  78. [79]

    Attaining quantum limited precision of localizing an object in passive imaging,

    A. Sajjad, M. R. Grace, Q. Zhuang, and S. Guha, “Attaining quantum limited precision of localizing an object in passive imaging, ” Phys. Rev. A 104, 022410 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    On super-resolution imaging as a multiparameter estimation problem,

    A. Chrostowski, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzaski, M. Jarzyna, and K. Ba- naszek, “On super-resolution imaging as a multiparameter estimation problem, ” Int. J. Quantum Inf.15, 1740005 (2017)

    work page 2017

  80. [81]

    Beating the rayleigh limit using two- photon interference,

    M. Parniak, S. Borówka, K. Boroszko, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, Research Article 20 and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzaski, “Beating the rayleigh limit using two- photon interference, ” Phys. review letters121, 250503 (2018)

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.