Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Sensitivity Evaluation of SU(1,1) Interferometers with Arbitrary Input Probe State and Homodyne Detections

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-22 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A general derivation gives the phase sensitivity of SU(1,1) interferometers for arbitrary inputs and with losses included under homodyne detection.

desk verdict The paper supplies closed-form sensitivity expressions for SU(1,1) interferometers that cover arbitrary inputs, losses, and several detection/gain variants in one framework, though the post-amplifier loss model leaves some realistic effects unaddressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.22029 v1 pith:QPTE7XOH submitted 2026-05-21 quant-ph

Sonu Jana , Dhruv Baheti , Paul Grossiord , Fabien Bretenaker , Nadia Belabas , Syamsundar De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords SU(11)interferometersphasesensitivityhomodynedetectionparametricamplifiersinternallossesquantummetrologyarbitraryinputstates
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationalexander_duality_circle_linking
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 establishes general analytical expressions for the phase sensitivity achieved by SU(1,1) interferometers when homodyne detection is used. These expressions work for any input probe state and incorporate both internal and external losses. The work examines full two-amplifier and single-amplifier versions, single-port versus joint detection, and equal-gain versus boosted-gain amplifiers. The resulting formulas show how sensitivity gains arise from reduced noise or amplified signal in each practical arrangement.

What carries the argument

General analytical expressions for phase sensitivity derived from the quadrature operators after parametric amplification and homodyne detection.

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement of phase sensitivity in a lossy SU(1,1) interferometer with a known input state that falls outside the interval predicted by the general formula for the corresponding detection and gain settings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The phase sensitivity of SU(1,1) interferometers is obtained through closed-form expressions that remain valid for arbitrary input states and that explicitly include internal and external losses; these expressions reveal that improvements occur through noise reduction, signal amplification, or both, depending on the chosen configuration.

Load-bearing premise

Internal and external losses act as independent linear loss channels on the modes after the parametric amplifiers, without additional noise or mode mismatch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The single-output detection scheme with equal-gain amplifiers remains most robust when internal losses become very large.
  • For a two-mode coherent input state the expressions identify which combination of amplification and detection yields the lowest phase uncertainty at any given loss level.
  • Sensitivity improvements can be traced to either quadrature noise suppression or signal magnification in each specific setup.
  • The same framework permits direct numerical comparison of all listed configurations to select the best one for a measured loss value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same loss-inclusive formulas could be used to rank candidate input states before an experiment is built.
  • Applying the derivation to other detection schemes such as photon counting would show whether homodyne remains optimal under high loss.
  • The robustness ranking for equal-gain single-port detection suggests a practical starting point for lossy quantum sensors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a general theoretical derivation of the phase sensitivity achieved by SU(1,1) interferometers under homodyne detection. The expressions accommodate arbitrary input probe states and include internal and external losses. It examines both full interferometers with two parametric amplifiers and truncated versions with one, considers single-output and joint homodyne detection, and compares equal-gain versus boosted-gain amplifiers. The framework is applied to the two-mode coherent state |α,0⟩ to compare configurations, optimize performance under losses, and identify that single-output detection with equal gains is most robust to high internal losses, with improvements traced to noise reduction or signal amplification.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies a systematic analytical tool for quantum metrology that enables direct comparison of amplification and detection strategies for arbitrary inputs in the presence of losses. The closed-form expressions and the identification of a robust equal-gain single-output configuration provide concrete physical insight and practical guidance for experimental design, which are strengths of the manuscript.

major comments (1)
  1. [Loss-modeling section (derivation of homodyne quadrature means and variances)] Loss-modeling section (derivation of homodyne quadrature means and variances): the assumption that internal and external losses act as independent linear loss channels (beam-splitter equivalents) placed after the parametric amplifiers omits possible intra-amplifier noise or spatial/temporal mode mismatch. These effects would add extra vacuum fluctuations and alter the reported quadrature variances, particularly for entangled or non-Gaussian inputs; the central sensitivity formulas and the claimed robustness of the equal-gain single-output case at high internal loss rest directly on this modeling choice.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction and theoretical framework] Notation for the input-state parameters and the two gain values G1, G2 is introduced late; defining them explicitly in the opening theoretical section would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comment on the loss-modeling assumptions. We address the point below and indicate the planned revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Loss-modeling section (derivation of homodyne quadrature means and variances): the assumption that internal and external losses act as independent linear loss channels (beam-splitter equivalents) placed after the parametric amplifiers omits possible intra-amplifier noise or spatial/temporal mode mismatch. These effects would add extra vacuum fluctuations and alter the reported quadrature variances, particularly for entangled or non-Gaussian inputs; the central sensitivity formulas and the claimed robustness of the equal-gain single-output case at high internal loss rest directly on this modeling choice.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Our derivation models internal and external losses via independent beam-splitter equivalents with vacuum modes inserted after the parametric amplifiers, which is the standard approximation used throughout the quantum-metrology literature to obtain closed-form expressions. We agree that this simplified model does not incorporate intra-amplifier noise or spatial/temporal mode mismatch; such effects would indeed introduce additional vacuum fluctuations and could modify the quadrature variances, particularly when the input states are entangled or non-Gaussian. The reported robustness of the equal-gain single-output configuration is therefore established within the framework of this conventional loss model. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit paragraph in the loss-modeling section stating these modeling assumptions, referencing the standard nature of the approach, and noting that more detailed treatments of intra-amplifier dynamics or mode mismatch could be incorporated for specific experimental scenarios. This addition will clarify the scope and limitations of the analytic results without altering the central formulas. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained from standard input-output relations

full rationale

The paper derives closed-form phase sensitivity expressions for SU(1,1) interferometers by starting from the input-output relations of parametric amplifiers and homodyne quadrature measurements, then incorporating internal and external losses as independent beam-splitter channels acting after the amplifiers. These steps yield explicit means and variances for arbitrary input states without fitting any parameter to the target sensitivity or invoking self-citations for uniqueness or ansatz. The application to the |α,0⟩ coherent state is a direct substitution into the general formulas. The central results therefore remain independent of the final claims and do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard quantum-optics input-output relations for parametric amplifiers and beam-splitter loss models; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

assumptions (2)
  • standard math Parametric amplifiers are described by the standard SU(1,1) transformation with gain parameter r.
    Invoked when defining the interferometer configurations in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Losses are modeled as independent beam-splitter channels with transmissivity η.
    Used to include internal and external losses in the general expressions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity Evaluation of SU(1,1) Interferometers with Arbitrary Input Probe State and Homodyne Detections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPTE7XOH

@misc{pith2026260522029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity Evaluation of SU(1,1) Interferometers with Arbitrary Input Probe State and Homodyne Detections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPTE7XOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.22029}
}
abstract

We provide a general theoretical derivation of the phase sensitivity achieved by SU(1,1) interferometers under homodyne detection. The general expressions obtained accommodate arbitrary input states and include internal and external losses. In this systematic review, both full SU(1,1) interferometers with two parametric amplifiers and the truncated interferometers with only one parametric amplifier are examined. We investigate scenarios involving both single-output ports and joint homodyne detection, and consider parametric amplifiers with equal gains or with a boosted gain second amplifier. Our analytical formulation provides physical insight and understanding of the improvements in the sensitivity, which are shown to originate from noise reduction and/or signal amplification, depending on the configurations and practical implementations. Surprisingly, the configuration with single-output mode detection and parametric amplifiers with equal gains exhibits the highest robustness to very high internal losses. We finally apply this framework to a ubiquitous $|\alpha,0\rangle$ input two-mode coherent probe state. This approach permits the comparison of different strategies and the optimization of the interferometer performance in the presence of losses. In particular, we determine which amplification and detection configurations provide the best performance, depending on the level of losses. This exemplifies how this general analytical approach provides a powerful tool to design quantum-enhanced interferometers and achieve optimal sensitivity with selected probe states and homodyne detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase sensitivity as a function of the phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase sensitivity as a function of asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contour plot of the phase sensitivity versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Choice of the gain and detection configu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of phase sensitivity as a function of external losses in the two output ports of the SU(1,1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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.

    We provide a general theoretical derivation of the phase sensitivity achieved by SU(1,1) interferometers under homodyne detection. The general expressions obtained accommodate arbitrary input states and include internal and external losses.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Internal and external losses are modeled by fictitious beam splitters placed inside and outside the interferometer (losses Ls, Li, ls, and li).

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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Heralded Non-Gaussian Squeezed-State Inputs for Parity-Detection SU(1,1) Interferometry

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under fixed conditional-probe energy and fixed gain, optimized success-weighted photon subtraction, addition, and catalysis all give less Fisher information than the optimized Gaussian input in an SU(1,1) interferometer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    American Journal of Science , author =

    Albert A Michelson and Edward W Mor- ley. On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether.American jour- nal of science, 3(203):333–345, 1887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333

    work page doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333

  2. [2]

    A review of selected topics in interferometric optical metrology.Reports on Progress in Physics, 82(5):056101, 2019

    Peter J De Groot. A review of selected topics in interferometric optical metrology.Reports on Progress in Physics, 82(5):056101, 2019. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ab092d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab092d 2019

  3. [3]

    A review of UTe2 at high magnetic fields,

    ShumingYangandGuofengZhang. Areview of interferometry for geometric measure- ment. Measurement Science and Technology, 29(10):102001, 2018. DOI: 10.1088/1361- 6501/aad732

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2018

  4. [4]

    Physics -Informed Recurrent Neural Networks for Soft Pneumatic Actuators,

    Rene Jaros, Jan Nedoma, Stanislav Kepak, and Radek Martinek. Fiber-optic interferometry-based heart rate monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 71:1–15, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2022.3178495

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2022.3178495 2022

  5. [5]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    Benjamin P Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D Abbott, Matthew R Aber- nathy, Fausto Acernese, Kendall Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X Adhikari, et al. Ob- servation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical review letters, 116(6):061102, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  6. [6]

    Fundamental preci- sion limit of a mach-zehnder interferometric sensor when one of the inputs is the vacuum

    Masahiro Takeoka, Kaushik P Seshadreesan, Chenglong You, Shuro Izumi, and Jonathan P Dowling. Fundamental preci- sion limit of a mach-zehnder interferometric sensor when one of the inputs is the vacuum. Physical Review A, 96(5):052118, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.052118

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.96.052118 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum-Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer

    Carlton M Caves. Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer. Physical Review D , 23(8):1693, 1981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.1693

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.1693 1981

  8. [8]

    Enhanced in- terferometry using squeezed thermal states and even or odd states

    Qing-Shou Tan, Jie-Qiao Liao, Xiaoguang Wang, and Franco Nori. Enhanced in- terferometry using squeezed thermal states and even or odd states. Physi- cal Review A, 89(5):053822, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.053822

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.89.053822 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum optical metrology–the lowdown on high-n00n states

    Jonathan P Dowling. Quantum optical metrology–the lowdown on high-n00n states. Contemporary physics, 49(2):125–143, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802091298

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Mach-zehender interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vaccum light

    Pezze Luca and Smerzi Augusto. Mach-zehender interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vaccum light. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100(7):073601, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.073601

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Su (2) and su (1, 1) interferometers

    Bernard Yurke, Samuel L McCall, and John R Klauder. Su (2) and su (1, 1) interferometers. Physical Review A , 33(6):4033, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.33.4033

    1986 doi

  4. [12]

    Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferometry

    William N Plick, Jonathan P Dowling, and Girish S Agarwal. Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferometry. 17 New Journal of Physics, 12(8):083014, 2010. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083014

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    A broadband fiber-optic nonlinear interferometer

    Joseph M Lukens, Raphael C Pooser, and Nicholas A Peters. A broadband fiber-optic nonlinear interferometer. Ap- plied Physics Letters, 113(9), 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5048198

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Loss-tolerant quantum dense metrology with su (1, 1) interferometer.Op- tics express, 26(21):27705–27715, 2018

    Yuhong Liu, Jiamin Li, Liang Cui, Nan Huo, Syed M Assad, Xiaoying Li, and ZY Ou. Loss-tolerant quantum dense metrology with su (1, 1) interferometer.Op- tics express, 26(21):27705–27715, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.027705

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Optimum quantum resource distribution for phase measurement and quantum information tapping in a dual-beam su (1, 1) interferometer

    Yuhong Liu, Nan Huo, Jiamin Li, Liang Cui, Xiaoying Li, and Zheyu Jeff Ou. Optimum quantum resource distribution for phase measurement and quantum information tapping in a dual-beam su (1, 1) interferometer. Optics Ex- press, 27(8):11292–11302, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Detection loss tolerant supersensitive phase measurement with an su (1, 1) interferometer

    Mathieu Manceau, Gerd Leuchs, Farid Khalili, and Maria Chekhova. Detection loss tolerant supersensitive phase measurement with an su (1, 1) interferometer. Physical review letters, 119(22):223604, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.223604

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Seyfarth, A

    U. Seyfarth, A. B. Klimov, H. de Guise, G. Leuchs, and L. L. Sanchez-Soto. Wigner function for SU(1,1). Quantum, 4:317, September 2020. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2020-09-07-317. URL https:// doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-07-317

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Pumped-up su (1, 1) interferometry

    Stuart S Szigeti, Robert J Lewis-Swan, and Simon A Haine. Pumped-up su (1, 1) interferometry. Physical Review Letters, 118(15):150401, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.150401

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Su (2)-in-su (1, 1) nested in- terferometer for highly sensitive, loss- tolerant quantum metrology

    Wei Du, Jia Kong, Jun Jia, Sheng Ming, Chun-Hua Yuan, JF Chen, ZY Ou, Morgan W Mitchell, and Weiping Zhang. Su (2)-in-su (1, 1) nested in- terferometer for highly sensitive, loss- tolerant quantum metrology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14266, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/...

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Phase esti- mation via a number-conserving operation inside a su (1, 1) interferometer

    Qingqian Kang, Zekun Zhao, Teng Zhao, Cunjin Liu, and Liyun Hu. Phase esti- mation via a number-conserving operation inside a su (1, 1) interferometer. Physi- cal Review A, 110(2):022432, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.022432

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Enhancement in phase sensitivity in displacement-assisted su(1,1) interferometer via photon recycling

    Taj Kumar, Aviral Kumar Pandey, Anand Kumar, and Devendra Kumar Mishra. Enhancement in phase sensitivity in displacement-assisted su(1,1) interferometer via photon recycling. APL Quantum, 2 (1), March 2025. ISSN 2835-0103. DOI: 10.1063/5.0245187

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Quantum su (1,

    Z_Y Ou and Xiaoying Li. Quantum su (1,

  15. [23]

    APL Photonics, 5(8), 2020

    interferometers: Basic principles and ap- plications. APL Photonics, 5(8), 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004873

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Nan Huo, Xueshi Guo, Wen Zhao, Yunx- iao Zhang, Xiaoying Li, and Z. Y. Ou. Su(1,1) interferometer by direct detection. In 2021 Conference on Lasers and Electro- Optics (CLEO), pages 1–2, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    The phase sensitivity of an su (1, 1) interferometer with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light

    Dong Li, Chun-Hua Yuan, ZY Ou, and Weiping Zhang. The phase sensitivity of an su (1, 1) interferometer with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light. New Jour- nal of Physics, 16(7):073020, 2014. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073020

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Su (1, 1) interferometry with parity measure- ment

    Shuai Wang and Jian-Dong Zhang. Su (1, 1) interferometry with parity measure- ment. Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 38(9):2687–2693, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAB.430759

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Luo, Harald Her- rmann, Christine Silberhorn, and Polina R

    Alessandro Ferreri, Matteo Santandrea, Michael Stefszky, Kai H. Luo, Harald Her- rmann, Christine Silberhorn, and Polina R. Sharapova. Spectrally multimode inte- grated SU(1,1) interferometer.Quantum, 5: 461, May 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2021-05-27-461. URL https:...

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Conclusive pre- cision bounds for su (1, 1) interferometers

    ChenglongYou, SushovitAdhikari, Xiaoping Ma, Masahide Sasaki, Masahiro Takeoka, and Jonathan P Dowling. Conclusive pre- cision bounds for su (1, 1) interferometers. Physical Review A, 99(4):042122, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.042122

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Quantum interferometry with and without an external phase reference

    Marcin Jarzyna and Rafał Demkowicz- Dobrzański. Quantum interferometry with and without an external phase reference. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(1):011801, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.011801

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Optimal phase measure- ments with bright-and vacuum-seeded su (1, 1) interferometers

    Brian E Anderson, Bonnie L Schmittberger, Prasoon Gupta, Kevin M Jones, and 18 Paul D Lett. Optimal phase measure- ments with bright-and vacuum-seeded su (1, 1) interferometers. Physical Review A , 95(6):063843, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.063843

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Gold- berg

    Jasper Kranias, Guillaume Thekkadath, Khabat Heshami, and Aaron Z. Gold- berg. Metrological Advantages in Seeded and Lossy Nonlinear Interferometers.Quan- tum, 9:1619, February 2025. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2025-02-04-

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/q- 2025-02-04-1619

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Phase sensing beyond the standard quantum limit with a vari- ation on the su (1, 1) interferome- ter

    Brian E Anderson, Prasoon Gupta, Bon- nie L Schmittberger, Travis Horrom, Carla Hermann-Avigliano, Kevin M Jones, and Paul D Lett. Phase sensing beyond the standard quantum limit with a vari- ation on the su (1, 1) interferome- ter. Optica, 4(7):752–756, 2017. DOI: https://doi...

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Optimized phase sensing in a truncated su (1, 1) interferometer

    Prasoon Gupta, Bonnie L Schmittberger, Brian E Anderson, Kevin M Jones, and Paul D Lett. Optimized phase sensing in a truncated su (1, 1) interferometer. Op- tics express, 26(1):391–401, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.000391

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon cor- relation interferometers

    Florian Hudelist, Jia Kong, Cunjin Liu, Jietai Jing, ZY Ou, and Weip- ing Zhang. Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon cor- relation interferometers. Nature com- munications, 5(1):3049, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4049

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Effect of losses on the per- formance of an su (1, 1) interferometer

    Alberto M Marino, NV Corzo Trejo, and Paul D Lett. Effect of losses on the per- formance of an su (1, 1) interferometer. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(2):023844, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.023844

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Enhancement of the phase- measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit by a nonlin- ear interferometer

    ZY Ou. Enhancement of the phase- measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit by a nonlin- ear interferometer. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(2):023815, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.023815

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Ferrini, I

    G. Ferrini, I. Fsaifes, T. Labidi, F. Goldfarb, N. Treps, and F. Bretenaker. Symplectic ap- proach to the amplification process in a non- linear fiber: role of signal-idler correlations and application to loss management.Jour- nal of the Optical Society of America B, 31 (7):16...

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 22, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.