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

Dhruv Baheti; Fabien Bretenaker; Nadia Belabas; Paul Grossiord; Sonu Jana; Syamsundar De

arxiv: 2605.22029 · v1 · pith:QPTE7XOHnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

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

Sonu Jana , Dhruv Baheti , Paul Grossiord , Fabien Bretenaker , Nadia Belabas , Syamsundar De This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 05:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords SU(1,1) interferometersphase sensitivityhomodyne detectionparametric amplifiersinternal lossesquantum metrologyarbitrary input states

0 comments

The pith

A general derivation gives the phase sensitivity of SU(1,1) interferometers for arbitrary inputs and with losses included under homodyne detection.

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

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.

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.

What carries the argument

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

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

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.

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22029 by Dhruv Baheti, Fabien Bretenaker, Nadia Belabas, Paul Grossiord, Sonu Jana, Syamsundar De.

**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 ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Contour plot of the phase sensitivity versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Choice of the gain and detection configu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

**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] view at source ↗

read the original 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper 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

This paper derives analytical phase-sensitivity formulas for SU(1,1) interferometers that handle arbitrary input states plus internal and external losses. It treats both the full two-amplifier geometry and the truncated single-amplifier version, and it compares single-output homodyne detection against joint detection as well as equal-gain versus boosted-gain amplifiers. The expressions are then used to show when sensitivity gains come from noise reduction versus signal amplification, and they flag that the equal-gain single-output configuration remains relatively robust at high internal loss. That last observation is the most practically useful part for experiment design. The derivations start from standard input-output relations for parametric amplifiers and model losses as independent beam-splitter channels placed after the amplifiers. Under that assumption the quadrature means and variances come out in closed form, which lets the authors compare configurations without numerical simulation. The coherent-state example is worked through cleanly and illustrates how to pick the best setup for a given loss level. The loss model is the clearest soft spot. Treating internal losses as simple post-amplifier channels omits possible mode mismatch between arms and any extra noise generated inside the parametric process itself. For non-Gaussian or highly entangled inputs those omissions could change the reported robustness, especially in the high-loss regime the paper highlights. The paper does not test the general formulas on anything beyond the coherent probe, so the arbitrary-state claim stays formal rather than demonstrated. This is useful reading for quantum-optics groups that already know the basic SU(1,1) setup and now need to optimize under realistic loss. A reader looking for concrete comparison rules and optimization guidance will get value; someone outside the subfield will not. The derivations are worth referee scrutiny for algebraic accuracy and for a clearer statement of the loss-model limits. I would send it to peer review.

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)

[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)

[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

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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 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.

axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1399 out tokens · 28223 ms · 2026-05-22T05:57:23.054714+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

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

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether.American jour- nal of science, 3(203):333–345, 1887

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]

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]

Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to extend EFIT equilibrium reconstruction

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]

Fiber-optic interferometry-based heart rate monitoring

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]

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , keywords =

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]

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]

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]

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
[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

work page doi:10.1080/00107510802091298 2008
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.073601 2008
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.33.4033 1986
[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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083014 2010
[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

work page doi:10.1063/1.5048198 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1364/oe.26.027705 2018
[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/10.1364/OE.27.011292

work page doi:10.1364/oe.27.011292 2019
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.223604 2017
[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

work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-07-317 2020
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.150401 2017
[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/arXiv.2004.14266

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14266 2004
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.022432 2024
[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

work page doi:10.1063/5.0245187 2025
[22]

Quantum su (1,

Z_Y Ou and Xiaoying Li. Quantum su (1,

work page
[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

work page doi:10.1063/5.0004873 2020
[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

work page 2021
[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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073020 2014
[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

work page doi:10.1364/josab.430759 2021
[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:// doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-05-27-461

work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-05-27-461 2021
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.042122 2019
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.85.011801 2012
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.063843 2017
[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-

work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-02-04- 2025
[32]

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

work page doi:10.22331/q- 2025
[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.org/10.1364/OPTICA.4.000752

work page doi:10.1364/optica.4.000752 2017
[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

work page doi:10.1364/oe.26.000391 2018
[35]

Hudelist, J

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

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4049 2014
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.023844 2012
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.85.023815 2012
[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):1627, June 2014. ISSN 1520-8540. DOI: 10.1364/josab.31.001627. 19 In this appendix...

work page doi:10.1364/josab.31.001627 2014

[1] [1]

On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether.American jour- nal of science, 3(203):333–345, 1887

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]

Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to extend EFIT equilibrium reconstruction

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]

Fiber-optic interferometry-based heart rate monitoring

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]

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , keywords =

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

[9] [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

work page doi:10.1080/00107510802091298 2008

[10] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.073601 2008

[11] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.33.4033 1986

[12] [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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083014 2010

[13] [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

work page doi:10.1063/1.5048198 2018

[14] [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

work page doi:10.1364/oe.26.027705 2018

[15] [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/10.1364/OE.27.011292

work page doi:10.1364/oe.27.011292 2019

[16] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.223604 2017

[17] [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

work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-07-317 2020

[18] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.150401 2017

[19] [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/arXiv.2004.14266

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14266 2004

[20] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.022432 2024

[21] [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

work page doi:10.1063/5.0245187 2025

[22] [22]

Quantum su (1,

Z_Y Ou and Xiaoying Li. Quantum su (1,

work page

[23] [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

work page doi:10.1063/5.0004873 2020

[24] [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

work page 2021

[25] [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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073020 2014

[26] [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

work page doi:10.1364/josab.430759 2021

[27] [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:// doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-05-27-461

work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-05-27-461 2021

[28] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.042122 2019

[29] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.85.011801 2012

[30] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.063843 2017

[31] [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-

work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-02-04- 2025

[32] [32]

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

work page doi:10.22331/q- 2025

[33] [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.org/10.1364/OPTICA.4.000752

work page doi:10.1364/optica.4.000752 2017

[34] [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

work page doi:10.1364/oe.26.000391 2018

[35] [35]

Hudelist, J

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

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4049 2014

[36] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.023844 2012

[37] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.85.023815 2012

[38] [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):1627, June 2014. ISSN 1520-8540. DOI: 10.1364/josab.31.001627. 19 In this appendix...

work page doi:10.1364/josab.31.001627 2014