Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 50 references

N thermal light sources with higher-order intensity correlations reduce the LIDAR distance estimation error bound by a factor of N.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 11:48 UTC pith:I4OSSB2H

load-bearing objection The paper claims a factor-N reduction in the LIDAR Cramér-Rao bound using N thermal sources plus m-order correlations, but the scattering model that preserves source independence is the part that needs explicit checking. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.28378 v1 pith:I4OSSB2H submitted 2026-05-27 quant-ph

Superradiant LIDAR

T. Kullick , M. Bojer , J. von Zanthier , G. S. Agarwal This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords LIDARsuperradianceintensity correlationsCramér-Rao boundthermal light sourcesdistance measurementparameter estimationquantum optics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that LIDAR distance measurements to remote objects can achieve higher precision by replacing single intensity detection with measurements of intensity correlations of order two or higher. It employs N statistically independent thermal light sources whose collective emission is analyzed under the superradiance picture. The resulting Cramér-Rao bound on distance error improves by a factor of N compared with conventional LIDAR and improves further as the correlation order increases. Analytical expressions are given for two and three sources together with a general approximation that matches numerical results. A reader would care because ranging precision directly affects applications such as remote sensing and autonomous navigation.

Core claim

By using N thermal light sources and measuring intensity correlations of order m ≥ 2 instead of m=1, the Cramér-Rao bound on the measurement of the distance of a remote object undercuts that of traditional LIDAR by a factor of N, and can be reduced further with increasing correlation order m. The claim is supported by numerical calculations, exact analytic results for N=2 and N=3, and an approximate closed-form expression valid for any N.

What carries the argument

Measurement of m-th order intensity correlation functions from N independent thermal light sources, which supplies the information used to bound the variance of the distance estimator.

Load-bearing premise

The N thermal light sources remain statistically independent and the superradiance framework applies directly to the remote-object distance estimation scenario when higher-order intensity correlations are measured.

What would settle it

An experiment that illuminates a test object with two independent thermal sources, records both ordinary intensity and second-order intensity correlations, and checks whether the observed variance in the extracted distance is reduced by a factor of two relative to the single-source case.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Distance estimation precision scales linearly with the number of independent thermal sources employed.
  • Raising the correlation order m beyond 2 yields further tightening of the bound on top of the factor-N gain.
  • The improvement holds for any number of sources once the approximate analytic expression is used.
  • The scheme remains within the classical thermal-light regime and does not require nonclassical states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same correlation-based approach could be examined for estimating other parameters such as object velocity or surface properties.
  • Laboratory verification with ordinary thermal sources would directly test whether the predicted scaling survives real detector noise and finite integration time.
  • If source independence can be maintained while increasing N, the method supplies a simple route to better performance without raising total optical power.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes enhancing LIDAR distance estimation by using N independent thermal light sources and measuring m-th order (m≥2) intensity correlations rather than first-order intensity. It claims this yields a Cramér-Rao bound improved by a factor of N relative to conventional LIDAR, with further reduction as m increases. Analytical expressions are provided for N=2 and N=3, a general approximation for arbitrary N, and supporting numerical results.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the result would provide a concrete route to sensitivity gains in remote ranging that scale with source number and correlation order, leveraging existing concepts from superradiance without added power. The explicit analytical cases for small N constitute a verifiable strength that allows direct inspection of the claimed scaling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analytical expressions for N=2,3 and derivation of correlation functions] The central 1/N (and m-dependent) CRB improvement rests on the m-th order correlation functions of the returned light retaining a factorized dependence on the individual source fields, with the distance parameter entering solely via propagation phases. The analytical expressions for N=2 and N=3 must therefore include an explicit expansion demonstrating that all cross-source contributions either vanish or factor correctly under the linear scattering model applied to the total field; without this, the Fisher-information scaling cannot be confirmed.
  2. [General approximate expression and numerical results] The general approximate expression for arbitrary N is used to support the numerical calculations, yet no error bound or stated regime of validity is supplied. This leaves the extrapolation from the N=2,3 cases to the claimed scaling for large N unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the intensity correlation functions and the precise definition of the time-of-flight parameter should be introduced with a single consistent symbol set before the N=2 case is presented.
  2. The abstract states the improvement factor but does not mention that the result is derived under the assumption of statistically independent sources after scattering; a brief qualifier would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central 1/N (and m-dependent) CRB improvement rests on the m-th order correlation functions of the returned light retaining a factorized dependence on the individual source fields, with the distance parameter entering solely via propagation phases. The analytical expressions for N=2 and N=3 must therefore include an explicit expansion demonstrating that all cross-source contributions either vanish or factor correctly under the linear scattering model applied to the total field; without this, the Fisher-information scaling cannot be confirmed.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the need for explicit verification of the factorization in the correlation functions. Our derivations for N=2 and N=3 are based on the linear scattering model where the total field is the sum of contributions from each source, and the intensity correlations are computed accordingly. However, to address this concern directly, we will include in the revised manuscript an explicit term-by-term expansion for the N=2 and N=3 cases, showing that cross terms either cancel or factorize in a manner that preserves the N-scaling of the Fisher information. This addition will make the derivation more transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The general approximate expression for arbitrary N is used to support the numerical calculations, yet no error bound or stated regime of validity is supplied. This leaves the extrapolation from the N=2,3 cases to the claimed scaling for large N unquantified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript would benefit from a more rigorous characterization of the approximate expression. In the revision, we will add a section detailing the regime of validity of the approximation, including comparisons with the exact results for N=2 and N=3 to quantify the error, and provide bounds on the approximation error as a function of N and m. This will strengthen the support for the scaling claims at larger N. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in CRB scaling derivation

full rationale

The paper computes the Cramér-Rao bound directly from explicit expressions for the m-th order intensity correlation functions of N independent thermal sources (analytical for N=2,3; approximate for general N). These expressions follow from the standard factorization properties of thermal fields under linear propagation and source independence, which are input assumptions rather than outputs of the derivation. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation chain justifies the central scaling, and the N-factor improvement is obtained by direct substitution into the Fisher information formula without self-referential reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of quantum optics for thermal sources and statistical estimation theory; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Thermal light sources are statistically independent.
    Explicitly invoked to enable collective superradiance effects.
  • standard math Cramér-Rao bound governs the ultimate precision of distance estimation from intensity correlation measurements.
    Used as the figure of merit for sensitivity comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5684 in / 1154 out tokens · 40633 ms · 2026-06-29T11:48:23.937134+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In recent years, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) has seen a steep rise in the sensitivity of measuring the distances of remote objects. Here, we propose to enhance the sensitivity of LIDAR even further by exploiting Dicke's concept of superradiance, i.e., the collective light emission of statistically independent light sources. By using $N$ thermal light sources (TLS) and measuring intensity correlations of order $m \geq 2$ instead of $m=1$, i.e., the intensity, we show that the Cram\'er-Rao bound on the measurement of the distance of a remote object undercuts that of traditional LIDAR by a factor of $N$, and can be reduced further with increasing correlation order $m$. Our numerical calculations are supported by analytical expressions for the special cases of two and three TLS and a general approximate expression for any number of TLS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28378 by G. S. Agarwal, J. von Zanthier, M. Bojer, T. Kullick.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sketch of a practical implementation of Superradiant LI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Conceptual scheme of Superradiant LIDAR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fisher information F (sup) z2 of Superradiant LIDAR as a func￾tion of the correlation order m ∈ {2, 3, . . . , 20} and the number of TLS N ∈ {2, 3, . . . , 20}. The special case N = m = 2 (green rectangle), equivalent to two-photon LIDAR, marks the minimum of F (sup) z2 . highlighting the increased complexity of analytical solutions with an increasing number of TLS. Lower Bound of the Fisher Information.—A… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Detailed proposal for a Superradiant LIDAR setup. For details, see text. GGD: rotating ground-glass disk, BS: beam splitter, CCD: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: displays the relative difference ∆Frel = (Fnum − Fapp)/Fnum of the numerical evaluation of Eq. (C7) and the approximate result in Eq. (D5) to verify the accuracy of the latter equation. The discussion in the main text shows that this approximate expression of the Fisher information adequately models the Fisher information (all deviations are below 9 %) and serves as a lower bound, as it always underestimat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The introduced fit parameters a, b, c of Eq. (D6) as a function of the number of thermal light sources N ∈ {2, 3, . . . , 20} when fitted over m ∈ {2, 3, . . . , 20} to Superradiant LIDAR’s numerically evaluated Fisher information. A power-law dependence is evident. p e a(N) 0.140 2.986 b(N) 0.160 2.965 c(N) 0.294 2.977 Table I. Prefactors p and exponents e for fitting the power-law function in Eq. (D7) to… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The relative difference ∆Frel between the numerically evaluated Fisher information of Superradiant LIDAR (Eq. (C7)) and the Fisher information obtained via the fit procedure (Eqs. (D6) and (D7)) displayed for N ∈ {4, 5, . . . , 20} and m ∈ {2, 3, . . . , 20}. The cases N = 2, 3 are not shown, as analytical solutions are presented in the main text. Negative differences indicate an overestimation of th… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jaboyedoff, T

    M. Jaboyedoff, T. Oppikofer, A. Abell ´an, M.-H. Derron, A. Loye, R. Metzger, and A. Pedrazzini, Use of lidar in land- slide investigations: a review, Natural Hazards61, 5 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Rivera, R

    G. Rivera, R. Porras, R. Florencia, and J. P. S ´anchez-Sol´ıs, Li- dar applications in precision agriculture for cultivating crops: A review of recent advances, Computers and Electronics in Agri- culture207, 107737 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    W. Liu, Y . Ren, R. Guo, V . W. W. Kong, A. S. P. Hung, F. Zhu, Y . Cai, H. Wu, Y . Zou, and F. Zhang, Slope inspection under dense vegetation using lidar-based quadrotors, Nature Commu- nications16, 7411 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    E. E. Maeda, B. Brede, K. Calders, M. Disney, M. Herold, E. R. Lines, M. H. Nunes, P. Raumonen, M. Rautiainen, N. Saarinen, I. Starck, Y . Su, J. Terschanski, and L. Terryn, Expanding forest research with terrestrial LIDAR technology, Nature Communi- cations16, 8853 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    P. Chen, Z. Zhang, K. Bisson, C. Jamet, P. Di Girolamo, D. Dionisi, Y . Hu, S. Zhang, and D. Pan, Underestimated accel- erated antarctic phytoplankton net primary production in winter over past decade from spaceborne lidar, Nature Communica- tions16, 11430 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    D. J. Yeong, G. Velasco-Hernandez, J. Barry, and J. Walsh, Sen- sor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review, Sensors21, 10.3390/s21062140 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/s21062140 2021

  7. [7]

    H. Song, J. Cho, J. Ha, J. Park, and K. Jo, Panoptic-fusionnet: Camera-lidar fusion-based point cloud panoptic segmentation for autonomous driving, Expert Systems with Applications251, 123950 (2024). 5

    2024

  8. [8]

    A. Ali, M. M. Tawfik, and M. M. Saafan, Cross-dataset late fusion of camera–lidar and radar models for object detection, Scientific Reports16, 879 (2026)

    2026

  9. [9]

    Cohen, E

    L. Cohen, E. S. Matekole, Y . Sher, D. Istrati, H. S. Eisen- berg, and J. P. Dowling, Thresholded quantum lidar: Exploit- ing photon-number-resolving detection, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 203601 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Z. Li, Y . Han, L. Wu, Z. Zang, M. Dai, S. Y . Set, S. Yamashita, Q. Li, and H. Y . Fu, Towards an ultrafast 3d imaging scanning lidar system: a review, Photon. Res.12, 1709 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    McCarthy, G

    A. McCarthy, G. G. Taylor, J. Garcia-Armenta, B. Korzh, D. V . Morozov, A. D. Beyer, R. M. Briggs, J. P. Allmaras, B. Bum- ble, M. Colangelo, D. Zhu, K. K. Berggren, M. D. Shaw, R. H. Hadfield, and G. S. Buller, High-resolution long-distance depth imaging lidar with ultra-low timing jitter superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Optica12, 168 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    F. F. Settembrini, A. C. Gungor, A. Forrer, S. A. Fortune, A. Dell’Aquila, P. Padmanabhan, I. E. Opris, M. Sotto, N. Dordevic, Y . Perelman, T. Christen, M. Wang, and R. Nico- laescu, A large-scale coherent 4d imaging sensor, Nature651, 364 (2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    Riemensberger, A

    J. Riemensberger, A. Lukashchuk, M. Karpov, W. Weng, E. Lu- cas, J. Liu, and T. J. Kippenberg, Massively parallel coher- ent laser ranging using a soliton microcomb, Nature581, 164 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    C. S. Sambridge, J. T. Spollard, A. J. Sutton, K. McKenzie, and L. E. Roberts, Detection statistics for coherent rmcw lidar, Opt. Express29, 25945 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Harris, G

    M. Harris, G. N. Pearson, J. M. Vaughan, D. Letalick, and C. Karlsson, The role of laser coherence length in continuous- wave coherent laser radar, Journal of Modern Optics45, 1567 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    M. M. Bayer, X. Li, G. N. Guentchev, R. Torun, J. E. Velazco, and O. Boyraz, Single-shot ranging and velocimetry with a cw lidar far beyond the coherence length of the cw laser, Opt. Ex- press29, 42343 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Classen, K

    A. Classen, K. Ayyer, H. N. Chapman, R. R ¨ohlsberger, and J. von Zanthier, Incoherent diffractive imaging via intensity cor- relations of hard x rays, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 053401 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    C.-H. Lee, Y . Kim, D.-G. Im, U.-S. Kim, V . Tamma, and Y .- H. Kim, Coherent two-photon lidar with incoherent light, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 223602 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    G. Qian, X. Xu, S.-A. Zhu, C. Xu, F. Gao, V . V . Yakovlev, X. Liu, S.-Y . Zhu, and D.-W. Wang, Quantum induced coher- ence light detection and ranging, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033603 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    L.-C. Liu, C. Wu, W. Li, Y .-A. Chen, X.-P. Shao, F. Wilczek, F. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Active optical intensity inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180201 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    L. E. Estes, L. M. Narducci, and R. A. Tuft, Scattering of light from a rotating ground glass∗, J. Opt. Soc. Am.61, 1301 (1971)

    1971

  22. [22]

    Shih, Quantum imaging, quantum lithography and the uncer- tainty principle, Fortschritte der Physik51, 487 (2003)

    Y . Shih, Quantum imaging, quantum lithography and the uncer- tainty principle, Fortschritte der Physik51, 487 (2003)

    2003

  23. [23]

    Valencia, G

    A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, M. D’Angelo, and Y . Shih, Two- photon imaging with thermal light, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 063601 (2005)

    2005

  24. [24]

    L.-G. Wang, S. Qamar, S.-Y . Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, Hanbury brown–twiss effect and thermal light ghost imaging: A unified approach, Phys. Rev. A79, 033835 (2009)

    2009

  25. [25]

    M. J. Padgett and R. W. Boyd, An introduction to ghost imag- ing: quantum and classical, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences375, 20160233 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    B. Hoenders, Chapter one - review of a bewildering classi- cal–quantum phenomenon: Ghost imaging, inAdvances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Advances in Imaging and Elec- tron Physics, V ol. 208, edited by P. W. Hawkes (Elsevier, 2018) pp. 1–41

    2018

  27. [27]

    P. K. Tan, X. J. Yeo, A. Z. W. Leow, L. Shen, and C. Kurtsiefer, Practical range sensing with thermal light, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014060 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Staffas, J

    T. Staffas, J. Cleveborg, J. Gao, A. W. Elshaari, and V . Zwiller, Thermal light with enhanced oscillating bunching in field- tested photon-counting LIDAR, Nature Communications17, 134 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Reichert, Q

    M. Reichert, Q. Zhuang, and M. Sanz, Heisenberg-limited quantum lidar for joint range and velocity estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 130801 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    X. Y . Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 318 (1991)

    1991

  31. [31]

    Dertinger, R

    T. Dertinger, R. Colyer, G. Iyer, S. Weiss, and J. Enderlein, Fast, background-free, 3d super-resolution optical fluctuation imag- ing (sofi), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 22287 (2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

    Dedecker, G

    P. Dedecker, G. C. H. Mo, T. Dertinger, and J. Zhang, Widely accessible method for superresolution fluorescence imaging of living systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences109, 10909 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Schwartz, J

    O. Schwartz, J. M. Levitt, R. Tenne, S. Itzhakov, Z. Deutsch, and D. Oron, Superresolution microscopy with quantum emit- ters, Nano letters13, 5832 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    O. Katz, P. Heidmann, M. Fink, and S. Gigan, Non-invasive single-shot imaging through scattering layers and around cor- ners via speckle correlations, Nature photonics8, 784 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    Classen, J

    A. Classen, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Analysis of super-resolution via 3d structured illumination intensity corre- lation microscopy, Opt. Express26, 27492 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Oppel, T

    S. Oppel, T. B ¨uttner, P. Kok, and J. von Zanthier, Superresolv- ing multiphoton interferences with independent light sources, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 233603 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  38. [38]

    M. O. Ara ´ujo, I. Kre ˇsi´c, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, Superradi- ance in a large and dilute cloud of cold atoms in the linear-optics regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 073002 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    J. Ren, S. Zhu, and Z. D. Wang, Attaining nearly ideal dicke superradiance in expanded spatial domains, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 044053 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Tong and F

    W. Tong and F. Robicheaux, Qualitatively altered driven dicke superradiance in extended systems due to infinitesimal pertur- bations, Phys. Rev. A110, 063701 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Wiegner, S

    R. Wiegner, S. Oppel, D. Bhatti, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Simulating superradiance from higher-order- intensity-correlation measurements: Single atoms, Phys. Rev. A92, 033832 (2015)

    2015

  43. [43]

    Araneda, D

    G. Araneda, D. B. Higginbottom, L. Slodiˇcka, Y . Colombe, and R. Blatt, Interference of single photons emitted by entangled atoms in free space, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 193603 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Richter, S

    S. Richter, S. Wolf, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Col- lective photon emission of two correlated atoms in free space, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013163 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Oppel, R

    S. Oppel, R. Wiegner, G. S. Agarwal, and J. von Zanthier, Di- rectional superradiant emission from statistically independent incoherent nonclassical and classical sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 113, 263606 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Cao, B.-L

    D.-Z. Cao, B.-L. Xu, S.-H. Zhang, and K. Wang, Super- resolving interference without intensity-correlation measure- ment, Phys. Rev. A91, 053853 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    Bhatti, S

    D. Bhatti, S. Oppel, R. Wiegner, G. S. Agarwal, and J. von Zan- thier, Simulating dicke-like superradiance with classical light sources, Phys. Rev. A94, 013810 (2016)

    2016

  48. [48]

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

    1963

  49. [49]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by pub- lisher] for considered correlation functions and their normaliza- tion; detailed description of the Superradiant LIDAR setup; cal- culation of the numerically evaluated expression of the Fisher information; motivation of a lower-bound and fit function ap- proximation of the Fisher information of s...

  50. [50]

    Li and Y

    C. Li and Y . Zhu, Bounds of parameter estimation for interfer- ence signals, Appl. Opt.56, 6867 (2017). 1 Supplemental Material for: Superradiant LIDAR T. Kullick,1 M. Bojer,1 J. von Zanthier,1 and G. S. Agarwal2 1Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨ at Erlangen-N¨ urnberg, Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Staudtstr . 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany 2Institu...

    2017