Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Attosecond delay metrology beyond the photon coherence time with spectrally resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spectrally resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interference encodes optical delay in spectral fringe periodicity, letting a single measurement reach quantum-limited precision over a range 100 times the photon coherence window.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of extended-range HOM delay metrology, but the calibration-free/continuous-range claims outrun the estimator analysis and the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16849 v1 pith:2KEQH3JH submitted 2026-07-18 quant-ph physics.optics

Yingwen Zhang , Kyle Jordan , Duncan England , Vincenzo Tamma , Ebrahim Karimi , Benjamin Sussman This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords Hong-Ou-Mandelinterferencespectrallyresolvedtwo-photonquantummetrologytime-delayestimationCramér-RaoboundSPDCphotonpairsdisplacementsensingthickness
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

Delay sensing usually reads the depth of the Hong-Ou-Mandel dip, which only works while the two photons overlap in time. This paper claims that the path delay can instead be read from the periodicity of spectrally resolved two-photon interference fringes, which persist far beyond the coherence window. With roughly one million detected photon pairs the authors measure a 20-attosecond (6-nanometer) delay precision, and a real-time 1 Hz readout reaches 330 attoseconds (100 nanometers), while the operational range spans −300 to +300 micrometers—about 100 times the 5.7-micrometer dip width. Because the estimate depends on fringe spacing, not absolute counts, the method stays accurate under photon loss and visibility variations without recalibration, demonstrated by a BBO-crystal thickness measurement of 309,716 ± 30 nanometers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectrally resolved two-photon interference pattern: for each pair of frequencies, the bunching and antibunching probabilities carry a cosine term cos[(ω1−ω2)Δt], so the path delay appears as the frequency of spectral fringes in the joint spectral intensity. The delay is read by a fast Fourier transform of the measured spectrum, zero-padded to 65,536 points for sub-bin peak localization, which avoids fitting the full probability model. The theoretical backbone is the Fisher information formula above, which reduces the quantum Cramér–Rao bound for time-delay estimation to dependence on the photon bandwidth and nondegeneracy rather than on the delay itself.

What would settle it

Take a calibrated delay near 800 µm and record repeated spectrally resolved HOM measurements under the paper's conditions; if the standard deviation of the recovered delays exceeds roughly twice the two-photon Cramér-Rao bound, or if the mean residual systematically departs from the calibrated setting by more than the stated accuracy, the near-CRB and calibration-free claims are falsified. A purely simulated check would replace the camera data with an ideal Poissonian JSI and the same FFT pipeline to isolate estimator bias from camera pixelation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors show that the joint spectral intensity of photon pairs emerging from a Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer displays fringes of the form 1 ± V cos[(ω1−ω2)Δt]. The fringe frequency is directly proportional to the optical delay Δt, so the delay can be recovered by a fast Fourier transform of the spectrum even when Δt far exceeds the photon coherence time. They derive the Fisher information for frequency-resolved measurements, F = γ²(1−√(1−V²))(4σ²+Ω²), showing the quantum precision limit is independent of delay, and they demonstrate experimentally that an FFT peak estimator with zero-padded interpolation reaches within about 1.5 times the two-photon Cramér–Rao bound over a ±300 µm range.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the zero-padded FFT peak estimates the spectral fringe frequency without bias and with near-optimal efficiency for low-count coincidence data with a non-flat spectral envelope and finite camera resolution—especially at large delays where fringe contrast approaches the Nyquist sampling limit, where the paper's model uses hand-tuned simulation constants.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Attosecond-scale path-delay measurements no longer require the interfering photons to overlap temporally; sensitivities near the quantum limit persist up to roughly two orders of magnitude beyond the HOM dip width.
  • Displacement and thickness metrology can be performed without scanning or recalibrating the interferometer, so changing samples, losses, or visibility does not invalidate the estimate.
  • With 10^6 detected pairs, a single measurement reaches ~20 as time or 6 nm displacement; at a 1 Hz update rate the precision is ~330 as or 100 nm.
  • The method extends to ±1 mm (about 350 times the coherence length) with reduced precision, bounded by the camera's spectral resolution.
  • A BBO crystal thickness is recovered in a single-shot geometry as 309,716 ± 30 nm, showing direct metrology application.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the FFT-estimator efficiency holds across the full range, the same fringe-periodicity readout could be applied to spectrally resolved measurements with independent or classical sources; the paper's Fisher-information comparison suggests entangled SPDC light retains a 15× information advantage over phase-averaged coherent light for degenerate photons.
  • The explicit dependence F ∝ (4σ²+Ω²) implies a testable route to even better precision: deliberately nondegenerate broadband pairs add a beat-note term Ω², potentially improving the bound without a larger bandwidth.
  • The demonstrated resilience to loss and visibility suggests the method could be adapted to deployed sensing channels where reference scans are impractical, such as free-space or fiber links with fluctuating transmission.
  • One open check the paper leaves implicit is whether the FFT peak remains unbiased as fringes approach the camera Nyquist limit; a controlled Monte Carlo with the actual spectral envelope and pixelation would settle it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports spectrally resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry using a time-tagging event camera to measure optical path delays. The delay is extracted not from the HOM dip but from the oscillation frequency of the spectral interference fringes in the joint spectral intensity, which persists far beyond the photon coherence length. The authors claim single-measurement precision close to the Cramér–Rao bound (20 as with 1e6 pairs; 330 as at 1 Hz) over an operational range of −300 to +300 μm, robustness to loss and visibility without recalibration, and demonstrate thickness metrology of a 300 μm BBO crystal with 30 nm precision.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant advance in quantum optical metrology: it extends the dynamic range of HOM delay sensing by two orders of magnitude while retaining near-quantum-limited precision, and it provides a practical, calibration-free measurement scheme. The experimental data are rich and internally consistent, with scaling checks versus photon number, bandwidth, visibility, and loss. The demonstration of real-time processing and thickness metrology adds concrete value. The main qualifications are that the CRB analysis is approximate near zero delay, the FFT-peak efficiency is asserted rather than rigorously demonstrated in the low-count Poisson regime, and the large-delay precision model is partly phenomenological.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (4)–(6)] The Fisher information in Eq. (4) contains a factor sin^2[(ω1−ω2)Δt], which vanishes as Δt→0. The replacement of this oscillatory term by its large-delay average in Eq. (5) and the resulting Δt-independent F in Eq. (6) are not valid near zero delay. The paper claims an operational range from −300 to +300 μm without acknowledging this interior dead zone. Please quantify the width of the region (in μm) where the exact CRB deviates from Eq. (6), state whether that region is excluded from the measurements in Fig. 3, and adjust the 'full-range near-CRB' claim accordingly.
  2. [Sec. II.B, FFT estimator claim] The assertion that a finely sampled FFT peak estimator can approach MLE performance is based on Ref. [54], a single-tone estimator in white Gaussian noise. The actual experiment is a low-count Poissonian coincidence measurement with a non-flat spectral envelope, finite spectrometer resolution, and operation near the Nyquist limit. All headline precision numbers (20 as, 330 as, <1.5×CRB) depend on this estimator being unbiased and near-efficient over the full −300 to +300 μm range. The paper validates this only at sampled delays (Fig. 3 insets, Fig. 5). Please provide an estimator-variance simulation (or a quantitative argument) for the Poisson, finite-bandwidth case and report the empirical estimator efficiency (measured variance divided by the exact CRB) at each delay shown in Fig. 3.
  3. [Supp. Eqs. (13)–(14), Fig. 3 blue curve] The blue 'theory' curve in Fig. 3 is generated from a simulation whose centroid-error weighting function W(dx) in Supp. Eq. (14) has parameters (mean 0.7, width 0.7) that are not derived from a first-principles model of the camera or centroiding algorithm. As presented, this curve is a fit, not a prediction. The manuscript should explicitly state that the blue curve is a phenomenological fit, report the number of fitted parameters, and comment on the sensitivity of the curve to those parameters. This is important because the curve is used to claim agreement with the observed precision degradation at large delays.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. III, CRB comparison] Using the paper's own parameters (σ ≈ 7×10^13 rad/s, V = 0.92, Eq. (6)–(8)), the two-photon CRB for 10^6 detected pairs is approximately 9 as, not 20 as as implied by 'at the measurement Cramér–Rao bound'. The 20 as figure is about 2.2× the CRB. The 'within 1.5× CRB' claim in Sec. III refers to N_c = 10^4 data, and the 20 as may be an extrapolation from Fig. 5(a). Please clarify which precision numbers are measured directly, which are extrapolated, and make the wording in the Abstract and text consistent with the actual ratio to the CRB.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The visibility V is defined as η²ξ in the text preceding Eq. (2), but the Fisher information expressions in Eqs. (4)–(6) do not explicitly account for dark counts or background coincidences. Please clarify whether dark counts are subtracted or included and how they enter the CRB calculation.
  2. [Fig. 2(c,d)] The dark vertical band in Fig. 2(d) is attributed to the camera's inability to resolve two photons in close proximity, but the caption does not explain why this appears only in the bunching configuration. A one-sentence clarification would be helpful.
  3. [Supp. Eq. (16)–(18)] The notation θA and θB in the derivation is confusing; θA and θB are used both for angles in air and in the crystal. Consider explicitly defining them in the derivation and aligning with Eq. (9) of the main text.
  4. [Sec. III, data shuffling] The statement that 'the measurement remains limited by photon statistics' for batches up to 10^3 events is supported by Fig. 10, but the criterion for 'limited by photon statistics' should be quantified (e.g., agreement with the CRB within one standard error).
  5. [Abstract] The Abstract says 'at the measurement Cramér–Rao bound', while the body uses 'near-optimal sensitivity' and 'remains below 1.5 times the CRB'. Please harmonize the wording to avoid overclaiming.
  6. [Eq. (4)] The normalization of |Φ(ω1,ω2)|² is not specified. For the Fisher information integral to be meaningful, the joint spectral intensity should be normalized to unity; please state the normalization convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the delay-frequency relation is derived from the two-photon state and benchmarked against independent hardware.

full rationale

The central claim—that path delay is encoded in the spectral fringe frequency of the two-photon joint spectral intensity and can be read out with near-CRB precision—does not reduce to its inputs. Equation (2) follows from the two-photon amplitude |Φ(ω1,ω2)|^2 with a cosine phase (ω1−ω2)Δt; the FFT estimator extracts that frequency, and the robustness to losses and visibility variations follows directly because |Φ|^2 and V multiply the cosine rather than shifting its frequency. The experimental precision is benchmarked against a motorized delay stage (Fig. 3 inset) and an independent geometric model for BBO rotation (Eq. (9)), so the fitted thickness d0 and the delay estimates are not constructed to equal the model outputs. The CRB calculation (Eqs. (3)–(8)) is a standard Fisher-information calculation from the same two-photon probabilities, not a restatement of the measured precision. Two concerns in the manuscript—(i) the claim that a finely sampled FFT peak approaches MLE, imported from Rife–Boorstyn for white Gaussian noise rather than validated for low-count Poissonian coincidence data, and (ii) the hand-set centroid-error weights (mean 0.7, width 0.7) in Supp. Eqs. (13)–(14) used to build the blue 'theory' curve—are evidence/correctness limitations, not circularity: the constants are stated as an assumed model, not fitted to the precision data being predicted. Likewise, the replacement of the oscillatory sin^2 term by its average in Eq. (5) to obtain the delay-independent F0 is a large-delay approximation that conceals the vanishing of exact Fisher information at Δt=0; that is a validity issue, not a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [42], [47]) support the detector and data-processing infrastructure, not the delay-estimation claim itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical entities are needed. The free-parameter load sits in the supplementary resolution-degradation model behind the Fig 3 blue curve: the centroid-error Gaussian (mu = sigma = 0.7), the parabolic envelope, and the PSF width are chosen to reproduce the data they then explain. The CRB bounds take the same-apparatus visibility V as an input. The BBO demo adds an unquantified index ambiguity (phase vs group). The core physics (Eqs 1-8) is inherited from Refs 36/43/46 with two stated approximations (perfect anti-correlation; large-delay averaging) that are appropriate for the claimed regime. Self-citations (Refs 13, 42, 47, 56) are legitimate prior characterization/imaging work by this group, not circular support for the central claim.

free parameters (6)
  • Centroid-error weighting Gaussian (mu, sigma) = mu = 0.7, sigma = 0.7 (pixel-deviation units)
    Supp. Eq 14: W(dx) = exp(-(dx-0.7)^2/(2*0.7^2)) chosen by hand to shape the Fig 3 blue precision-decline curve and reproduce the measured spectra in Fig 8.
  • Parabolic SPDC spectral envelope coefficient = -6.8e-12 m^2
    Supp. Eq 12: |Phi(k)|^2 proportional to -6.8e-12 (k - kmin - dk/2)^2 + 1, fitted to the measured SPDC envelope for the resolution-degradation simulation.
  • Spectrometer Gaussian PSF FWHM (simulation) = 120 sampling points
    Supp. modeling section: convolved into the high-resolution spectrum; stated as representing fiber/grating resolution, but the numerical value is an input choice.
  • Effective HOM visibility V in CRB curves = V = 0.92 at dz = 0; V = 0.81 at dz = 100 um
    Measured on the same apparatus (HOM-dip fit, Fig 2a; resolution model) and used as the input for the CRB bounds in Figs 3 and 5; the 'predicted' bounds therefore depend on measured inputs.
  • BBO refractive index nB at 810 nm = 1.6919
    Used in Eq 9 for the thickness fit. The text says HOM measures group delay yet labels nB as 'ordinary refractive index' (phase ~ 1.660, group ~ 1.684 from Sellmeier data). The 309.7 um fit vs nominal 300 um is consistent with a few-percent index-type systematic.
  • HOM dip phenomenological fit (alpha, beta, gamma) = alpha = 0.96, beta = 0.20 um^-1, gamma = 85 um
    Fig 2a fit used only to report the 5.7 um dip width; not part of the delay estimator.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Two-photon state and HOM probabilities PB/PA = (1/2)|Phi|^2 [1 +/- V cos((w1-w2)dt)] (Eqs 1-2)
    Standard quantum-optics result (Refs 45, 46) for spectrally entangled pairs at a beamsplitter; assumes a pure two-photon amplitude, an exchange-symmetric Phi, single-mode spatial operation, and the visibility model V = eta^2 xi.
  • standard math Fisher information for frequency-resolved coincidence detection (Eq 3)
    Poissonian-measurement estimation theory from Refs 36/43/46; requires P(w1,w2;dt) to be the true model and accidentals/detector noise to be folded into gamma or negligible.
  • domain assumption Perfect spectral anti-correlation: <(w1-w2)^2> = 4 sigma^2 + Omega^2
    Stated before Eq (6) ('by assuming perfect spectral anti-correlation'). Near-exact for CW-pumped SPDC, but any finite phase-matching width in the sum-frequency direction lowers the Fisher information below 4 sigma^2 + Omega^2.
  • standard math Large-delay averaging of the oscillatory Fisher term (Eq 5)
    <V^2 sin^2/(1 - V^2 cos^2)> = 1 - sqrt(1 - V^2) is valid in the rapidly-oscillating limit; it degrades as dt approaches the inverse bandwidth. This is exactly the regime where the extended-range claim operates, so it is self-consistent.
  • domain assumption FFT peak estimator approaches MLE performance (Rife-Boorstyn transfer)
    Section II.B imports a single-tone, white-Gaussian-noise result (Ref 54) to low-count Poissonian coincidence data with a non-flat spectral envelope and finite spectral resolution; empirically validated only at sampled delays.
  • domain assumption Dispersion cancellation: measured delay equals group delay at 810 nm
    Section III, BBO demo, citing Refs 9-11; assumes the BBO dispersion is sufficiently linear over the 58 nm bandwidth.
  • standard math Small-angle approximation in the BBO path-length model (Supp. Eqs 16-18)
    Uses sin(theta) ~ theta for Snell coupling while retaining cos factors; the angle-dependent error grows with rotation angle and is instead attributed to surface flatness in Fig 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attosecond delay metrology beyond the photon coherence time with spectrally resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KEQH3JH

@misc{pith2026260716849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attosecond delay metrology beyond the photon coherence time with spectrally resolved Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KEQH3JH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16849}
}
read the original abstract

Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interferometry enables delay estimation at the quantum precision limit but is traditionally constrained to path differences within the coherence time of the interfering photons. Here, we demonstrate single-measurement path-delay sensing at the measurement Cramer-Rao bound using spectrally resolved HOM interference, thereby removing the conventional dynamic-range limitation imposed by the photon coherence window, with no scanning required for calibration. By extracting delay information from the spectral interference fringes of spectrally entangled photon pairs, we retain near-optimal sensitivity over an operational range exceeding the photon coherence time by over two orders of magnitude. Using one million detected photon pairs, we achieve a time-delay precision of 20 attosecond (6 nm), while real-time operation (at 1 Hz) yields 330 attosecond (100 nm) precision. Because the estimator relies on fringe periodicity rather than absolute coincidence rates, the method is intrinsically robust to photon losses and variations in interference visibility, eliminating the need for recalibration. As a practical demonstration, we measure the thickness of a 300 um transmissive target with nanometer-scale precision. These results mark a significant step towards deploying quantum-limited measurements in real-world sensing applications using HOM interferometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the measured crystal thickness d as a function of the crystal rotation angle θ relative to the beam axis. Each data point is obtained from 60 repeated measurements using 2.5 × 104 detected photon pairs. Fitting Eq. (9) to the measured delay using nA = 1.00028, th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Cross-section of the two-photon interference spectral pattern at ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between the experimentally measured and modeled spectrum at a resolution of 1024 pixels for ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Illustration of the change in path length as light enters a crystal of thickness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Standard deviation of the measured displacement SD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Rife and R

    D. Rife and R. Boorstyn, Single tone parameter estimation from discrete-time observations, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 20, 591 (1974)

    1974

  2. [1]

    Bobroff, Recent advances in displacement measuring interferometry, Measurement Science and Technology4, 907 (1993)

    N. Bobroff, Recent advances in displacement measuring interferometry, Measurement Science and Technology4, 907 (1993)

    1993

  3. [2]

    J. D. Monnier, Optical interferometry in astronomy, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 789 (2003)

    2003

  4. [3]

    Berkovic and E

    G. Berkovic and E. Shafir, Optical methods for distance and displacement measurements, Adv. Opt. Photon. 4, 441 (2012)

    2012

  5. [4]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    Huang, C

    G. Huang, C. Cui, X. Lei, Q. Li, S. Yan, X. Li, and G. Wang, A review of optical interferometry for high-precision length measurement, Micromachines 16 (2025)

    2025

  7. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2011

  8. [7]

    M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Quantum metrology and its application in biology, Physics Reports615, 1 (2016), quantum metrology and its application in biology

    2016

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    A. F. Abouraddy, M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Quantum-optical coherence tomography with dispersion cancellation, Phys. Rev. A 65, 053817 (2002). 10

    2002

  3. [10]

    M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Demonstration of dispersion-canceled quantum-optical coherence tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 083601 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    M. C. Teich, B. E. A. Saleh, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Variations on the theme of quantum optical coherence tomography: a review, Quantum Information Processing 11, 903 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    D. G. England, B. Balaji, and B. J. Sussman, Quantum-enhanced standoff detection using correlated photon pairs, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023828 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. England, A. Nomerotski, P. Svihra, S. Ferrante, P. Hockett, and B. Sussman, Multidimensional quantum- enhanced target detection via spectrotemporal-correlation measurements, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053808 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Gallego Torrom´ e and S

    R. Gallego Torrom´ e and S. Barzanjeh, Advances in quantum radar and quantum lidar, Progress in Quantum Electronics 93, 100497 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

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

    2008 doi

  9. [16]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, High-noon states by mixing quantum and classical light, Science 328, 879 (2010), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1188172

    2010 doi

  10. [17]

    D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, K. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Distributed quantum sensing with multimode n00n states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 050802 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

  12. [19]

    Y. H. Shih and C. O. Alley, New type of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm experiment using pairs of light quanta produced by optical parametric down conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2921 (1988)

    1988

  13. [20]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Multiphoton entanglement and interfer- ometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Bouchard, A

    F. Bouchard, A. Sit, Y. Zhang, R. Fickler, F. M. Miatto, Y. Yao, F. Sciarrino, and E. Karimi, Two-photon interference: the hong–ou–mandel effect, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 012402 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    Jin, Z.-Q

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

    2024

  16. [23]

    Jaouni, X

    T. Jaouni, X. Gu, M. Krenn, A. D’Errico, and E. Karimi, Tutorial: Hong–ou–mandel interference with structured photons, Nanophotonics 14, 4163 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Lyons, G

    A. Lyons, G. C. Knee, E. Bolduc, T. Roger, J. Leach, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Attosecond-resolution hong-ou-mandel interferometry, Science Advances 4, eaap9416 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Sgobba, A

    F. Sgobba, A. Andrisani, S. Dello Russo, M. Siciliani de Cumis, and L. Santamaria Amato, Attosecond-level delay sensing via temporal quantum erasing, Sensors 23, 10.3390/s23187758 (2023)

    2023 doi

  19. [26]

    C. P. Lualdi, S. J. Johnson, M. Vayninger, K. A. Meier, S. Sahoo, S. I. Bogdanov, and P. G. Kwiat, Fast quantum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons, Science Advances 11, eadw4938 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    Triggiani and V

    D. Triggiani and V. Tamma, Estimation with ultimate quantum precision of the transverse displacement between two photons via two-photon interference sampling measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 180802 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Triggiani and V

    D. Triggiani and V. Tamma, Momentum-entangled two-photon interference for quantum-limited transverse-displacement estimation, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032605 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Muratore, D

    S. Muratore, D. Triggiani, and V. Tamma, Superresolution imaging of two incoherent sources via two-photon-interference sampling measurements of the transverse momenta, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 054033 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    B. Guo, Z. Chen, L. Maggio, W. Wu, S. Liu, V. Tamma, and J. Fan, Quantum beat of two single photons in the transverse momentum space, Phys. Rev. A 112, 013719 (2025)

    2025

  24. [31]

    C. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, and L. Chen, Ultrasensitive transverse deflection measurement with two-photon interference, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25, 014009 (2026)

    2026

  25. [32]

    Maggio and V

    L. Maggio and V. Tamma, Ultimate quantum sensitivity in the 3d relative localisation of two single-photon emitters via two-photon interference, The European Physical Journal Plus 141, 66 (2026)

    2026

  26. [33]

    M. A. Gonzalez, A. Alarc´ on, A. C. Quintero, D. Sabogal, L. Maggio, V. Tamma, D. F. Urrego, and A. Valencia, Quantum interference of distinguishable photons based on spatially resolved measurements, Phys. Rev. A 113, 053721 (2026)

    2026

  27. [34]

    Maggio and V

    L. Maggio and V. Tamma, Quantum-limited estimation of the difference between photonic momenta via spatially resolved two-photon interference (2026), arXiv:2603.08602 [quant-ph]

    2026

  28. [35]

    Laibacher and V

    S. Laibacher and V. Tamma, Symmetries and entanglement features of inner-mode-resolved correlations of interfering nonidentical photons, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053829 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Triggiani, G

    D. Triggiani, G. Psaroudis, and V. Tamma, Ultimate quantum sensitivity in the estimation of the delay between two interfering photons through frequency-resolving sampling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044068 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Maggio, D

    L. Maggio, D. Triggiani, P. Facchi, and V. Tamma, Quantum-limited estimation of the frequency shift between two interfering photons by time sampling of their quantum beats, The European Physical Journal Plus 140, 954 (2025)

    2025

  31. [38]

    Maggio, D

    L. Maggio, D. Triggiani, P. Facchi, and V. Tamma, Multi-parameter estimation of the state of two interfering photonic qubits, Physica Scripta 100, 035106 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    Gerrits, F

    T. Gerrits, F. Marsili, V. B. Verma, L. K. Shalm, M. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Spectral correlation measurements at the hong-ou-mandel interference dip, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013830 (2015)

    2015

  33. [40]

    R.-B. Jin, T. Gerrits, M. Fujiwara, R. Wakabayashi, T. Yamashita, S. Miki, H. Terai, R. Shimizu, M. Takeoka, and M. Sasaki, Spectrally resolved hong-ou-mandel interference between independent photon sources, Opt. Express 23, 28836 11 (2015)

    2015

  34. [41]

    V. V. Orre, E. A. Goldschmidt, A. Deshpande, A. V. Gorshkov, V. Tamma, M. Hafezi, and S. Mittal, Interference of temporally distinguishable photons using frequency-resolved detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123603 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. England, A. Nomerotski, and B. Sussman, High speed imaging of spectral-temporal correlations in hong-ou- mandel interference, Opt. Express 29, 28217 (2021)

    2021

  36. [43]

    C. Chen, Y. Chen, and L. Chen, Spectrally resolved hong-ou-mandel interferometry with discrete color entanglement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054092 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    R. M. J. Brooks, L. Maggio, T. Jaeken, J. Ho, E. M. Gauger, V. Tamma, and A. Fedrizzi, Optical sensing near the quantum limit with enhanced dynamic range by resolving the spectra of interfering photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 060803 (2026)

    2026

  38. [45]

    Z. Y. Ou and L. Mandel, Observation of spatial quantum beating with separated photodetectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 54 (1988)

    1988

  39. [46]

    Y. Chen, M. Fink, F. Steinlechner, J. P. Torres, and R. Ursin, Hong-ou-mandel interferometry on a biphoton beat note, npj Quantum Information 5, 43 (2019)

    2019

  40. [47]

    Vidyapin, Y

    V. Vidyapin, Y. Zhang, D. England, and B. Sussman, Characterisation of a single photon event camera for quantum imaging, Scientific Reports 13, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  42. [49]

    H. Kim, D. Kim, J. Park, and H. S. Moon, Hong&#x2013;ou&#x2013;mandel interference of two independent continuous- wave coherent photons, Photon. Res. 8, 1491 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Tamma and J

    V. Tamma and J. Seiler, Multipath correlation interference and controlled-not gate simulation with a thermal source, New Journal of Physics 18, 032002 (2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    Cassano, M

    M. Cassano, M. D’Angelo, A. Garuccio, T. Peng, Y. Shih, and V. Tamma, Spatial interference between pairs of disjoint optical paths with a single chaotic source, Opt. Express 25, 6589 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    Y. S. Ihn, Y. Kim, V. Tamma, and Y.-H. Kim, Second-order temporal interference with thermal light: Interference beyond the coherence time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 263603 (2017)

    2017

  46. [53]

    Lee, D.-G

    G.-H. Lee, D.-G. Im, Y. Kim, U.-S. Kim, and Y.-H. Kim, Observation of second-order interference beyond the coherence time with true thermal photons, Opt. Lett. 45, 6748 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    A. Zhao, M. van Beuzekom, B. Bouwens, D. Byelov, I. Chakaberia, C. Cheng, E. Maddox, A. Nomerotski, P. Svihra, J. Visser, V. Vrba, and T. Weinacht, Coincidence velocity map imaging using tpx3cam, a time stamping optical camera with 1.5 ns timing resolution, Review of Scientifi...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. England, and B. Sussman, Snapshot hyperspectral imaging with quantum correlated photons, Opt. Express 31, 2282 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Farella, G

    B. Farella, G. Medwig, R. A. Abrahao, and A. Nomerotski, Spectral characterization of an spdc source with a fast broadband spectrometer, AIP Advances 14, 045034 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    K. M. Jordan, Y. Zhang, F. Bouchard, D. England, P. J. Bustard, B. J. Sussman, J. S. Lundeen, and A. H. Proppe, Simultaneous amplitude and phase spectroscopy using two-photon interference (2026), arXiv:2603.15944 [quant-ph]

    2026

  51. [59]

    E. E. Wollman, V. B. Verma, A. E. Lita, W. H. Farr, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Kilopixel array of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Opt. Express 27, 35279 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Steinhauer, S

    S. Steinhauer, S. Gyger, and V. Zwiller, Progress on large-scale superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Applied Physics Letters 118, 100501 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    B. G. Oripov, D. S. Rampini, J. Allmaras, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, B. Korzh, and A. N. McCaughan, A superconducting nanowire single-photon camera with 400,000 pixels, Nature 622, 730 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    A. Nomerotski, Imaging and time stamping of photons with nanosecond resolution in timepix based optical cameras, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 937, 26 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    https://www.amscins.com/product/chronos-series/phoebe

  56. [64]

    G. Kim, K. Park, K. Lim, J. Kim, and G. Cho, Improving spatial resolution by predicting the initial position of charge- sharing effect in photon-counting detectors, Journal of Instrumentation 15 (01), C01034. SUPPLEMENT AR Y DET AILED EXPERIMENT AL SETUP Experimental Setup Fig...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.