Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

On Optimal Measurement-State Preparation via Geometric Transport of the Squeezing Ellipse

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Squeezing-ellipse orientation can be steered by the solid angle of a path on the sphere, preparing measurement-optimal states from misaligned squeezed inputs.

desk verdict Useful continuous-transport framing for aligning squeezed SU(2) states; the solid-angle claim is plausible but rests on an undervived classical-frame assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28620 v1 pith:KXY5HBMK submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph physics.app-phphysics.optics

Vsevolod Salakhutdinov , Nikolay Kalinin This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords quantummetrologysqueezedstatesgeometricphaseSU(2)polarizationsqueezingPoincaréspheremeasurement-statepreparationbirefringentcontrol
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

In quantum metrology with squeezed states, precision depends on lining up the narrow axis of the uncertainty ellipse with the measurement direction. This paper argues that in SU(2)-symmetric systems you can treat that ellipse orientation as a geometric degree of freedom that rides along with the mean state on the unit sphere. Continuous controlled trajectories transport the ellipse according to the path’s geometry; when geodesic curvature integrates to zero, the accumulated rotation equals the solid angle enclosed by the trajectory (plus a closing geodesic), in direct analogy with the geometric phase. By choosing a path that ends near a pole with the minor axis along the measurement axis, an initially misaligned squeezed input becomes measurement-optimal. The same principle is said to apply across platforms, with a concrete sketch for polarization-squeezed light via a continuously varying birefringent element.

What carries the argument

Gauss–Bonnet transport of the squeezing ellipse (Eq. 3): θ_sq = Ω_Σ + ∫_Γ κ_g dl. For paths with vanishing integrated geodesic curvature, ellipse rotation reduces to the enclosed solid angle, linking metrological orientation control to the geometry of the mean-state curve on the sphere via Frenet–Serret/moving-trihedron transport under SO(3) rotations.

What would settle it

Prepare a polarization-squeezed state with known initial ellipse angle, send it through a continuous birefringent trajectory engineered for a prescribed solid angle with near-zero integrated geodesic curvature, and check whether the measured final squeezing angle matches Ω_Σ (and whether phase sensitivity reaches the predicted optimum near the pole).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For SU(2)-symmetric squeezed states whose uncertainty ellipse lies in the local tangent plane, continuous SO(3) trajectories transport the ellipse orientation with the mean state. When the integral of geodesic curvature along the path vanishes, the accumulated ellipse rotation is fixed by the solid angle Ω_Σ enclosed by the path and a closing geodesic, so geometric-phase-style path design becomes an operational tool for preparing states that are both near an S3 pole and correctly oriented for minimal phase uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

That the quantum squeezing ellipse is carried exactly by the classical moving frame on the sphere under physical SU(2) rotations, so the solid angle of the mean-state path fully fixes the metrological orientation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Geometric phase becomes an active control knob for squeezing orientation, not only a global phase on the state vector.
  • Polarization-squeezed light can be driven to measurement-optimal alignment with a continuously varying birefringent element (or approximated by waveplate stacks).
  • The same path-design rule applies to collective spins and other SU(2) platforms by modulating drives or magnetic fields along Γ(t).
  • Discrete waveplate or pulse sequences approximate the continuous transport but accumulate geometric error from solid-angle, curvature, and junction-angle mismatches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Frenet–Serret rule holds only approximately once the ellipsoid leaves the tangent plane, real devices may need active feedback on higher moments, not pure geometric open-loop paths.
  • Orbital-Poincaré and multi-mode spatial squeezing would inherit the same solid-angle rule once local SU(2) converters exist across the beam, making multi-plane light converters a natural testbed for discretized Γ(t).
  • Metrology protocols could co-design the sensing geodesic Σ and the preparation path Γ so that preparation solid angle and sensing displacement share one hardware trajectory.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometric framework for preparing measurement-optimal squeezed states in SU(2)-symmetric systems. An initially misaligned squeezed input is transported along a controlled trajectory Γ(t) of the mean state on the unit sphere; the orientation of the squeezing ellipse is treated as an additional geometric degree of freedom that evolves with that trajectory. For trajectories whose integrated geodesic curvature vanishes, the accumulated ellipse rotation is identified with the solid angle Ω_Σ enclosed by Γ and a closing geodesic (Eq. 3), in analogy with the geometric phase. Optimal states are those localized near an S3 pole with the ellipse minor axis aligned to the measurement axis S2. The construction is illustrated for polarization-squeezed light via a continuously varying birefringent element (local thickness and optic-axis angle from Eqs. 4–6), with discrete waveplate stacks as approximations, and is argued to extend to Bloch-sphere spin ensembles and orbital Poincaré-sphere modes.

Significance. If the transport rule is established, the work supplies a concrete operational use of path geometry (and solid angle) for metrological state preparation rather than only as a passive phase observable. The link between ellipse orientation and Gauss–Bonnet quantities is conceptually clean for the restricted class of trajectories considered, and the polarization implementation outline (continuous birefringent medium or multilayer stack) is experimentally actionable given existing Kerr-squeezing and waveplate control. The multi-platform framing (polarization, collective spins, spatial modes) is a genuine strength. The main limitation on significance is that the central ellipse-transport step is asserted from classical frame geometry rather than derived from the quantum second-moment law, so the solid-angle claim for ΔS2 orientation is not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Geometric Framework; Eq. (3)] Geometric Framework (paragraphs on generator representation and Frenet–Serret transport; leading into Eq. 3): The central claim—that the metrological orientation of the squeezing ellipse is fixed by path geometry and reduces to Ω_Σ when ∫κ_g dl = 0—rests on the assertion that physical SU(2) evolution transports the ellipse exactly by the classical moving trihedron of Γ(t). Rotations are isometries and act via the double cover, but the paper does not derive the ellipse angle from the adjoint action on second moments (covariance C ↦ R C R^T for Stokes/spin operators, or the equivalent Wigner-ellipse evolution). Under the maintained restriction that the minor axis already lies in the tangent plane, that adjoint law is what would lock the ellipse to the surface frame and justify applying Gauss–Bonnet to ΔS2 orientation. Without this step, Eq. 3 is a differential-geometry identity about tange
  2. [Geometric Framework; Optimal measurement] Geometric Framework (opening restriction) and Optimal measurement: The analysis is restricted to the case in which the minor axis of the 3D uncertainty ellipsoid already lies in the tangent plane, so that the uncertainty is represented by a 2D ellipse on the sphere. The paper does not show that this property is preserved along the continuous SO(3) trajectories generated by the proposed birefringent/spin controls, nor when it fails (e.g., if radial/out-of-plane squeezing components are generated). Because optimality is defined by minimizing ΔS2 with the minor axis along S2 near an S3 pole, preservation of the tangent-plane condition is load-bearing. A brief argument that the adjoint action of the intended generators keeps the squeezed eigenaxis tangential (or a statement of the domain where this holds) should be added.
  3. [Implementation Schemes; Eqs. (4)–(6)] Implementation Schemes (waveplate construction, Eqs. 4–6, and discrete stack discussion): The birefringent element is shown to realize the intended SO(3) path for the mean Stokes vector. That alone does not prove that the ellipse angle tracks Ω_Σ when ∫κ_g = 0; it only implements Γ(t) for the mean. Once the covariance-transport step above is supplied, it would be useful to state explicitly that the same local generators act identically on second moments, so the continuous (and, with controlled error, discrete) constructions inherit the solid-angle rule. As written, the implementation section overstates what is demonstrated relative to the geometric claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Implementation Schemes] Section heading “IMPLEMENT A TION SCHEMES” contains a spurious space (“A TION”).
  2. [Figs. 1 and 3] Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 captions are dense; labeling the measurement geodesic Σ, the squeezing major-axis vector p_sq, and the final minor-axis alignment on the figures themselves would help readers parse the optimality condition without the caption.
  3. [Implementation Schemes; Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) for the spiral azimuthal speed ν_ϕ is given without a short derivation or geometric reading; a sentence on how it enforces the terminal tangent condition (orthogonality of p_sq(1) to S2) would improve reproducibility of the example.
  4. [Introduction; Conclusion] The geometric-phase analogy is repeated in the Introduction, Geometric Framework, and Conclusion. One concise statement that the shared geometric quantity is Ω_Σ (with model-dependent prefactor) would suffice and reduce redundancy.
  5. [Geometric Framework] Citations to Frenet–Serret texts [31,32] and geometric-phase literature are appropriate; a standard reference for adjoint/covariance transport of spin or Stokes squeezing under SU(2) would help readers locate the missing step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: solid-angle/ellipse-rotation result is Gauss–Bonnet under an explicit transport assumption, not a fit or self-definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper’s central relation (Eq. 3) equates the squeezing-ellipse rotation θ_sq to the solid angle Ω_Σ plus integrated geodesic curvature along Γ. That identity is the standard Gauss–Bonnet theorem applied once the authors assume Frenet–Serret (moving-trihedron) transport of the tangent-plane ellipse under SO(3)/SU(2) rotations. Nothing in the derivation fits a parameter to data and renames it a prediction, defines the output in terms of itself, or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors’ prior work. Self-citations [29, 30] only motivate the discrete waveplate experiments that the continuous scheme generalizes; they are not used to prove Eq. 3. Citations to geometric-phase and differential-geometry texts supply external standard machinery. Whether the classical Frenet–Serret rule fully captures quantum second-moment evolution is a completeness/correctness question about the transport assumption, not circularity: the claimed geometric content does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard SU(2)/sphere geometry and classical curve transport applied to a quantum uncertainty ellipse under restrictive modeling choices. No fitted physical constants drive the central equality; free choices are trajectory shape parameters. No new particles or forces are invented—only a control interpretation of ellipse orientation on the sphere.

free parameters (2)
  • Trajectory shape / geodesic curvature profile (e.g. half-rotations N) = N=5 (illustrative)
    N=5 and the spiral vs circular-arc families are chosen by hand to illustrate control flexibility; infinitely many Γ(t) satisfy the boundary condition via Gauss–Bonnet.
  • Initial mean-state angles and squeezing angle θ_sq = Example: {1, θ0, π/2} with given θ_sq
    Boundary data taken from experimentally relevant conditions in cited work; they set the required solid angle but are inputs, not fitted outputs of this theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SU(2) mean states map to the unit sphere and physical controls act as SO(3) rotations (double cover).
    Stated at the opening of Geometric Framework; standard for polarization, collective spin, and related platforms.
  • ad hoc to paper Uncertainty is represented by an ellipse in the local tangent plane (minor axis of the 3D ellipsoid lies in that plane).
    Explicit restriction in Geometric Framework; excludes generic ellipsoid orientations that would need full 3D transport.
  • ad hoc to paper Under the continuous rotation sequence the squeezing ellipse is transported by the moving orthonormal (Frenet–Serret) frame of Γ(t).
    Core modeling step linking geometry to metrological orientation; motivated by isometries preserving tangent angles, not derived from quantum covariance equations in the text.
  • standard math Gauss–Bonnet on the closed contour Γ∪Σ relates turning of the tangent (hence ellipse angle) to solid angle Ω_Σ plus ∫κ_g dl (Eq. 3), with Σ geodesic contributing zero curvature.
    Invoked for simple non-winding trajectories; standard differential geometry (cited Lipschutz and geometric-phase contour literature).
  • domain assumption Optimal phase estimation in the chosen setup requires localization near an S3 pole and minor-axis alignment along S2 (Δφ=ΔS2/|⟨S3⟩|).
    Optimal measurement subsection; standard error-propagation metrology for this generator/measurement pair.
  • domain assumption Infinitesimal sphere arcs are physically realized by birefringent retarders (or analogous drives) with thickness and axis from Eqs. 2–4, under adiabatic/Mauguin conditions.
    Implementation Schemes for polarization; standard waveplate–Poincaré correspondence plus cited adiabaticity constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Optimal Measurement-State Preparation via Geometric Transport of the Squeezing Ellipse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXY5HBMK

@misc{pith2026260728620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Optimal Measurement-State Preparation via Geometric Transport of the Squeezing Ellipse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXY5HBMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28620}
}
read the original abstract

Preparation of optimal measurement states is a key requirement in quantum metrology utilizing squeezed states. We discuss a geometric framework that transforms an initially misaligned squeezed input into a measurement-optimal state in SU(2)-symmetric systems. Within this framework, the orientation of the squeezing ellipse constitutes an additional geometric degree of freedom and evolves as the mean state follows a controlled trajectory on the unit sphere. The resulting rotation of the ellipse is determined by the geometry of the path and, for the relevant class of transformations, depends on the solid angle enclosed by the trajectory, establishing a connection with the geometric phase. The discussed framework is applicable to different physical platforms. As a particular example, we consider polarization-squeezed light and outline a possible implementation using a continuously varying birefringent element.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28620 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature306, 141 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    C. Xu, L. Zhang, S. Huang, T. Ma, F. Liu, H. Yonezawa, Y. Zhang, and M. Xiao, Sensing and tracking en- hanced by quantum squeezing, Photonics Research7, A14 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quan- tum noise in spectroscopy, Physical Review A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Physical Review A47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Sinatra, Spin-squeezed states for metrology, Applied Physics Letters120, 120501 (2022)

    A. Sinatra, Spin-squeezed states for metrology, Applied Physics Letters120, 120501 (2022)

    2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Grangier, R

    P. Grangier, R. E. Slusher, B. Yurke, and A. La- Porta, Squeezed-light–enhanced polarization interferom- eter, Physical Review Letters59, 2153 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    A. S. Chirkin, A. A. Orlov, and D. Y. Parashchuk, Quantum theory of two-mode interactions in optically anisotropic media with cubic nonlinearities: Generation of quadrature- and polarization-squeezed light, Quantum Electronics23, 870 (1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, H.-A. Bachor, and P. K. Lam, Polarization squeezing of continuous variable stokes pa- rameters, Physical Review Letters88, 093601 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Korolkova, G

    N. Korolkova, G. Leuchs, R. Loudon, T. C. Ralph, and C. Silberhorn, Polarization squeezing and continuous- variable polarization entanglement, Physical Review A 65, 052306 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Heersink, V

    J. Heersink, V. Josse, G. Leuchs, and U. L. Andersen, Efficient polarization squeezing in optical fibers, Optics Letters30, 1192 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Lassen, G

    M. Lassen, G. Leuchs, and U. L. Andersen, Continuous variable entanglement and squeezing of orbital angular momentum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 163602 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    J. Guo, C. Cai, L. Ma, K. Liu, H. Sun, and J. Gao, Mea- surement of Stokes-operator squeezing for continuous- variable orbital angular momentum, Scientific Reports 7(2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Kamra and W

    A. Kamra and W. Belzig, Super-poissonian shot noise of squeezed-magnon mediated spin transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 146601 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    A. K. Chauhan and J. Twamley, Cluster states of multi- ple ferrimagnetic spheres in cavity magnonics, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013011 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Y.-C. Weng, D. Xu, Z. Chen, L.-Z. Tan, X.-K. Gu, J. Li, H.-F. Yu, S.-Y. Zhu, X. Hu, F. Nori, and J. Q. You, Magnon squeezing in the quantum regime, Nature Com- munications17, 2679 (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    D. N. Klyshko, Berry geometric phase in oscillatory pro- cesses, Physics-Uspekhi36, 1005 (1993)

    1993

  12. [20]

    Weinberg,Lectures on quantum mechanics, second edi- tion ed

    S. Weinberg,Lectures on quantum mechanics, second edi- tion ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  14. [22]

    Simon, Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theorem, and berry’s phase, Phys

    B. Simon, Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theorem, and berry’s phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  16. [24]

    Maclaurin, M

    D. Maclaurin, M. W. Doherty, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and A. M. Martin, Measurable quantum geometric phase from a rotating single spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240403 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    C. P. Jisha, S. Nolte, and A. Alberucci, Geometric phase in optics: From wavefront manipulation to waveguiding, Laser & Photonics Reviews15, 2100003 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Z. Zhou, S. C. Carrasco, C. Sanner, V. S. Malinovsky, and R. Folman, Geometric phase amplification in a clock interferometer for enhanced metrology, Science Advances 11(2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    J. T. Reilly, J. D. Wilson, S. B. J¨ ager, C. Wilson, and M. J. Holland, Optimal generators for quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 150802 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Lecamwasam, T

    R. Lecamwasam, T. Iakovleva, and J. Twamley, Quan- tum metrology with linear lie algebra parameterizations, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043137 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Kalinin, T

    N. Kalinin, T. Dirmeier, A. A. Sorokin, E. A. Anashkina, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, J. F. Corney, G. Leuchs, and A. V. Andrianov, Quantum-enhanced interferometer using kerr squeezing, Nanophotonics12, 2945 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kalinin, T

    N. Kalinin, T. Dirmeier, A. A. Sorokin, E. A. Anashkina, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, J. F. Corney, G. Leuchs, and A. V. Andrianov, Observation of robust polarization squeezing 7 via the Kerr nonlinearity in an optical fiber, Advanced Quantum Technologies6(2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Dandoloff and W

    R. Dandoloff and W. J. Zakrzewski, Parallel transport along a space curve and related phases, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General22, L461 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    M. M. Lipschutz,Schaum’s Outline of Differential Ge- ometry(McGraw-Hill, 1969) p. 288

    1969

  25. [33]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    J. J. Sakurai,Modern quantum mechanics(Addison Wes- ley, 2011) p. 550

    2011

  27. [35]

    Cohen-Tannoudji,Quantum Mechanics(Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2020) p

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji,Quantum Mechanics(Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2020) p. 920

    2020

  28. [36]

    D. A. Stecket al.,Quantum and Atom Optics(2020) revision 0.13.4, 24 September 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Nakahara,Geometry, topology, and physics(Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003) p

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, topology, and physics(Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003) p. 573

    2003

  30. [38]

    Samuel and R

    J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, General setting for berry’s phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2339 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    Bhandari, Su (2) phase jumps and geometric phases, Physics Letters A157, 221 (1991)

    R. Bhandari, Su (2) phase jumps and geometric phases, Physics Letters A157, 221 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    K. Y. Bliokh, M. A. Alonso, and M. R. Dennis, Geo- metric phases in 2d and 3d polarized fields: geometrical, dynamical, and topological aspects, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 122401 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Z. Zhou, Y. Margalit, S. Moukouri, Y. Meir, and R. Fol- man, An experimental test of the geodesic rule proposi- tion for the noncyclic geometric phase, Science Advances 6(2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Leinonen, A

    A. Leinonen, A. Hannonen, H. Partanen, J. Heikkinen, T. Set¨ al¨ a, A. T. Friberg, and T. K. Hakala, Noncyclic continuous Pancharatnam-Berry phase in dual-beam in- terference, Communications Physics6(2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Chekhova and P

    M. Chekhova and P. Banzer,Polarization of Light: In Classical, Quantum, and Nonlinear Optics(Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    W. A. Shurcliff,Polarized light: production and use(Har- vard University Press, 1962)

    1962

  37. [45]

    B. W. Shore, A. Rangelov, N. V. Vitanov, and K. Bergmann, Piecewise adiabatic passage in polariza- tion optics: an achromatic polarization rotator, inAd- vances in Chemical Physics Volume 159(John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2016) pp. 219–234

    2016

  38. [46]

    Yeh and C

    P. Yeh and C. Gu,Optics of liquid crystal displays, A Wiley Interscience publication (Wiley, New York, 1999) includes index

    1999

  39. [47]

    A. Sit, F. Di Colandrea, A. D’Errico, and E. Karimi, Spatially twisted liquid-crystal devices, APL Photonics 9(2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    A. Sit, F. Di Colandrea, A. D’Errico, and E. Karimi, Genetic algorithm for the response of arbitrarily twisted nematic liquid crystals to an applied field, Phys. Rev. E 109, 054705 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    S. M. Rytov, On the transition from wave optics to ge- ometrical optics (in Russian), Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR18, 263 (1938)

    1938

  42. [50]

    V. V. Vladimirskii, The rotation of a polarization plane for curved light ray (in Russian), Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR31, 222 (1941)

    1941

  43. [51]

    S. I. Vinitski ˘ ı, V. L. Derbov, V. M. Dubovik, B. L. Markovski, and Y. P. Stepanovski ˘ ı, Topological phases in quantum mechanics and polarization optics, Soviet Physics Uspekhi33, 403 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Berry, Anticipations of the geometric phase, Physics Today43, 34 (1990)

    M. Berry, Anticipations of the geometric phase, Physics Today43, 34 (1990)

    1990

  45. [53]

    R. Y. Chiao and Y.-S. Wu, Manifestations of berry’s topological phase for the photon, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 933 (1986)

    1986

  46. [54]

    Tomita and R

    A. Tomita and R. Y. Chiao, Observation of berry’s topo- logical phase by use of an optical fiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 937 (1986)

    1986

  47. [55]

    M. V. Berry and S. Klein, Geometric phases from stacks of crystal plates, Journal of Modern Optics43, 165 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Alessandrini, L

    A. Alessandrini, L. d. M. Villari, L. Assogna, M. Silvestri, M. Venturi, C. Ferrante, P. Benassi, D. Tedeschi, and A. Marini, High-performance chiral mirrors by twisted anisotropic photonic crystals, Physical Review Applied 23, 064027 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Brumer, S

    P. Brumer, S. A. Rice, and A. R. Dinner,Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 159(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Simon and N

    R. Simon and N. Mukunda, Minimal three-component su(2) gadget for polarization optics, Physics Letters A 143, 165 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    M. H. Levitt, Composite pulses, Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy18, 61 (1986)

    1986

  52. [60]

    B. T. Torosov and N. V. Vitanov, Arbitrarily accurate variable rotations on the bloch sphere by composite pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. A99, 013402 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    M. J. Padgett and J. Courtial, Poincar´ e-sphere equivalent for light beams containing orbital angular momentum, Optics Letters24, 430 (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    M. R. Dennis and M. A. Alonso, Swings and round- abouts: optical poincar´ e spheres for polarization and gaussian beams, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences375, 20150441 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Y. Shen, Z. Wang, X. Fu, D. Naidoo, and A. Forbes, Su(2) poincar´ e sphere: A generalized representation for multidimensional structured light, Phys. Rev. A102, 031501 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Marco, M

    D. Marco, M. D. M. S´ anchez-L´ opez, C. Hern´ andez- Garc ´ ıa, and I. Moreno, Extending the degree of polar- ization concept to higher-order and orbital angular mo- mentum poincar´ e spheres, Journal of Optics24, 124003 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Bansal and P

    S. Bansal and P. Senthilkumaran, Gadget to re- alize arbitrary polarization transformation on a higher order poincar´ e sphere (2025), arXiv:2508.19871 [physics.optics]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. Umar, S. Bansal, and P. Senthilkumaran, Effective su(2) gadget: holonomic walk on higher-order poincar´ e sphere (2025), arXiv:2511.07670 [physics.optics]

    2025

  59. [67]

    Beijersbergen, L

    M. Beijersbergen, L. Allen, H. van der Veen, and J. Wo- erdman, Astigmatic laser mode converters and transfer of orbital angular momentum, Optics Communications 96, 123 (1993)

    1993

  60. [68]

    E. J. Galvez, P. R. Crawford, H. I. Sztul, M. J. Pysher, P. J. Haglin, and R. E. Williams, Geometric phase associ- ated with mode transformations of optical beams bearing orbital angular momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 203901 (2003)

    2003

  61. [69]

    Volyar and M

    A. Volyar and M. Bretsko, Mapping structured la- guerre–gaussian beam states onto the orbital poincar´ e sphere in the form of controllable spatial trajectories, Journal of the Optical Society of America A41, 1648 8 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    N. K. Fontaine, R. Ryf, H. Chen, D. T. Neilson, K. Kim, and J. Carpenter, Laguerre-Gaussian mode sorter, Na- ture Communications10(2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    A. C. Martinez-Becerril, S. Luo, L. Li, J. T. R. Pag´ e, L. Giner, R. A. Abrahao, and J. S. Lundeen, Reconfig- urable unitary transformations of optical beam arrays, Optics Express32, 41111 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.