Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Cascading amplifiers can create exponentially large coherence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cascaded vacuum-fed linear amplifiers can make beam coherence scale as μ^{2N} for fixed N, and as exp(4μ) in the formal limit.

desk verdict Cascaded linear amplifiers do give new coherence scalings beyond the μ^4 bound, but the stated 2γ<κ condition excludes the G≫1 regime and must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28716 v1 pith:DZSWCLGE submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Lucas A. Ostrowski , Giacomo Pantaleoni , Howard M. Wiseman , Dominic W. Berry This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Ar42.55.Ah
keywords coherencephotondegeneracycascadedlinearamplifiersphase-insensitiveamplificationGlauberHeisenberglimitforlasermulti-timescalebeamquantumoptics
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

This paper argues that the coherence of a light beam—the mean photon number in its most occupied mode—is not fundamentally capped by the fourth power of the source excitation number once one abandons the requirement that the beam resemble an ideal laser. It constructs a concrete model: N phase-insensitive linear amplifiers, each fed by the previous amplifier's output, with the first fed by vacuum. With bandwidths increasing geometrically and equal gain per stage, the output coherence equals the product of the amplifier gains, while the total stored excitation grows only as the square root of each gain, yielding coherence scaling as μ^{2N} for fixed N. If the number of amplifiers is allowed to grow as μ², the formula approaches exp(4μ). Two amplifiers already beat the standard 8μ² limit, and the paper derives modified phase-estimation bounds showing that the improvement is consistent with careful resource counting.

What carries the argument

The recursion 2π S̃_{j,β}(ω) = ∏_{k=1}^{j}(1 + L_k(ω)) − 1 for the output power spectrum, where L_k is the Lorentzian gain profile of amplifier k, gives the exact identity C_N = ∏_{j=1}^{N} G_j − 1. The optimization uses a bandwidth hierarchy ℓ_j = r^{j−1}ℓ₁ with equal gains, and the large-r regime makes the internal photon numbers additive: μ ≈ N(√G − 1)/2. Inverting this relation gives C_N ≈ (1 + 2μ/N)^{2N}. The multi-timescale first-order coherence, a sum of N weighted exponentials with decay rates ℓ_j, is what decouples coherence growth from phase-estimation error, allowing the large C_N without a proportional increase in stored excitation.

What would settle it

Measure, for a two-amplifier cascade with G₁ = G₂ = 10 and bandwidth ratio r = 100, the total intracavity photon number (μ ≈ 2.35) and the coherence C₂; the paper predicts C₂/C_las ≈ 3.16, so a result near 1 would falsify the mechanism. Alternatively, search the parameter space for any physical point satisfying 2γ < κ together with G ≫ 1; because 2γ < κ caps G at 9, the large-gain regime cannot be reached within the stated assumptions, confining the claimed scaling to a formal limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that coherence C—defined as the integrated first-order Glauber coherence weighted by flux—can exceed the μ⁴ 'Heisenberg limit' that applies to ideal-laser beams, and in fact can grow as an arbitrarily high power of μ, if the beam's Glauber statistics are allowed to be non-ideal. For N cascaded phase-insensitive linear amplifiers with equal gain G and bandwidths in geometric progression, the steady-state output has C_N = G^N − 1 while the total stored excitation satisfies μ ≈ N(√G − 1)/2, giving C_N ∼ (1 + 2μ/N)^{2N}. Fixed N yields C_N ∼ μ^{2N}/(N/2)^{2N}; if N grows like μ², C_N ∼ exp(4μ). The paper also derives a modified lower bound on μ from phase estimation with the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each amplifier can be treated as an ideal phase-insensitive linear amplifier with gain G that is large while the bandwidth ratio r remains much larger than G; the formal exp(4μ) result additionally assumes N ≫ μ², which forces the slowest cavity linewidth to be exponentially small—something the paper itself admits is not physically attainable, and the stated subthreshold condition 2γ < κ would in fact cap G at 9.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two amplifiers suffice: for any bandwidth ratio r > 1 there is a threshold μ > 2/(r−1) above which the cascade beats a single amplifier at equal stored photons.
  • For fixed N ≥ 2, the coherence exponent in μ is 2N, which exceeds the μ⁴ bound once N > 2; even N = 2 reaches μ⁴.
  • Allowing N to scale as μ² gives a formal exp(4μ) coherence, at the price of a linewidth hierarchy whose slowest rate is far below any physical cavity linewidth.
  • The derived phase-estimation bound, μ ≳ const · C^{1/(4N)} √(ln C), shows that the resource cost is set by the beam's many coherence timescales, not by its flux alone.
  • The output is a high-degeneracy beam with photon bunching (g⁽²⁾(0) = 2) and multiple coherence times, making it a candidate for applications that want high brightness but low laser-like coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling holds, the practical ceiling on beam coherence is set by how many distinct timescales (equivalently, effective Hilbert-space dimension) a device can support, not by its mean photon number; the paper's D⁴ conjecture is the natural completion of this idea.
  • The internal tension between the stated subthreshold condition (2γ < κ, which caps G at 9) and the large-gain asymptotic suggests the advertised μ^{2N} scaling really lives in an above-threshold or saturated regime; a saturated-gain model is the next test.
  • A saturated-gain cascade might preserve the large multi-timescale coherence while lowering intensity fluctuations toward Poissonian statistics, producing a beam that is more laser-like in g⁽²⁾ but still violates Glauber ideality in g⁽¹⁾.
  • Because coherence is defined as an integral of g⁽¹⁾, the claimed exponential behavior depends on the weighting in that definition; using a different phase-estimation window could change the effective bound, so the definitional choice deserves scrutiny.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cascade of N phase-insensitive linear amplifiers driven by vacuum as a source of light with large coherence C, defined as in Ref. [6] (photon degeneracy). For this linear Gaussian model the authors derive an exact closed form C_N = ∏_{j=1}^N G_j − 1, where G_j is the photon-number gain of each amplifier. With equal gains and a bandwidth hierarchy ℓ_j = r^{j−1}ℓ_1, they find that in the large-r regime the total mean photon number is approximately N(√G −1)/2, yielding C_N ∼ (2μ/N)^{2N} for fixed N. If N grows as μ^2 or faster, the formal limit becomes C_N ∼ exp(4μ). They also derive a modified lower bound on μ for any device emitting a beam with the cascade's multi-timescale Gaussian statistics, and they analyze the N=2 case in detail, showing that two amplifiers can reach the Heisenberg scaling C_2 ∼ μ^4 and can surpass the standard quantum limit at moderate photon numbers.

Significance. If the results are correct, they show that the μ^4 Heisenberg limit for laser coherence derived under Glauber ideality is not universal: by dropping the beam-ideality condition, a simple cascade of conventional linear amplifiers can achieve arbitrarily high powers of μ, and formally exponential coherence. The exact closed-form C_N = ∏ G_j − 1, the exact N=2 mean-photon formula (Eq. 53), and the detailed phase-estimation bound of Sec. IV/Appendix B are concrete, checkable contributions. The paper is also appropriately cautious about the impracticality of the exponential regime. However, two technical issues must be fixed: the stated subthreshold condition contradicts the large-gain parameter regimes used throughout, and the exponential scaling claim as stated requires a more careful limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (7)] The model is stated to be in the subthreshold regime 2γ_j < κ_j. With G_j = ((κ_j+γ_j)/(κ_j−γ_j))^2, this implies G_j ≤ 9. Yet the central results require G≫1: Eq. (30) defines the large-gain regime as 1≪G≪r, Sec. V.A takes √G_1 → ∞, Fig. 3 uses G=10 (γ/κ≈0.519), and Fig. 5 uses γ/κ=0.9 (G=361). Stability of Eq. (1) requires only κ_j > γ_j, so the condition appears to be a typo for γ_j < κ_j. As written, the model's own assumptions exclude the parameter regime in which the paper claims to surpass the SQL and reach the Heisenberg and exponential scalings. Please correct the condition and verify that all stated regimes satisfy it.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (32)] The exponential claim ℭ_N ∼ e^{4μ} is derived from Eq. (29), which rests on the large-r approximation μ ≈ N(√G−1)/2. The error in this approximation, from Eq. (A15), accumulates to O(μ/r) after summing over N. For a fixed r, the absolute error grows with μ, so the asymptotic ℭ_N ∼ e^{4μ} is not justified unless r also grows with μ. The sentence after Eq. (32) stating that 'r can be considered a fixed large number' is therefore inaccurate. Please restate Eq. (32) as a double-scaling limit (e.g., μ→∞, N≫μ^2, r≫μ) or provide an explicit error bound showing the conditions under which the exponential rate is uniform.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (45)] The displayed formula for the MSE appears garbled (the placement of 𝒩, τ, and the integrals is unclear). Please typeset it properly and define all quantities.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (33)] The subscript 'N=μ/μ_j' is confusing; it would be clearer to define μ_1 = μ/N = (√G−1)/2 and write N=μ/μ_1.
  3. [Sec. II.B] The statement that free-space photons between amplifiers can be made negligible via κ_j t_j ≪ 1 is an important assumption. It should be stated more prominently in the model section rather than in a parenthetical, since it affects the resource accounting.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption would benefit from explicitly stating the parameters (e.g., γ_j/κ_j = 0.9, r=10^4, N=4) and defining the plusses and curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coherence scalings are derived algebraically from the cascade model; self-citations are benchmarks, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. From the cascaded-quantum-systems Langevin equation (Eq. 1) and input–output relation (Eq. 2), the paper solves the power-spectrum recursion (Eq. 19) to obtain the exact closed form ℭ_N = ∏_j G_j − 1 (Eq. 22) and the mean-photon-number expression (Eq. 24). The asymptotic scalings ℭ_N ∼ (2μ/N)^{2N} (Eq. 31) and ℭ_N ∼ e^{4μ} (Eq. 32) follow by substituting the geometric-bandwidth/equal-gain ansatz (Eqs. 25–26) into these exact formulas and inverting μ(G). These are algebraic consequences of the model, not fitted parameters masquerading as predictions. The Sec. IV bound is a consistency check constructed from the model's own multi-timescale g^(1) and g^(2); it is not used as an input to the main scaling, and it is explicitly weaker than the model's actual scaling, so it is not a renaming of the result. Citations to the authors' earlier Ref. [6] supply an externally published benchmark and phase-estimation method; they are not used to force the present model's behavior. The physical concerns flagged in the manuscript—the subthreshold condition 2γ<κ in Sec. II.A versus the large-gain regimes used later, and the unphysically small ℓ_1 for the exp(4μ) limit—are correctness and feasibility issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several adopted model assumptions: linear Gaussian amplifiers, unidirectional cascading, a specific resource accounting, and an unrestricted hierarchy of linewidths. The optimized gains and bandwidth ratios are free model parameters, not externally fixed values. No genuinely new physical entity is postulated for the main result.

free parameters (3)
  • per-stage intensity gain G = G=(1+2μ/N)^2 in the large-μ analysis; G≈4.643 in the N=3 illustration
    All stages are assigned the same gain G to maximize C for a given μ. The central scalings C∼μ^{2N} and exp(4μ) depend on this symmetric, optimized choice.
  • bandwidth ratio r=ℓ_j/ℓ_{j-1} = r≫G for asymptotic results; r≈2155 for the N=3 illustration
    The hierarchy ℓ_j=r^{j−1}ℓ_1 is chosen by hand. The results are independent of r in the r≫G limit, but the existence and largeness of r are required for the mean-photon-number formula μ≈N(√G−1)/2.
  • number of stages N = N fixed for polynomial scaling; N∼μ^2 for exponential scaling
    The exponent 2N in the coherence scaling is set by N. Letting N depend on μ is the step that gives exp(4μ), and it is also the step that makes linewidths unphysically small.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The cascade is unidirectional and obeys cascaded-quantum-systems input-output relations (Eqs. (1), (2)).
    Standard quantum-optics formalism [18,19]; assumed without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Amplifiers operate in the linear, unsaturated gain regime, with Gaussian quantum noise and no pump depletion or saturation.
    Used in the Langevin equations (1), (4) and in Wick factorisation (40). The paper explicitly excludes nonlinear gain, saturation, and technical noise.
  • domain assumption The resource is μ=Σ_j⟨a_j†a_j⟩, with photons propagating between amplifiers counted as negligible.
    Assumed in Sec. II.B via κ_j t_j≪1. This accounting is what makes the claimed scaling resource-efficient.
  • ad hoc to paper For the exponential result, the first-stage linewidth ℓ_1 may be made arbitrarily small and bandwidth ratios r^{N−1} arbitrarily large.
    The paper itself notes this is unphysical (Sec. III); without this freedom the exp(4μ) scaling is not attainable.
  • domain assumption The lower-bound derivation in Appendix B uses a heterodyne measurement model and a heuristic linearisation.
    The appendix is explicitly titled 'heuristic derivation'; Eqs. (49)–(50) are therefore not established at the same level of rigour as the forward model.
  • standard math The phase-estimation uncertainty bound for a state with mean photon number μ scales as μ^{-2} (Refs. [24,25]).
    Imported from prior literature to convert phase-estimation error into a lower bound on μ.
invented entities (1)
  • effective Hilbert-space dimension D_eff of the device
    purpose: Conjectured universal resource for a general coherence bound C=O(D^4)
    Introduced only in the conclusion, with no falsifiable handle outside the paper; it does not enter the central derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cascading amplifiers can create exponentially large coherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZSWCLGE

@misc{pith2026260728716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cascading amplifiers can create exponentially large coherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZSWCLGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28716}
}
abstract

A standard laser beam has photon degeneracy, or coherence, $\mathfrak{C}$, of at most $8\mu^2$, where $\mu$ is the number of photons in the laser itself. Even quantum-engineered lasers, if required to produce a beam with the standard statistical properties, have limited coherence, scaling as $\mu^4$. Moreover, such lasers (still unrealised) require very unconventional gain and output-coupling mechanisms. Here, we propose a different path to increasing $\mathfrak{C}$: cascaded linear amplifiers, with conventional couplings. By dropping the requirement on the beam's properties, this approach can, in theory, achieve $\mathfrak{C}$ scaling exponentially in $\mu$. Here $\mu$ is the total source excitation number, across all the amplifiers. Two amplifiers suffice to surpass the standard $\mu^2$ scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references

  1. [6]

    P. W. Milonni and J. H. Eberly, Laser Physics (Wiley, 2010)

    2010

  2. [1]

    the coherence ℭ, and

  3. [2]

    Passably Ideal Glauber Coherence

    the error in the phase estimate ̂ 𝜑𝑅 given in the right-hand side of Eq. ( 42). 11 In particular, the coherence depends on 𝑔(1) 𝑁 and the error in the phase measurement depends on 𝑔(2) 𝑁 , so changing the Glauber coherence from that for an ideal laser may change both. Note that these quantities depend entirely on the properties of the output beam, and it ...

  4. [3]

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

    1963

  5. [4]

    Mandel, Photon degeneracy in light from optical maser and other sources, Journal of the Optical Society of America 51, 797 (1961)

    L. Mandel, Photon degeneracy in light from optical maser and other sources, Journal of the Optical Society of America 51, 797 (1961)

    1961

  6. [5]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    H. M. Wiseman, How many principles does it take to change a light bulb…into a laser?, Physica Scripta 91, 033001 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, D. W. Berry, and H. M. Wiseman, The Heisenberg limit for laser coherence, Nature Physics 17, 179 (2021)

    2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    W. H. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (Wiley, 1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    Sargent, M

    M. Sargent, M. O. Scully, and W. E. Lamb, Laser Physics (Addison-Wesley, 1974)

    1974

  3. [11]

    C. Liu, M. Mucci, X. Cao, M. V. G. Dutt, M. Hatridge, and D. Pekker, Proposal for a continuous wave laser with linewidth well below the standard quantum limit, Nature Communications 12, 5260 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    L. A. Ostrowski, T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, and H. M. Wiseman, No tradeoff between coherence and sub-Poissonianity for Heisenberg-limited lasers, Physical Review Letters 130, 183602 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions, Physical Review Letters 77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    Ritsch, M

    H. Ritsch, M. A. M. Marte, and P. Zoller, Quantum noise reduction in Raman lasers, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 19, 7 (1992)

    1992

  7. [15]

    M. I. Kolobov, L. Davidovich, E. Giacobino, and C. Fabre, Role of pumping statistics and dynamics of atomic polarization in quantum fluctuations of laser sources, Physical Review A 47, 1431 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    M. P. van Exter, S. J. M. Kuppens, and J. P. Woerdman, Theory for the linewidth of a bad-cavity laser, Physical Review A 51, 809 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    H. A. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Quantum noise and its evasion in feedback oscillators, Nature Communications 14, 7083 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    C. D. Nabors, A. D. Farinas, T. Day, S. T. Yang, E. K. Gustafson, and R. L. Byer, Injection locking of a 13-W cw Nd:YAG ring laser, Optics Letters 14, 1189 (1989)

    1989

  11. [19]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise (Springer Science and Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    C. W. Gardiner, Driving a quantum system with the output field from another driven quantum system, Physical Review Letters 70, 2269 (1993)

    1993

  13. [21]

    H. J. Carmichael, Quantum trajectory theory for cascaded open systems, Physical Review Letters 70, 2273 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation, Physical Review A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  15. [23]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers, Physical Review D 26, 1817 (1982)

    1982

  17. [25]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Bandilla, H

    A. Bandilla, H. Paul, and H. H. Ritze, Realistic quantum states of light with minimum phase uncertainty, Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B 3, 267 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    D. W. Berry, M. J. W. Hall, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, Optimal Heisenberg-style bounds for the average performance of arbitrary phase estimates, Physical Review A 86, 053813 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    L. A. Ostrowski, T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, and H. M. Wiseman, Optimized laser models with Heisenberg-limited coherence and sub-Poissonian beam photon statistics, Physical Review A 107, 053702 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    C. M. Caves, J. Combes, Z. Jiang, and S. Pandey, Quantum limits on phase-preserving linear amplifiers, Physical Review A 86, 063802 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    R. Tang, P. L. Voss, J. Lasri, P. Devgan, and P. Kumar, Noise-figure limit of fiber-optical parametric amplifiers and wavelength converters: experimental investigation, Optics Letters 29, 2372 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    U. L. Andersen and G. Leuchs, Optical amplification at the quantum limit, Journal of Modern Optics 54, 2351 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Bergeal, F

    N. Bergeal, F. Schackert, M. Metcalfe, R. Vijay, V. E. Manucharyan, L. Frunzio, D. E. Prober, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Phase-preserving amplification near the quantum limit with a Josephson ring modulator, Nature 465, 64 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    N. Roch, E. Flurin, F. Nguyen, P. Morfin, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, M. H. Devoret, and B. Huard, Widely tunable, non- degenerate three-wave mixing microwave device operating near the quantum limit, Physical Review Letters 108, 147701 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    M. Xu, R. Cheng, Y. Wu, G. Liu, and H. X. Tang, Magnetic field-resilient quantum-limited parametric amplifier, PRX Quantum 4, 010322 (2023) . 19

    2023

  27. [35]

    Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Microwave Magazine 21, 45 (2020)

    J. Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Microwave Magazine 21, 45 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    H. M. Wiseman, Light amplification without stimulated emission: Beyond the standard quantum limit to the laser linewidth, Physical Review A 60, 4083 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    H. Lu, O. Alkhazragi, Y. Wang, N. Almaymoni, W. Yan, W. H. Gunawan, H. Lin, T.-Y. Park, T. K. Ng, and B. S. Ooi, Low-coherence semiconductor light sources: devices and applications, npj Nanophotonics 1, 9 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Redding, M

    B. Redding, M. A. Choma, and H. Cao, Speckle-free laser imaging using random laser illumination, Nature Photonics 6, 355 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Deng and D

    Y. Deng and D. Chu, Coherence properties of different light sources and their effect on the image sharpness and speckle of holographic displays, Scientific Reports 7, 5893 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    A. G. Podoleanu, Optical coherence tomography, Journal of Microscopy 247, 209 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    C. Shen, C. Lee, T. K. Ng, S. Nakamura, J. S. Speck, S. P. DenBaars, A. Y. Alyamani, M. M. El-Desouki, and B. S. Ooi, High-speed 405-nm superluminescent diode (SLD) with 807-MHz modulation bandwidth, Optics Express 24, 20281 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    X. Li, A. B. Cohen, T. E. Murphy, and R. Roy, Scalable parallel physical random number generator based on a superlu- minescent LED, Optics Letters 36, 1020 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Silva, G

    R. Silva, G. Manzano, P. Skrzypczyk, and N. Brunner, Performance of autonomous quantum thermal machines: Hilbert space dimension as a thermodynamical resource, Physical Review E 94, 032120 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Plastino, G

    A. Plastino, G. Bellomo, and A. R. Plastino, Quantum state space dimension as a quantum resource, International Journal of Quantum Information 13, 1550039 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Brunner, S

    N. Brunner, S. Pironio, A. Acin, N. Gisin, A. A. Méthot, and V. Scarani, Testing the dimension of Hilbert spaces, Physical Review Letters 100, 210503 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Sikora, A

    J. Sikora, A. Varvitsiotis, and Z. Wei, Minimum dimension of a Hilbert space needed to generate a quantum correlation, Physical Review Letters 117, 060401 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables (Dover Publications, New York, 1965). Appendix A: Deriving the first-order Glauber coherence function and associated quantities In this appendix, we evaluat...

    1965

  40. [48]

    ( 25) and ( 26), the factors comprising the product on the right-hand side of Eq

    Asymptotic results for identical gain and timescale ratios In terms of the parametrisation given in Eqs. ( 25) and ( 26), the factors comprising the product on the right-hand side of Eq. ( A3) are 1 + (𝐺𝑘 − 1) 1 − (ℓ𝑗/ℓ𝑘)2 = 1 + 𝐺 − 1 1 − 𝑟2(𝑗−𝑘) . (A6) In the regime where 𝐺 ≪...

  41. [49]

    Mean photon number for two amplifiers We now compute the mean photon number for 𝑁 = 2 , with the general parameter set {𝐺1, ℓ1, 𝐺2, 𝑟 = ℓ 2/ℓ1}. From Eq. ( A13), we have 𝜇 = 2𝒩1 ℓ1 (√𝐺1 − 1) + 2 (𝒩2 − 𝒩1) 𝑟ℓ1 (√𝐺2 − 1) − 2. (A16) Evaluating Eq. ( A5) at 𝜏 = 0 , we get 𝒩1 = 𝐶1,...

  42. [50]

    Ideal Glauber coherence with negative exponential weighting Now we explain how the new Glauber coherence affects the derivation of the bound on the coherence given in the Supplementary Information of Ref. [ 6]. That bound is derived by considering the accuracy of phase estimat...

  43. [51]

    In this subsection we show the result using the linear approximation similar to Ref

    Bound for cascaded cavities: linear approximation Next, we derive the MSE in the case of the cascaded cavities. In this subsection we show the result using the linear approximation similar to Ref. [ 6]. For the model we consider there are intensity fluctuations, which means th...

  44. [52]

    Because ̂𝐹 , ̂𝑅, ̂𝐹 †, and ̂𝑅† all commute, they can be treated as Gaussian random variables in determining the expectation value ⟨ ̂𝑆 √ ̂𝑆† ̂𝑆 ⟩

    Bound for cascaded cavities: exact The linearised approximation no longer holds here, but it is still possible to determine the approximation of the MSE by using the Gaussian properties of the field. Because ̂𝐹 , ̂𝑅, ̂𝐹 †, and ̂𝑅† all commute, they can be treated as Gaussian r...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.