Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Phase Sensitivity of Spectrally Multimode SU(1,1) Interferometers with Waveguide based Optical Parametric Amplifier

T0 review · 3 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 This paper establishes that a spectrally multimode SU(1,1) interferometer is exactly a tensor product of independent single-mode interferometers in the Schmidt basis, and derives phase sensitivity limits for number and homodyne detection.

desk verdict Useful analytic extension of multimode SU(1,1) sensitivity to coherent-vacuum inputs; the mode-independent phase assumption is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29469 v1 pith:LQNZIG3P submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Sonu Jana , Swagatam Bag , Fabien Bretenaker , Nadia Belabas , Syamsundar De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.-p42.65.Yj42.50.Lc
keywords phasesensitivitySU(11)interferometerspectralmultimodeSchmidtdecompositionjointamplitudewaveguideOPAnumberdetectionhomodyne
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

The paper asks how the intrinsic multimode spectral structure of a waveguide-based optical parametric amplifier affects the phase sensitivity of an SU(1,1) interferometer, the nonlinear version of a Mach-Zehnder that uses parametric gain instead of beam splitters. Working in the Schmidt basis of the parametric process, and assuming two identical OPAs and a mode-independent phase shift, the authors prove that the whole interferometer factors into a tensor product of independent single-mode SU(1,1) interferometers, one per Schmidt mode. They then derive closed-form expressions for the phase sensitivity under total photon-number detection at the idler port and balanced homodyne detection at the signal port. For number detection the multimode penalty comes purely from splitting the fixed nonlinear gain among Schmidt modes; homodyne detection carries that penalty plus an extra coherence penalty from signal–local-oscillator overlap, which can be largely undone by shaping the local oscillator. A designed periodically poled lithium niobate (PPLN) waveguide with 89.7% spectral purity is used to show how the penalties grow as the state becomes more multimode.

What carries the argument

The central object is the joint spectral amplitude (JSA) F(ω_s,ω_i) of the parametric down-conversion process, which is Schmidt-decomposed into orthonormal signal and idler modes u_k(s), v_k(i) with coefficients λ_k. The interaction Hamiltonian becomes diagonal in this Schmidt basis, with per-mode squeezing parameters r_k = r λ_k. This diagonalization lets the full two-OPA evolution operator factor as a tensor product of independent single-mode SU(1,1) transformations, one per Schmidt pair, which is the step that carries the entire argument from interferometer to sensitivity formulas.

What would settle it

Measure the phase sensitivity of an SU(1,1) interferometer with two nominally identical waveguide OPAs whose pumped gain and Schmidt spectrum are characterized, at a purity well below 1, and compare with Eqs. (26) and (32). A clear discrepancy that grows with degree of multimode character, or a dependence on swapping which OPA is first, would indicate the identical-OPA/mode-independent-phase assumptions are violated; conversely, a matched result would confirm the tensor-product picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the multimode SU(1,1) interferometer, when the two OPAs have identical Schmidt-mode structures and the phase shift is independent of Schmidt mode, is exactly equivalent to N independent single-mode SU(1,1) interferometers operating in parallel, each with squeezing parameter r_k = r λ_k set by the Schmidt coefficients λ_k of the joint spectral amplitude. Under this factorization, the phase sensitivity for number detection at the idler output is (Δφ)_MM = 1/(2 sqrt(Σ_k G_k^2 g_k^2 (1+|c_k α|^2))), and for homodyne detection at the signal output it is (Δφ)_MM = 1/(2 Re[α Σ_k G_k^2 d_k^* c_k^*]), where c_k and d_k are overlaps of the coherent probe and local oscillator

Load-bearing premise

The two OPAs are assumed to have exactly the same Schmidt-mode structure and the phase shift is assumed to affect every Schmidt mode identically; if fabrication differences or dispersion make either assumption fail, the interferometer stops being a tensor product of single-mode interferometers and the simple sensitivity formulas no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any waveguide OPA whose JSA can be Schmidt-decomposed, the multimode SU(1,1) sensitivity is computable from Eqs. (26) and (32) without solving the full multimode dynamics.
  • Number detection: the best sensitivity at fixed total gain is achieved by concentrating gain in the dominant Schmidt mode and mode-matching the coherent probe to it; any multimode character strictly worsens sensitivity.
  • Homodyne detection: the performance gap relative to single-mode can be partially closed by choosing the local oscillator according to Eq. (34), which removes the coherence penalty but not the resource-fragmentation penalty.
  • Operating the two OPAs in a nearly single-mode (high-purity) regime, here purity 89.7%, keeps the degradation small; increasing pump bandwidth redistributes the same gain and monotonically degrades sensitivity.
  • The framework carries over directly to other platforms (e.g., PPKTP, fibers) once their Schmidt spectrum is known.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to relax the identical-OPA assumption: if the two Schmidt bases differ, the tensor-product structure breaks and mode-mixing terms should appear; testing whether those terms act as an effective loss would extend the present formulas to realistic fabrication-dispersion settings.
  • The fixed-<N> comparison suggests a quantum-resource interpretation: part of the apparent multimode penalty in fixed-r planning is simply a reduction in the number of available photons; designing experiments around a fixed spontaneous-photon budget isolates the actual modal-share effect and could yield a universal penalty curve as a function of purity alone.
  • Because homodyne detection’s coherence penalty enters through the overlap sum Σ G_k^2 d_k^* c_k^*, one could adaptively estimate the Schmidt spectrum by scanning the LO and measuring sensitivity, turning the interferometer itself into a Schmidt-spectrum characterisation tool.
  • The diagonalization argument is not limited to coherent-vacuum probes; any input state that factorizes in the Schmidt basis would inherit the same parallel-single-mode picture, e.g., squeezed or thermal probes, with the same two penalties reordered.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Schmidt-mode formalism for phase sensitivity of spectrally multimode SU(1,1) interferometers. It shows that under the assumptions of identical OPAs and a mode-independent phase shift, the multimode interferometer factorizes into independent single-mode interferometers in the Schmidt basis (Eqs. (8)-(11)). It derives dark-fringe phase-sensitivity formulas for number detection (Eq. (26)) and homodyne detection (Eq. (32)), including an optimal local-oscillator profile (Eq. (34)). The authors then simulate a PP-TFLN waveguide to obtain a nearly factorizable JSA, extract Schmidt coefficients, and use them to quantify sensitivity degradation under fixed- and fixed-⟨N⟩ resource constraints. The analytical derivations are internally consistent; I re-derived Eqs. (26), (32), and (34) and they check. The main limitation is the idealized mode-independent phase-shift assumption, which is not analyzed in the realistic waveguide context.

Significance. If the assumptions are met, the paper provides a clear and useful bridge between SPDC spectral engineering and SU(1,1) interferometer performance. The distinction between number detection (resource fragmentation only) and homodyne detection (additional coherence penalty) is physically insightful and supported by the formulas. The derivations are self-contained, the noise analysis is standard, and the optimal-LO result is explicit and testable. The numerical waveguide design and the purity/sensitivity curves give concrete quantitative guidance. However, the advertised realism of the setup is only partial: the central equivalence and the closed-form sensitivities require a phase shift that is exactly diagonal in the Schmidt basis, a condition that is not automatically satisfied in a dispersive waveguide. The paper acknowledges the assumption but does not quantify its validity or explore compensations, which is the main risk to the 'realistic interferometer' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (10)] The factorization Ŝ2 P̂ Ŝ1 = ⊗_k (Ŝ2,k P̂_k Ŝ1,k) requires P̂ to be diagonal in the Schmidt basis. The manuscript assumes a mode-independent phase shift before Eq. (8), but a physical phase shift in a waveguide signal arm is φ(ω)=β(ω)L, which is generally not diagonal in the Schmidt basis of the OPA. If P̂ has off-diagonal elements, Eq. (10) fails and the independent-Schmidt-mode picture, together with Eqs. (26) and (32), no longer applies. The paper does not quantify the signal-arm dispersion or path length over which the phase can be treated as mode-independent, nor does it discuss dispersion compensation or an alternative realization. Please add a quantitative analysis (e.g., matrix elements of exp[iβ(ω)L] in the simulated Schmidt basis) or explicitly restrict the claims to the idealized setting.
  2. [Sec. 4, Figs. 4-8] The numerical JSA simulation is insufficiently documented for reproducibility. The text reports Lumerical eigenmode simulations, a Gaussian pump spectrum, and a phase-matching spectrum, but it does not provide the explicit JSA integral, the material dispersion model, the poling duty cycle, the numerical grid, or convergence criteria. Without these details, the Schmidt coefficients, the 89.7% purity, and the sensitivity curves in Figs. 4-8 cannot be audited or reproduced. This is a load-bearing part of the 'realistic waveguide' claim. Please provide the full simulation parameter set and convergence checks.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, identical-OPA assumption] The factorization Eq. (10) requires not only identical mode-dependent gains but exactly the same Schmidt basis and Schmidt coefficients in both OPAs. Fabrication tolerances, temperature gradients, or different operating points will cause a mismatch. The paper states this as an assumption but does not assess how sensitive the predictions are to small mismatches. Since the paper is aimed at practical PP-TFLN implementations, a first-order perturbation estimate of the effect of OPA mismatch on Eqs. (26) and (32), or at least an explicit discussion of expected tolerances, would substantially strengthen the practical relevance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The paragraph beginning 'In the following, to quantify the impact of this residual multimode structure...' is duplicated verbatim. Please remove the duplicate.
  2. [References] Ref. [39] is used as the benchmark for the single-mode homodyne sensitivity, but it appears to be an unpublished or preprint item by the same group. Please provide a full citation or include an independent derivation in the text so that Eq. (33) is self-contained.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The high-gain case r=2 (G=3.76) is presented without an explicit statement that the undepleted-pump approximation is assumed. Since the Schmidt decomposition of the low-gain JSA is used to characterize the high-gain OPA, a sentence justifying this approximation and citing the relevant high-gain literature would be helpful.
  4. [General presentation] There are several formatting glitches (e.g., 'At the same time,e' in Sec. 2.1, the placeholder 'Journal Name' in the header). These should be corrected in the production version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the factorization and sensitivity formulas are derived from the stated Hamiltonian and assumptions; the only self-citation (Ref. [39] single-mode benchmark) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: (i) the JSA Schmidt decomposition in Eq. (2) and the operator expansion in Eqs. (4)-(6) diagonalize the OPA Hamiltonian by orthogonality of the Schmidt modes; (ii) the factorization of the multimode SU(1,1) evolution in Eq. (10) is a direct consequence of the explicitly stated assumptions of identical OPAs and a Schmidt-mode-independent phase shift, not of the equivalence result it is used to establish; (iii) the input coherent-state factorization in Eq. (16) follows from the mode expansion in Eqs. (13)-(15); (iv) the number-detection and homodyne sensitivities, Eqs. (26) and (32), follow by applying error propagation, Eq. (20), to the mode-resolved Bogoliubov transformations in Eqs. (18)-(19). No parameter is fitted to a target quantity and then renamed a prediction: the numerically simulated Schmidt coefficients are used as inputs to analytically derived formulas, which is a legitimate application rather than circular reasoning. The single-mode homodyne benchmark in Eq. (33) is attributed to the authors' own Ref. [39], but the same expression is contained in the paper's own Eq. (32) with k=1 and c_1=d_1=1 (and in Eq. (31)), so that self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed as a new framework. The mode-independent-phase and identical-OPA assumptions are explicitly stated as assumptions; whether they are realistic for a dispersive waveguide is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, the central claim has independent derivational content, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analytical claim rests on standard Schmidt decomposition plus two strong idealizations (identical OPAs and mode-independent phase). The numerical section adds hand-chosen operating parameters (r=2, pump bandwidth scan) and a simulation-to-model pipeline. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Single-mode squeezing parameter r = r=2 (G=3.76)
    Chosen operating point for the numerical sensitivity curves; not determined by the model or by experiment.
  • Pump spectral bandwidth (FWHM) = 1-10 nm, nominal 2 nm
    Scanned to vary the Schmidt-mode distribution and thereby the multimode penalty.
  • Coherent probe spectral coefficients c_k = [c_k]=[lambda_k] or [c_k=1]=1
    Two ad hoc input spectral shapes used to illustrate sensitivity mitigation by probe shaping.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The JSA Schmidt decomposition diagonalizes the PDC Hamiltonian with mode squeezing parameters r_k = r lambda_k.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(6). This is standard for undepleted PDC but is assumed without further justification.
  • domain assumption The two OPAs are identical, sharing the same Schmidt basis and mode-dependent parameters.
    Stated in Section 2.1 before Eq. (8); required for the factorization into independent single-mode interferometers.
  • domain assumption The interferometric phase shift is independent of the Schmidt mode.
    Stated in Section 2.1; required for the phase operator to factor as a tensor product in the Schmidt basis.
  • standard math Dark-fringe expansion: at phi=pi+epsilon, mean and variance are computed to leading order in epsilon, and the homodyne variance is taken as 1.
    Used throughout Section 3; standard error-propagation at the dark fringe, but higher-order corrections are not discussed.
  • domain assumption Low-gain Schmidt coefficients remain valid at high gain (r=2), i.e., no pump depletion or JSA distortion.
    Implicit in Section 4.3, where Schmidt coefficients from the simulated JSA are used at r=2 without a self-consistent high-gain calculation.
  • domain assumption The Lumerical eigenmode and phase-matching simulation accurately models the PDC process.
    The numerical JSA in Section 4 is the empirical input to the sensitivity analysis; no experimental validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Sensitivity of Spectrally Multimode SU(1,1) Interferometers with Waveguide based Optical Parametric Amplifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQNZIG3P

@misc{pith2026260729469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Sensitivity of Spectrally Multimode SU(1,1) Interferometers with Waveguide based Optical Parametric Amplifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQNZIG3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29469}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive framework for evaluating the phase sensitivity of spectrally multimode SU(1,1) interferometers probed with a coherent-vacuum input, under both number and homodyne detections. The optical parametric amplifiers (OPAs) are simulated using a periodically polled thin-film lithium niobate waveguide. The theoretical model incorporates the intrinsic multimode spectral nature of waveguide-based OPAs. Under the assumptions of identical OPAs and Schmidt-mode-independent phase shifts, we have shown that the multimode SU(1,1) interferometer is equivalent to a collection of independent single-mode interferometers in the Schmidt basis that operate in parallel, each associated with a Schmidt mode of the parametric process. We further present an optimized waveguide design based on asymmetric group-velocity matching to realize a practical OPA with nearly factorizable joint spectral amplitude (JSA). The Schmidt coefficients extracted from the numerically simulated JSA are incorporated into the theoretical model to evaluate the phase sensitivity. The results show that the sensitivity under a multimode condition depends strongly on the measurement scheme. For number detection, the degradation in sensitivity arises from the redistribution of the available nonlinear resource among the Schmidt modes, whereas homodyne detection exhibits an additional coherence penalty that can be substantially reduced by optimally shaping the local oscillator. Moreover, we show that the performance degradation can be to a large extent mitigated by optimizing the spectrum of the injected signal coherent state and, in the case of homodyne detection, the spectrum of the local oscillator. Altogether, this work provides a unified theoretical and numerical framework for analyzing and optimizing realistic multimode SU(1,1) interferometers with waveguide-based OPAs for quantum-enhanced sensing applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references

  1. [1]

    High-sensitivity ultra- soundinterferometricsingle-modepolymeropticalfibersensors for biomedical applications

    Daniel Gallego, and Horacio Lamela. “High-sensitivity ultra- soundinterferometricsingle-modepolymeropticalfibersensors for biomedical applications.”Optics Letters34, no. 12 (2009): 1807

    2009

  2. [2]

    Fiber-Optic Interferometry-Based Heart Rate Monitor- ing

    Rene Jaros, Jan Nedoma, Stanislav Kepak,, and Radek Mar- tinek. “Fiber-Optic Interferometry-Based Heart Rate Monitor- ing.”IEEETransactionsonInstrumentationandMeasurement71 (2022):1–15

    2022

  3. [3]

    Label-FreeBiochemicalSensingUsingProcessedOpticalFiber Interferometry:AReview

    Rajan Jha, Pintu Gorai, Anand Shrivastav,, and Anand Pathak. “Label-FreeBiochemicalSensingUsingProcessedOpticalFiber Interferometry:AReview.”.ACSOmega

  4. [4]

    Miniaturization of Interferometric Optical Gy- roscopes: A Review

    FrancescoDellOlio,TeresaNatale,Yen-ChiehWang,,andYung- Jr Hung. “Miniaturization of Interferometric Optical Gy- roscopes: A Review.”IEEE Sensors Journal23, no. 24 (2023): 29948–29968. 11of14

    2023

  5. [5]

    Advanced Interferometric Fiber Optic Gy- roscope for Inertial Sensing: A Review

    Ningfang Song, Xiaobin Xu, Zuchen Zhang, Fuyu Gao,, and Xiaowei Wang. “Advanced Interferometric Fiber Optic Gy- roscope for Inertial Sensing: A Review.”Journal of Lightwave Technology41,no.13(2023):4023–4034

    2023

  6. [6]

    Quantum interferometricmetrologywithentangledphotons

    Yuanyuan Chen, Ling Hong,, and Lixiang Chen. “Quantum interferometricmetrologywithentangledphotons.”Frontiersin Physics10

  7. [7]

    Miniaturizationofopticalspectrometers

    Zongyin Yang, Tom Albrow-Owen, Weiwei Cai,, and Tawfique Hasan. “Miniaturizationofopticalspectrometers.”Science371, no.6528

  8. [8]

    ObservationofGravitationalWavesfromaBinary Black Hole Merger

    Abbottetal. “ObservationofGravitationalWavesfromaBinary Black Hole Merger.”Physical Review Letters116, no. 6 (2016): 061102

    2016

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    KAGRA: 2.5 generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    Tomotada Akutsu, and KAGRA Collaboration. “KAGRA: 2.5 generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.”Nature Astronomy3,no.1(2019):35–40

    2019

  2. [10]

    Areviewofselectedtopicsininterferometric opticalmetrology

    PeterJdeGroot. “Areviewofselectedtopicsininterferometric opticalmetrology.”ReportsonProgressinPhysics82,no.5(2019): 056101

    2019

  3. [11]

    A review of interfer- ometry for geometric measurement

    Shuming Yang, and Guofeng Zhang. “A review of interfer- ometry for geometric measurement.”Measurement Science and Technology29,no.10(2018):102001

    2018

  4. [12]

    Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer

    Carlton M. Caves. “Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer.”PhysicalReviewD23,no.8(1981):1693–1708

    1981

  5. [13]

    Fundamental preci- sion limit of a Mach-Zehnder interferometric sensor when one of the inputs is the vacuum

    Masahiro Takeoka, Kaushik P. Seshadreesan, Chenglong You, Shuro Izumi,, and Jonathan P. Dowling. “Fundamental preci- sion limit of a Mach-Zehnder interferometric sensor when one of the inputs is the vacuum.”PhysicalReviewA96, no. 5 (2017): 052118

    2017

  6. [14]

    Quan- tumSensingwithSqueezedLight

    B.J.Lawrie,P.D.Lett,A.M.Marino,,andR.C.Pooser. “Quan- tumSensingwithSqueezedLight.”ACSPhotonics6,no.6(2019): 1307–1318

    2019

  7. [15]

    Enhancedinterferometryusingsqueezedthermalstates and even or odd states

    Qing-Shou Tan, Jie-Qiao Liao, Xiaoguang Wang,, and Franco Nori. “Enhancedinterferometryusingsqueezedthermalstates and even or odd states.”Physical Review A89, no. 5 (2014): 053822

    2014

  8. [16]

    Quantum-enhancedinterferometry with cavity QED-generated non-classical light

    Karol Gietka, Tomasz Wasak, Jan Chwedeńczuk, Francesco Pi- azza,,andHelmutRitsch. “Quantum-enhancedinterferometry with cavity QED-generated non-classical light.”The European PhysicalJournalD71,no.11

  9. [17]

    SU(2)-in-SU(1,1) Nested Interferometer for High Sensitivity, Loss-Tolerant Quantum Metrology

    Wei Du, Jia Kong, Guzhi Bao, Peiyu Yang, Jun Jia, Sheng Ming, Chun-HuaYuan,J.F.Chen,Z.Y.Ou,MorganW.Mitchell,,and Weiping Zhang. “SU(2)-in-SU(1,1) Nested Interferometer for High Sensitivity, Loss-Tolerant Quantum Metrology.”Physical ReviewLetters128,no.3(2022):033601

    2022

  10. [18]

    Enhancedphasesensitivity inaMach-Zehnderinterferometerviaphotonrecycling

    Dong Li, Chun-Hua Yuan, Xiaoping Ma, Qingle Wang, Hwang Lee,YaoYao,,andWeipingZhang. “Enhancedphasesensitivity inaMach-Zehnderinterferometerviaphotonrecycling.”Optics Express31,no.4(2023):6499

    2023

  11. [19]

    Enhancementofthephase sensitivity with two-mode squeezed coherent state based on a Mach-Zehnderinterferometer

    JunLiu,TaoShao,YuanxiangWang,MingmingZhang,Youyou Hu,DongxuChen,,andDongWei. “Enhancementofthephase sensitivity with two-mode squeezed coherent state based on a Mach-Zehnderinterferometer.”OpticsExpress31,no.17(2023): 27735

    2023

  12. [20]

    Squeezingenhanced SagnacsensingbasedonSU(1,1)quantuminterference

    MichalNatan,SaarLevin,,andAviPeer. “Squeezingenhanced SagnacsensingbasedonSU(1,1)quantuminterference.”Optica Quantum4,no.3(2026):311

    2026

  13. [21]

    Pumped-Up SU(1,1) Interferometry

    Stuart S. Szigeti, Robert J. Lewis-Swan,, and Simon A. Haine. “Pumped-Up SU(1,1) Interferometry.”Physical Review Let- ters118,no.15(2017):150401

    2017

  14. [22]

    SU(2) andSU(1,1)interferometers

    BernardYurke,SamuelL.McCall,,andJohnR.Klauder. “SU(2) andSU(1,1)interferometers.”PhysicalReviewA33,no.6(1986): 4033–4054

    1986

  15. [23]

    Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferome- try

    William N Plick, Jonathan P Dowling,, and Girish S Agarwal. “Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferome- try.”NewJournalofPhysics12,no.8(2010):083014

    2010

  16. [24]

    Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basicprinciplesandapplications

    Z. Y. Ou, and Xiaoying Li. “Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basicprinciplesandapplications.”APLPhotonics5,no.8

  17. [25]

    Sensitivity of Quantum- EnhancedInterferometers

    Dariya Salykina, and Farid Khalili. “Sensitivity of Quantum- EnhancedInterferometers.”Symmetry15,no.3(2023):774

    2023

  18. [26]

    Phasesensitivityofgain-unbalanced nonlinear interferometers

    Enno Giese, Samuel Lemieux, Mathieu Manceau, Robert Fick- ler,,andRobertW.Boyd. “Phasesensitivityofgain-unbalanced nonlinear interferometers.”Physical Review A96, no. 5 (2017): 053863

    2017

  19. [27]

    Enhanced phase sensitivity of an SU(1,1) interferometer with displacedsqueezedvacuumlight

    Xiao-Yu Hu, Chao-Ping Wei, Ya-Fei Yu,, and Zhi-Ming Zhang. “Enhanced phase sensitivity of an SU(1,1) interferometer with displacedsqueezedvacuumlight.”FrontiersofPhysics11,no.3

  20. [28]

    The phasesensitivityofanSU(1,1)interferometerwithcoherentand squeezed-vacuumlight

    Dong Li, Chun-Hua Yuan, Z Y Ou,, and Weiping Zhang. “The phasesensitivityofanSU(1,1)interferometerwithcoherentand squeezed-vacuumlight.”NewJournalofPhysics16,no.7(2014): 073020

    2014

  21. [29]

    Phase estimation of an SU(1,1) interferometer with a coherent superposition squeezed vacuum in a realistic case

    Youke Xu, Shoukang Chang, Cunjin Liu, Liyun Hu,, and San- qiu Liu. “Phase estimation of an SU(1,1) interferometer with a coherent superposition squeezed vacuum in a realistic case.” OpticsExpress30,no.21(2022):38178

    2022

  22. [30]

    Tolerance-enhanced SU(1,1)interferometersusingasymmetricgain

    Jian-Dong Zhang, and Shuai Wang. “Tolerance-enhanced SU(1,1)interferometersusingasymmetricgain.”ChinesePhysics B32,no.1(2023):010306

    2023

  23. [31]

    Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier- based photon correlation interferometers

    F.Hudelist,JiaKong,CunjinLiu,JietaiJing,Z.Y.Ou,,andWeip- ing Zhang. “Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier- based photon correlation interferometers.”Nature Communica- tions5,no.1

  24. [32]

    Wide-field SU(1,1) interferometer

    G. Frascella, E. E. Mikhailov, N. Takanashi, R. V. Zakharov, O. V. Tikhonova,, and M. V. Chekhova. “Wide-field SU(1,1) interferometer.”Optica6,no.9(2019):1233

    2019

  25. [33]

    Engineering quantum states by fiber-based SU(1,1)nonlinearinterferometers

    Xiaoying Li 2021. “Engineering quantum states by fiber-based SU(1,1)nonlinearinterferometers.”InConferenceonLasersand Electro-Optics,CLEO_SI,STh2G.2. OpticaPublishingGroup

    2021

  26. [34]

    Optimum quantum resource distribution for phasemeasurementandquantuminformationtappinginadual- beam SU(1,1) interferometer

    Yuhong Liu, Nan Huo, Jiamin Li, Liang Cui, Xiaoying Li,, and Zheyu Jeff Ou. “Optimum quantum resource distribution for phasemeasurementandquantuminformationtappinginadual- beam SU(1,1) interferometer.”Optics Express27, no. 8 (2019): 11292

    2019

  27. [35]

    A Broadband All-Fiber SU(1,1) Interferometer

    Joseph M. Lukens, Raphael C. Pooser,, and Nicholas A. Pe- ters. 2018. “A Broadband All-Fiber SU(1,1) Interferometer.” In ConferenceonLasersandElectro-Optics,CLEO_QELS,FTh4G.3. OSA

    2018

  28. [36]

    Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyondthestandardquantumlimitbyanonlinearinterferome- ter

    Z. Y. Ou. “Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyondthestandardquantumlimitbyanonlinearinterferome- ter.”PhysicalReviewA85,no.2(2012):023815

    2012

  29. [37]

    Effectoflosses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer

    A.M.Marino,N.V.CorzoTrejo,,andP.D.Lett. “Effectoflosses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer.”Physical Re- viewA86,no.2(2012):023844

    2012

  30. [38]

    Detection Loss Tolerant Supersensitive Phase Measurement with an SU(1,1) Interferometer

    Mathieu Manceau, Gerd Leuchs, Farid Khalili,, and Maria Chekhova. “Detection Loss Tolerant Supersensitive Phase Measurement with an SU(1,1) Interferometer.”Physical Review Letters119,no.22(2017):223604

    2017

  31. [39]

    SensitivityEvaluation ofSU(1,1)InterferometerswithArbitraryInputProbeStateand HomodyneDetections

    SonuJana,DhruvBaheti,PaulGrossiord,FabienBretenaker,Na- diaBelabas,,andSyamsundarDe.2026. “SensitivityEvaluation ofSU(1,1)InterferometerswithArbitraryInputProbeStateand HomodyneDetections.”

    2026

  32. [40]

    Absolute sensitivity of phase measurement in an SU(1,1) type interferometer

    Wei Du, Jun Jia, J. F. Chen, Z. Y. Ou,, and Weiping Zhang. “Absolute sensitivity of phase measurement in an SU(1,1) type interferometer.”OpticsLetters43,no.5(2018):1051

    2018

  33. [41]

    High-gain optical parametric amplification with a continuous-wave pump using a domain-engineered thin-film lithiumniobatewaveguide

    Mengwen Chen, Chenyu Wang, Kunpeng Jia, Xiao-Hui Tian, JieTang,ChunxiZhu,XiaowenGu,ZexingZhao,ZikangWang, Zhilin Ye, Ji Tang, Yong Zhang, Zhong Yan, Xuewen Wang, Guang Qian, Biaobing Jin, Zhenlin Wang, Shi-Ning Zhu,, and Zhenda Xie. “High-gain optical parametric amplification ...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Intenseopticalparametricampli- ficationindispersion-engineerednanophotoniclithiumniobate waveguides

    LuisLedezma,RyotoSekine,QiushiGuo,RajveerNehra,Saman Jahani,,andAlirezaMarandi. “Intenseopticalparametricampli- ficationindispersion-engineerednanophotoniclithiumniobate waveguides.”Optica9,no.3(2022):303

    2022

  35. [43]

    Efficient optical parametric amplification in the thin 12of14 JournalName,Year filmlithiumniobatewaveguides

    Yuanqiang Peng, Shunxing Yang, RuiHuan Wu,, and Weiyi Hong. “Efficient optical parametric amplification in the thin 12of14 JournalName,Year filmlithiumniobatewaveguides.”ScientificReports15,no.1

  36. [44]

    Spectrally multimode integrated SU(1,1) interfer- ometer

    AlessandroFerreri,MatteoSantandrea,MichaelStefszky,KaiH. Luo, Harald Herrmann, Christine Silberhorn,, and Polina R. Sharapova. “Spectrally multimode integrated SU(1,1) interfer- ometer.”Quantum5(2021):461

    2021

  37. [45]

    Advances in on-chipphotonicdevicesbasedonlithiumniobateoninsulator

    Jintian Lin, Fang Bo, Ya Cheng,, and Jingjun Xu. “Advances in on-chipphotonicdevicesbasedonlithiumniobateoninsulator.” PhotonicsResearch8,no.12(2020):1910

    2020

  38. [46]

    Integrated lithium niobate photonics

    Yifan Qi, and Yang Li. “Integrated lithium niobate photonics.” Nanophotonics9,no.6(2020):1287–1320

    2020

  39. [47]

    Integrated quantum optical phase sensor in thin film lithium niobate

    Hubert S. Stokowski, Timothy P. McKenna, Taewon Park, Alexander Y. Hwang, Devin J. Dean, Oguz Tolga Celik, Vahid Ansari,MartinM.Fejer,,andAmirH.Safavi-Naeini. “Integrated quantum optical phase sensor in thin film lithium niobate.” NatureCommunications14,no.1

  40. [48]

    Integrated pho- tonics on thin-film lithium niobate

    Di Zhu, Linbo Shao, Mengjie Yu, Rebecca Cheng, Boris Desi- atov, C. J. Xin, Yaowen Hu, Jeffrey Holzgrafe, Soumya Ghosh, Amirhassan Shams-Ansari, Eric Puma, Neil Sinclair, Christian Reimer, Mian Zhang,, and Marko Lončar. “Integrated pho- tonics on thin-film lithium niobate.”Adv...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Modelling parametric down- conversion yielding spectrally pure photon pairs

    Fabian Laudenbach, Hannes Hübel, Michael Hentschel, Philip Walther,, and Andreas Poppe. “Modelling parametric down- conversion yielding spectrally pure photon pairs.”Optics Ex- press24,no.3(2016):2712

    2016

  42. [50]

    Continuous variable mul- timodequantumstatesviasymmetricgroupvelocitymatching

    V Roman-Rodriguez, B Brecht, Srinivasan K, C Silberhorn, N Treps, E Diamanti,, and V Parigi. “Continuous variable mul- timodequantumstatesviasymmetricgroupvelocitymatching.” NewJournalofPhysics23,no.4(2021):043012

    2021

  43. [51]

    Efficient photon-pair generation in layer-poled lithium niobate nanophotonic waveg- uides

    XiaodongShi,SakthiSanjeevMohanraj,VeerendraDhyani,An- gela Anna Baiju, Sihao Wang, Jiapeng Sun, Lin Zhou, Anna Paterova, Victor Leong,, and Di Zhu. “Efficient photon-pair generation in layer-poled lithium niobate nanophotonic waveg- uides.”Light:Science&Applications13,no.1

  44. [52]

    ProgressonChip-BasedSpontaneousFour-WaveMixingQuan- tumLightSources

    Haoyang Wang, Qiang Zeng, Haiqiang Ma,, and Zhiliang Yuan. “ProgressonChip-BasedSpontaneousFour-WaveMixingQuan- tumLightSources.”AdvancedDevices&amp;Instrumentation5

  45. [53]

    Methane sensing in the mid-IR using short wave IR photon counting detectors via non-linear interferometry

    Arthur C. Cardoso, Jinghan Dong, Haichen Zhou, Siddarth K. Joshi,, and John G. Rarity. “Methane sensing in the mid-IR using short wave IR photon counting detectors via non-linear interferometry.”OpticsContinuum3,no.5(2024):823

    2024

  46. [54]

    Methane sensingviaunbalancednonlinearinterferometryusingaCMOS camera and undetected mid-infrared light

    Jinghan Dong, Arthur C. Cardoso, Haichen Zhou, Jingrui Zhang,WeijieNie,AlexS.Clark,,andJohnG.Rarity. “Methane sensingviaunbalancednonlinearinterferometryusingaCMOS camera and undetected mid-infrared light.”AppliedPhysicsLet- ters126,no.6

  47. [55]

    PhotonTemporalModes:ACompleteFrameworkforQuantum InformationScience

    B. Brecht, Dileep V. Reddy, C. Silberhorn,, and M. G. Raymer. “PhotonTemporalModes:ACompleteFrameworkforQuantum InformationScience.”Phys.Rev.X5(2015):041017

    2015

  48. [56]

    Tailoring nonlinear processes for quantum optics with pulsed temporal-mode encodings

    Vahid Ansari, John M. Donohue, Benjamin Brecht,, and Chris- tine Silberhorn. “Tailoring nonlinear processes for quantum optics with pulsed temporal-mode encodings.”Optica5, no. 5 (2018):534

    2018

  49. [57]

    Journey in quantum metrology and sensingfromfoundationstoapplications:areview

    PriyaGhosh,TanoyKantiKonar,DebrajRakshit,AditiSenDe,, and Ujjwal Sen. 2026. “Journey in quantum metrology and sensingfromfoundationstoapplications:areview.”

    2026

  50. [58]

    HighQualityEntangledPhotonPairGenerationinPeriod- ically Poled Thin-Film Lithium Niobate Waveguides

    JieZhao,ChaoxuanMa,MichaelRüsing,,andShayanMookher- jea. “HighQualityEntangledPhotonPairGenerationinPeriod- ically Poled Thin-Film Lithium Niobate Waveguides.”Physical ReviewLetters124,no.16(2020):163603

    2020

  51. [59]

    Spec- tralpropertiesofhigh-gainparametricdown-conversion

    K. Yu. Spasibko, T. Sh. Iskhakov,, and M. V. Chekhova. “Spec- tralpropertiesofhigh-gainparametricdown-conversion.”Optics Express20,no.7(2012):7507

    2012

  52. [60]

    Propertiesofbrightsqueezedvacuumatincreasing brightness

    P. R. Sharapova, G. Frascella, M. Riabinin, A. M. Pérez, O. V. Tikhonova, S. Lemieux, R. W. Boyd, G. Leuchs,, and M. V. Chekhova. “Propertiesofbrightsqueezedvacuumatincreasing brightness.”PhysicalReviewResearch2,no.1(2020):013371

    2020

  53. [61]

    Gener- ationof10-dBsqueezedlightfromabroadbandwaveguideopti- cal parametric amplifier with improved phase locking method

    Kazuki Hirota, Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Gyeongmin Ha, Taichi Yamashima,PawaphatJaturaphagorn,TakumiSuzuki,Kazuma Takahashi, Akito Kawasaki, Asuka Inoue, Warit Asavanant, Mamoru Endo, Takeshi Umeki,, and Akira Furusawa. “Gener- ationof10-dBsqueezedlightfromabroadbandwaveguideopti-...

    2026

  54. [62]

    Tushar Sanjay Karnik, Xinyi Ren, Chun-Ho Lee, Bo-Han Wu, Mihir Chaudhari, Clayton Cheung, James Wang, Shi-Yuan Ma, Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad, Ian Christen, Reshma Kopparapu, Kiwon Kwon, Yue Yu, Sri Krishna Vadlamani, Kamila Kunes, Quntao Zhuang, Dirk Englund, Zaijun Chen,, and M...

  55. [2026]

    18-dBon-chipvacuumsqueezinginanadaptivelypoled lithiumniobatewaveguide

    “18-dBon-chipvacuumsqueezinginanadaptivelypoled lithiumniobatewaveguide.”,. 13of14 Appendix FIGURE 9| Ratioofthemultimodetosingle-modephasesensitivity 𝜂(𝑟), as a function of the total squeezing strength𝑟. (A) Number detec- tion. (B) Homodyne detection. The ratio is plotted as ...

Pith tools

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