Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Noise-robust discrimination of incoherent point sources with spatial-mode demultiplexing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reduced two-mode SPADE measurement beats direct imaging for discriminating one versus two incoherent sources under uniform Poissonian background noise, approaching the quantum limit in the sub-Rayleigh regime.

desk verdict Strong theory on noise-robust SPADE, but the Airy-PSF experiment doesn't test the Gaussian-PSF theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01765 v1 pith:BB3XII7G submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph

Jian-Qiang Liu , Chao-Ning Hu , Jun Xin , Xiao-Ming Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spatial-modedemultiplexinghypothesistestingChernoffexponentincoherentpointsourcesRayleigh'scursebackgroundnoisequantumlimitdirectimaging
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 asks whether the advantage of spatial-mode demultiplexing survives background noise in the practical task of deciding whether a faint image contains one point source or two. The authors model uniform Poissonian noise on every detector and show, theoretically and experimentally, that a reduced SPADE measurement reading only the two lowest Hermite-Gaussian modes achieves a higher Chernoff exponent than direct imaging for sub-Rayleigh separations, approaching the quantum limit. The reason is compression: SPADE puts almost all source information into two modes, so it pays background noise on two detectors, while direct imaging spreads the signal over many pixels and accumulates noise from each one. The experiments confirm the predicted error exponents at a background-to-signal ratio of 0.11. If the model holds, this gives a practical, noise-tolerant detection scheme for astronomy and quantum sensing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced SPADE measurement: a projection of the image-plane field onto only the two lowest-order Hermite-Gaussian modes, |φ0⟩ and |φ1⟩, whose detection probabilities are given by Eq. (11). Its role is to concentrate nearly all signal information (more than 97% of photons for d≤2σ) into two ports, so that uniform background noise enters the Chernoff exponent only twice, whereas direct imaging's 1000-pixel readout adds noise from every pixel. The Chernoff exponent, the exponential decay rate of the error probability with mean photon number, is the figure of merit that carries the comparison; the paper's Eq. (6) is the classical limit of this exponent in the presen

What would settle it

Measure the Chernoff exponent for the same one-versus-two task with structured background light whose per-pixel mean is higher on the two SPADE mode pixels than on the rest of the camera, keeping the total background fixed; if direct imaging then matches or exceeds SPADE, the claimed robustness is tied to the uniformity assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, under uniform Poissonian excess noise, two-mode SPADE—projecting onto the zeroth and first Hermite-Gaussian modes only—discriminates a single incoherent source from two separated incoherent sources with an asymptotic error exponent that exceeds direct imaging for separations in the sub-Rayleigh regime and stays close to the quantum Chernoff bound. The analytical classical Chernoff exponent follows from Eq. (6), with per-detector mean photon numbers u_{α,q}=ν_{α,q}+b and equal total signal ν under both hypotheses; for SPADE the detection probabilities are p_I,q=δ_{q0} and p_II,q=(1/q!)(d/4σ)^{2q} exp(−d^2/16σ^2). The experiment implements this two-mode proje

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparison assumes the background noise is Poissonian and uniform, with the same mean count per detector in every pixel or mode and no dependence on the signal; if background light is brighter on the two SPADE detectors than on the rest of the array, the advantage shrinks and can reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the sub-Rayleigh regime (source separation up to roughly two PSF widths), the two lowest Hermite-Gaussian modes capture more than 97 percent of the signal photons, so near-quantum discrimination needs only two detection ports.
  • Under uniform Poissonian background, SPADE's Chernoff exponent remains above direct imaging's for all separations studied, so its error probability decays faster with observation time or photon number.
  • At a background-to-signal ratio of 0.11 per detector, the experimentally extracted exponents match the noisy-SPADE theory and approach the quantum Chernoff bound.
  • Because the advantage comes from avoiding per-pixel noise accumulation, the benefit over direct imaging grows with the number of pixels in the imaging array.
  • The same two-mode counts can be used for a generalized likelihood-ratio test when the source separation is unknown, since the SPADE counts are highly sensitive to d.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The compression mechanism suggests any measurement that funnels nearly all source information into a few orthogonal ports should inherit the same noise robustness; other mode bases or few-pixel detectors may show the same effect.
  • The uniform-noise model is an idealization; spatially structured background—brighter near the sources or on the SPADE ports—would weaken the cumulative-noise penalty and could change the ordering, so the claimed all-separations advantage should be re-tested under structured noise.
  • A practical extension is to replace the camera readout of the two sorted modes with two bucket detectors, which would keep the same error exponent while simplifying the apparatus for field use.
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 manuscript addresses the binary hypothesis testing problem of discriminating a single incoherent point source from two closely spaced incoherent point sources in the presence of uniform background noise. It derives an analytical classical Chernoff exponent for spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE) under a Poisson-noise model, proves monotonic decay of the exponent with noise, computes the corresponding quantum Chernoff bound, and compares SPADE with direct imaging. A reduced SPADE scheme using only the two lowest-order Hermite-Gaussian modes is claimed to outperform direct imaging in the sub-Rayleigh regime and to approach the quantum limit. An experiment using a DMD-generated source, an Airy PSF, a holographic mode sorter, and a CMOS camera with LED background is presented as validation.

Significance. If the calculations and comparisons were correct, the paper would provide a practically important result: a two-mode SPADE measurement that is robust to background noise and near quantum-optimal for one-versus-two source discrimination. The theoretical framework (Eq. 6), the monotonicity proof (Appendix A), and the numerical quantum-limit evaluation (Appendix B) are clearly presented and internally consistent. The experimental demonstration with digital holography is thoughtful. However, the validation and the quantitative comparison currently contain load-bearing gaps: the theory is Gaussian-PSF while the experiment is Airy-PSF, and the reduced SPADE exponent is computed with a formula that assumes a complete POVM. These issues must be resolved before the central claims are supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (9)-(11), Fig. 4] The theoretical curves in Fig. 1 and the comparison in Fig. 4 are computed for the Gaussian PSF (Eq. 9) with HG modes (Eq. 10) and modal probabilities (Eq. 11). The experiment in Sec. 3 produces an Airy PSF (sigma = 115 um) and decomposes onto two HG modes. For an Airy PSF, the projections p_{I,q}, p_{II,q} are not given by Eq. (11), and the paper does not compute the corresponding Chernoff exponent or show that the Gaussian result is a good approximation. The claimed agreement in Fig. 4 is therefore not a test of the theory. Please provide the Airy-PSF predictions (or a quantitative justification for replacing the Airy PSF by a Gaussian with sigma = 115 um) and compare them with the extracted exponents.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (6), Fig. 1] The expression in Eq. (6) is derived for a complete POVM with sum_q p_{alpha,q}=1. For the reduced two-mode SPADE, sum_{q=0,1} p_{I,q}=1 but sum_{q=0,1} p_{II,q}=1-exp(-d^2/16sigma^2)(1+d^2/(16sigma^2))<1 (approximately 0.973 at d=2sigma). The correct exponent for the observed two-mode counts is max_s [s P_{I,S}+(1-s)P_{II,S}+2b/nu - sum_{q=0,1}(p_{I,q}+b/nu)^s(p_{II,q}+b/nu)^{1-s}] with P_{alpha,S}=sum_{q in S} p_{alpha,q}, not Eq. (6). Using Eq. (6) overestimates the reduced SPADE exponent by an amount of order (1-P_{II,S}) at the optimal s, which is material at the exponent scales shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, Sec. 3 defines the experimental u as nu+2b, suggesting nu is the two-mode signal count, whereas the theory uses nu as the total signal photon number; this inconsistency must be resolved.
  3. [Sec. 2, Fig. 1 caption] The comparison with direct imaging fixes the DI detector at 1000 pixels of size a=4.6 um, and the advantage largely follows from the resulting 1000-fold noise penalty. The manuscript does not discuss how the DI exponent depends on pixel number/size or whether the choice is optimal; a DI with fewer, appropriately sized pixels may partly recover the performance. The conclusion that SPADE consistently outperforms DI across all source separations requires either an optimization over DI parameters or a statement of the assumed detector-array model and a demonstration that the advantage is robust to that model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The text says the extracted exponent agrees with the 'blue dash-dotted line' in Fig. 1, but the SPADE curve in Fig. 1 is a blue dashed line, not dash-dotted. Please correct the caption/text and clarify which curves are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 4.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (14)-(15)] The manuscript should clarify whether the 10^3 independent samples used for each value of k are disjoint or overlapping, and how the error bars on the extracted exponents are obtained. As written, the fits for different k appear to use the same data in a way that could introduce correlations.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (4)] The experiment uses a CMOS camera rather than ideal photon counters. The text should state whether readout noise, dark counts, and the spatial uniformity of the LED background are included in the single parameter b and how the measured b for the two SPADE pixels relates to the per-pixel b assumed in the DI model.
  4. [Sec. 1 / Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that SPADE outperforms DI 'across all source separations,' while the numerical evidence in Fig. 1 is for two representative sub-Rayleigh separations. Either show the full d-dependence or qualify the statement as 'in the sub-Rayleigh regime for the specific DI pixelation considered.'
  5. [Sec. 3, source preparation] The experiment uses a laser (coherent) source and time-alternating DMD mirrors to emulate two thermal incoherent sources. The manuscript should justify that the Poisson-limit Chernoff exponent derived for thermal states applies to this coherent-state implementation, or state the necessary assumptions explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: theoretical Chernoff exponents are derived rather than fitted, and the experimental comparison uses independently measured parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Equation (3) is taken from the external Poisson quantum-information result [45], and Eq. (6) is obtained by substituting the noisy means u_{α,q}=ν_{α,q}+b into that formula; no quantity that is being predicted appears as an input. The SPADE probabilities in Eq. (11) are overlap integrals for the Gaussian PSF (Eqs. (9)-(10)), and the DI probabilities in Eqs. (12)-(13) are the corresponding pixel integrals; the Chernoff exponents in Fig. 1 are numerical evaluations of these expressions. The quantum limit (Eq. (7), Appendix B) is an upper bound computed from the same noise model, not from the SPADE data. In the experiment, the Chernoff exponent is extracted by fitting the slope of log P_err versus ν from measured error rates, and the theoretical curve is evaluated at a noise-to-signal ratio b/ν independently estimated from LED-only counts and average total counts; no parameter is fitted to the error-probability data to force agreement. Self-citations ([7], [28], [26], [27], [54]) supply the weak-source state model, earlier quantum-optimal detection results, and digital-holography mode sorting; they are published external results and are not used to inject the target conclusion. The Airy-PSF experiment versus Gaussian-PSF theory is a possible model-mismatch/correctness concern, but it is not circularity because the theoretical predictions are not derived from the experimental outcomes.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory uses no fitted constants; the only chosen parameters are the DI pixel configuration and the SPADE mode count, both of which affect the strength of the claimed advantage. The central calculation relies on standard quantum hypothesis testing results plus a uniform independent Poisson noise model.

free parameters (2)
  • DI pixel size and count = a = 4.6 μm, N = 1000
    The comparison baseline for direct imaging is defined with 1000 pixels of size 4.6 μm; this choice determines the cumulative-noise penalty attributed to DI and is not optimized over.
  • SPADE mode count = 2 lowest-order HG modes
    The reduced SPADE is restricted to two modes; justified by the >97% signal capture for d ≤ 2σ, but the truncation error is not quantified.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The optical field in each temporal mode is a mixture of vacuum and single-photon components (Eq. 1)
    Weak-source approximation, valid for small occupancy ε; used to derive the Poisson-limit Chernoff exponent.
  • domain assumption In the Poisson limit M→∞, ε→0 with mean photon numbers fixed, the classical Chernoff exponent takes the form of Eq. (3)
    Taken from Ref [45]; basis for Eq (6).
  • domain assumption Excess noise is Poissonian and uniform across all detectors, with the same mean b per detector, independent of the signal
    Eq (4); this is the load-bearing model for the noise and the source of DI's cumulative-noise penalty.
  • domain assumption The imaging system is one-dimensional, diffraction-limited, spatially invariant, with a Gaussian PSF
    Eq (9); gives the analytic HG-mode probabilities in Eq (11).
  • domain assumption The two hypotheses have equal mean signal photon numbers ν_I = ν_II = ν
    Used to define the resource and the normalized exponent ξ_P in Eq (5).
  • standard math Weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality
    Used in Appendix A to prove monotonicity of ξ with respect to b.
  • domain assumption The DMD temporal switching at 2×10^4 Hz emulates two mutually incoherent sources within the 50 ms exposure
    Experimental emulation; assumes the switching is fast relative to the integration time and the phase randomizes between intervals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-robust discrimination of incoherent point sources with spatial-mode demultiplexing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BB3XII7G

@misc{pith2026260801765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-robust discrimination of incoherent point sources with spatial-mode demultiplexing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BB3XII7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01765}
}
read the original abstract

We theoretically predict and experimentally demonstrate that a reduced spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE) measurement using only the two lowest-order Hermite-Gaussian modes exhibits remarkable robustness against background noise in discriminating between a single source and two incoherent point sources. We establish a theoretical framework incorporating uniform background noise and derive an analytical Chernoff exponent expression, showing that SPADE consistently outperforms direct imaging (DI) across all source separations. Experimental results confirm that SPADE-based hypothesis testing approaches the quantum limit even when the background-to-signal photon ratio per pixel is 0.11. This advantage stems from SPADE's ability to concentrate source information into minimal detection modes, reducing the cumulative background noise impact. Our findings provide a practical detection scheme for applications where background noise is inevitable, such as astronomical observations and quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical results for the quantum Chernoff exponent (red solid line) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the temporal and spatial modes of the optical field in the image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental setup for the SPADE-based hypothesis testing. DMD, digital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error probability and Chernoff exponent of SPADE-based hypothesis testing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Resolution of point sources of light as analyzed by quantum detection theory,

    C. Helstrom, “Resolution of point sources of light as analyzed by quantum detection theory,” IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory19, 389–398 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Wasserman,All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference(Springer, New York, 2010)

    L. Wasserman,All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference(Springer, New York, 2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Hayashi, ed.,Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers(World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    M. Hayashi, ed.,Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers(World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    XXXI. Investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope,

    L. Rayleigh, “XXXI. Investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope,” Philos. Mag. Ser.5 8, 261–274 (1879)

    work page

  5. [5]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  6. [6]

    Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2011)

    A. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources,

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu, “Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources,” Phys. Rev. X6, 031033 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Far-field superresolution of thermal electromagnetic sources at the quantum limit,

    R. Nair and M. Tsang, “Far-field superresolution of thermal electromagnetic sources at the quantum limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 190801 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging,

    C. Lupo and S. Pirandola, “Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 190802 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Interferometric superlocalization of two incoherent optical point sources,

    R. Nair and M. Tsang, “Interferometric superlocalization of two incoherent optical point sources,” Opt. Express24, 3684–3701 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Fisher information for far-field linear optical superresolution via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode,

    F. Yang, R. Nair, M. Tsang,et al., “Fisher information for far-field linear optical superresolution via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode,” Phys. Rev. A96, 063829 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Far-field linear optical superresolution via heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode,

    F. Yang, A. Tashchilina, E. S. Moiseev,et al., “Far-field linear optical superresolution via heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode,” Optica3, 1148–1152 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Achieving the ultimate optical resolution,

    M. Paúr, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil,et al., “Achieving the ultimate optical resolution,” Optica3, 1144–1147 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Fault-tolerantandfinite-errorlocalizationforpointemitterswithinthediffraction limit,

    Z.S.Tang, K.Durak,andA.Ling,“Fault-tolerantandfinite-errorlocalizationforpointemitterswithinthediffraction limit,” Opt. Express24, 22004–22012 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Beating rayleigh’s curse by imaging using phase information,

    W.-K. Tham, H. Ferretti, and A. M. Steinberg, “Beating rayleigh’s curse by imaging using phase information,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 070801 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Tempering rayleigh’s curse with psf shaping,

    M. Paúr, B. Stoklasa, J. Grover,et al., “Tempering rayleigh’s curse with psf shaping,” Optica5, 1177–1180 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Spatial optical mode demultiplexing as a practical tool for optimal transverse distance estimation,

    P. Boucher, C. Fabre, G. Labroille, and N. Treps, “Spatial optical mode demultiplexing as a practical tool for optimal transverse distance estimation,” Optica7, 1621–1626 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Quantum-inspired superresolution for incoherent imaging,

    X.-J. Tan, L. Qi, L. Chen,et al., “Quantum-inspired superresolution for incoherent imaging,” Optica10, 1189–1194 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ultra-sensitive separation estimation of optical sources,

    C. Rouvière, D. Barral, A. Grateau,et al., “Ultra-sensitive separation estimation of optical sources,” Optica11, 166–170 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Sub-rayleighimagingenhancedbyphase-lockedinversioninterferometry,

    R.Aiello,F.Sgobba,P.Maddaloni,et al.,“Sub-rayleighimagingenhancedbyphase-lockedinversioninterferometry,” Opt. Express33, 44834–44842 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Spatial mode demultiplexing for super-resolved source parameter estimation,

    J. S. Wallis, D. R. Gozzard, A. M. Frost,et al., “Spatial mode demultiplexing for super-resolved source parameter estimation,” Opt. Express33, 34651–34662 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Transverse distance estimation with higher-order hermite-gauss modes,

    D. Paneru, A. D’Errico, and E. Karimi, “Transverse distance estimation with higher-order hermite-gauss modes,” Phys. Rev. A113, L011702 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Spatial-mode demultiplexing for enhanced intensity and distance measurement,

    L. Santamaria, D. Pallotti, M. Siciliani De Cumis,et al., “Spatial-mode demultiplexing for enhanced intensity and distance measurement,” Opt. Express31, 33930 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Experimental demonstration of a quantum-optimal coronagraph using spatial mode sorters,

    N. Deshler, I. Ozer, A. Ashok, and S. Guha, “Experimental demonstration of a quantum-optimal coronagraph using spatial mode sorters,” Optica12, 518 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Super-resolutionparameterestimationusingmachinelearning-assisted spatial mode demultiplexing,

    D.R.Gozzard,J.S.Wallis,A.M.Frost,et al.,“Super-resolutionparameterestimationusingmachinelearning-assisted spatial mode demultiplexing,” Sensors25, 5395 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Measuring small displacements of an optical point source with digital holography,

    C. Zhou, J. Xin, Y. Li, and X.-M. Lu, “Measuring small displacements of an optical point source with digital holography,” Opt. Express31, 19336–19346 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Locatingasinglepointsourceoflightusingananalyticestimatorenabledbyspatial mode demultiplexing,

    C.-N.Hu,J.Xin, andX.-M.Lu, “Locatingasinglepointsourceoflightusingananalyticestimatorenabledbyspatial mode demultiplexing,” Opt. Continuum4, 2406 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Quantum-optimal detection of one-versus-two incoherent optical sources with arbitrary separation,

    X.-M. Lu, H. Krovi, R. Nair,et al., “Quantum-optimal detection of one-versus-two incoherent optical sources with arbitrary separation,” npj Quantum Inf.4, 64 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Quantum hypothesis testing for exoplanet detection,

    Z. Huang and C. Lupo, “Quantum hypothesis testing for exoplanet detection,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130502 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Identifying objects at the quantum limit for superresolution imaging,

    M. R. Grace and S. Guha, “Identifying objects at the quantum limit for superresolution imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 180502 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Practical tests for sub-rayleigh source discriminations with imperfect demultiplexers,

    K. Schlichtholz, T. Linowski, M. Walschaers,et al., “Practical tests for sub-rayleigh source discriminations with imperfect demultiplexers,” Opt. Quantum2, 29–34 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Performanceadvantageofdiscriminatingone-versus-twoincoherent sources based on quantum hypothesis testing,

    J.-D.Zhang, M.-M.Zhang, C.Li, andS.Wang, “Performanceadvantageofdiscriminatingone-versus-twoincoherent sources based on quantum hypothesis testing,” Phys. Rev. A110, 052602 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Performance advantage of quantum hypothesis testing for partially coherent optical sources,

    J.-D. Zhang, K. Zhang, L. Hou, and S. Wang, “Performance advantage of quantum hypothesis testing for partially coherent optical sources,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B41, 2540–2547 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Experimental demonstration of quantum-inspired optical symmetric hypothesis testing,

    S. A. Wadood, K. R. Sethuraj, K. Liang,et al., “Experimental demonstration of quantum-inspired optical symmetric hypothesis testing,” Opt. Lett.49, 750–753 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Super-resolving binary-source hypothesis testing with a double-clad fiber coupler,

    J. S. Wallis, D. R. Gozzard, A. M. Frost,et al., “Super-resolving binary-source hypothesis testing with a double-clad fiber coupler,” Opt. Lett.50, 7191–7194 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Quantum-optimal hypothesis testing for discriminating partially coherent optical sources,

    J.-D. Zhang, M.-M. Zhang, F. Jia,et al., “Quantum-optimal hypothesis testing for discriminating partially coherent optical sources,” Phys. Rev. A111, 023706 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Quantum-inspired exoplanet detection in the presence of experimental imperfections,

    T. Linowski, K. Schlichtholz, and G. Sorelli, “Quantum-inspired exoplanet detection in the presence of experimental imperfections,” Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 044052 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Multi-aperture telescopes at the quantum limit of superresolution imaging : Detecting subrayleigh object near a star,

    A. K. Jha, S. Fleming, N. Deshler,et al., “Multi-aperture telescopes at the quantum limit of superresolution imaging : Detecting subrayleigh object near a star,” Acta Astronaut.226, 531–541 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Experimental evidence-based sub-rayleigh source discrimination,

    S. U. Shringarpure, Y. S. Teo, H. Jeong,et al., “Experimental evidence-based sub-rayleigh source discrimination,” arXiv:2601.13972 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Discrimination and estimation of incoherent sources under misalignment,

    J. O. De Almeida, J. Kołodyński, C. Hirche,et al., “Discrimination and estimation of incoherent sources under misalignment,” Phys. Rev. A103, 022406 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Experimental subdiffraction source discrimination enabled by spatial demultiplexing and single-photon detectors,

    L. S. Amato, D. Triggiani, and C. Lupo, “Experimental subdiffraction source discrimination enabled by spatial demultiplexing and single-photon detectors,” arXiv:2605.15929 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    On-sky binary source hypothesis testing beyond the diffraction limit using spatial mode demultiplexing based detection,

    J. S. Wallis, A. S. McCann, J. J. Collier,et al., “On-sky binary source hypothesis testing beyond the diffraction limit using spatial mode demultiplexing based detection,” arXiv:2606.18025 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations,

    H. Chernoff, “A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations,” The Ann. Math. Stat.23, 493–507 (1952)

    1952

  36. [44]

    H. L. Van Trees, K. L. Bell, and Z. Tian,Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I(Wiley, 2013), 2nd ed

    2013

  37. [45]

    Poisson quantum information,

    M. Tsang, “Poisson quantum information,” Quantum5, 527 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    On error exponents in quantum hypothesis testing,

    T. Ogawa and M. Hayashi, “On error exponents in quantum hypothesis testing,” IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory50, 1368–1372 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    On the Chernoff bound for efficiency of quantum hypothesis testing,

    V. Kargin, “On the Chernoff bound for efficiency of quantum hypothesis testing,” The Ann. Stat.33(2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Discriminating states: The quantum Chernoff bound,

    K. M. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Munoz-Tapia,et al., “Discriminating states: The quantum Chernoff bound,” Phys. review letters98, 160501 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    The Chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,

    M. Nussbaum and A. Szkoła, “The Chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,” The Ann. Stat. 37(2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Asymptotic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,

    K. M. R. Audenaert, M. Nussbaum, A. Szkoła, and F. Verstraete, “Asymptotic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,” Commun. Math. Phys.279, 251–283 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Fast, single-molecule localization that achieves theoretically minimum uncertainty,

    C. S. Smith, N. Joseph, B. Rieger, and K. A. Lidke, “Fast, single-molecule localization that achieves theoretically minimum uncertainty,” Nat. Methods7, 373–375 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Pixelated phase computer holograms for the accurate encoding of scalar complex fields,

    V. Arrizón, U. Ruiz, R. Carrada, and L. A. González, “Pixelated phase computer holograms for the accurate encoding of scalar complex fields,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A24, 3500 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Rosales-Guzmán and A

    C. Rosales-Guzmán and A. Forbes,How to Shape Light with Spatial Light Modulators(SPIE, 2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Measuring the oscillation frequency beyond the diffraction limit,

    C.-N. Hu, J. Xin, and X.-M. Lu, “Measuring the oscillation frequency beyond the diffraction limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 243802 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya,Inequalities, Cambridge Mathematical Library (Cambridge University Press, 1934), 2nd ed

    1934

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.