Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Heralded Non-Gaussian Squeezed-State Inputs for Parity-Detection SU(1,1) Interferometry

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At fixed gain and energy, heralded photon subtraction, addition, and catalysis yield less per-attempt Fisher information than the optimized Gaussian input in an SU(1,1) interferometer.

desk verdict Useful and mostly sound analytic framework; the per-attempt no-advantage claim is conditional on a fixed gain, and the paper's claim that the restriction is conservative does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04476 v1 pith:AVXLU2Z3 submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Lifen Guo , Qingqian Kang , Teng Zhao , Cunjin Liu , Xin Su , Liyun Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumFisherinformationSU(11)interferometryphotonsubtractionadditioncatalysisparitydetectionheraldednon-Gaussianstatescontinuous-variablemetrology
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 whether putting photon-subtracted, photon-added, or photon-catalyzed squeezed states into an SU(1,1) interferometer improves phase estimation over the plain coherent-plus-squeezed Gaussian input, once the price of heralding is counted. It derives closed formulas for the conditional quantum Fisher information and the dark-point parity Fisher information, plus a loss-dressed effective parity observable. Its central result is that, at fixed interferometer gain $g=0.75$, fixed conditional-probe energy $\bar N_{\rm enc}=9$, and single-photon order $m=1$, the success-weighted Fisher information of all three operations stays below the optimized Gaussian benchmark ($F_Q^{(G,\star)}=107.569$), with photon catalysis closest at $P_jF_Q=104.290$. The paper distinguishes conditional enhancement, which subtraction and addition do show in the high-transmissivity regime, from per-attempt precision, which they do not improve under this resource contract. A separate high-QFI catalysis branch exists but is poorly read out by dark-point parity, a measurement mismatch rather than a state-preparation failure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unified finite-transmissivity Kraus map $\hat K_{\mu,\nu}(T)={}_c\langle\nu|\hat B_{bc}(T)|\mu\rangle_c$, which mixes the squeezed vacuum with a Fock ancilla and projects onto a Fock outcome; the choices $(0,m)$, $(m,0)$, and $(m,m)$ give $m$-photon subtraction, addition, and catalysis. This map supplies closed success probabilities and the three moments $N_j$, $V_j$, $M_j$ that enter the pure-parity-eigenstate QFI formula $F_Q=4[C^4|\alpha|^2+S^4V_j+C^2S^2(2|\alpha|^2N_j+|\alpha|^2+N_j+1+2\Re(\alpha^2M_j))]$, and the same moments feed the dark-point parity Fisher information. Internal loss is pulled back through the interferometer into a single effective parity observable $\Omega_\phi$, so loss changes the operator the prepared state is tested against rather than merely reducing a final contrast factor.

What would settle it

Re-run the fixed-energy optimization with the gain left free, for instance over $g\in[0.5,1.2]$; if any non-Gaussian operation's success-weighted Fisher information exceeds the Gaussian optimum at the same $\bar N_{\rm enc}=9$ (about $123.8$ when $g$ is optimized), the central no-advantage conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a resource-accounted result: for single-photon ($m=1$) operations with gain $g=0.75$ and total conditional-probe energy $\bar N_{\rm enc}=9$, independently optimizing the coherent-squeezed allocation over $0\le r\le1.25$ and $0.65\le T\le0.995$ gives success-weighted Fisher information $P_jF_Q^{(j)}=11.544$ for photon subtraction, $30.940$ for photon addition, and $104.290$ for photon catalysis, all below the optimized Gaussian value $F_Q^{(G,\star)}=107.569$; the corresponding dark-point parity values are lower still. The same closed formulas show that single-photon subtraction and addition do improve the conditional QFI over the Gaussian reference across most high-transmissivity settings, and that multi-photon catalysis creates low-transmissivity conditional windows that survive moderate internal loss. The paper therefore draws a boundary: these non-Gaussian operations act as conditional filters, not as per-attempt enhancements, under the tested resource contract.

Load-bearing premise

The central no-advantage conclusion rests on fixing the interferometer gain at $g=0.75$ and restricting the search to $0\le r\le1.25$ and $0.65\le T\le0.995$ for $m=1$; the paper itself notes that freeing $g$ would raise the Gaussian benchmark from $107.569$ to about $123.8$, so the comparison is gain-sensitive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed gain $g=0.75$ and conditional-probe energy $\bar N_{\rm enc}=9$, single-photon subtraction, addition, and catalysis all fail to beat the optimized Gaussian per-attempt Fisher information, so parity-readout experiments in this regime cannot rely on these heralded inputs for a rate advantage.
  • Single-photon subtraction and addition remain conditional enhancers in the high-transmissivity regime: when failed heralds are discarded and only stored probes are used, their conditional QFI beats the unoptimized Gaussian reference.
  • Multi-photon catalysis is a low-transmissivity conditional filter, but its high-QFI branch is dominated by photon-number variance, which dark-point parity does not read out, so the available information sits in a state-measurement mismatch.
  • Internal loss does not simply reduce contrast: it changes the effective parity observable itself, and unequal arm losses can reverse the operation ranking, so loss must be specified per arm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed-gain caveat invites a direct extension: optimizing $g$ as well, which the paper notes would raise the Gaussian QFI from $107.569$ to about $123.8$ at $g\approx1.10$, could alter the ranking, and the same unified map could be scanned over $g$ to check whether any non-Gaussian branch overtakes.
  • Because the catalysis branch is variance-dominated, a readout sensitive to photon-number variance, such as number-resolving detection or a suited homodyne scheme, might convert that branch into a practical per-attempt advantage; the paper identifies the mismatch but does not optimize the alternative measurement.
  • The same resource-accounting methodology could be applied to output-port or internal photon operations; the paper notes that operation position does not commute with two-mode squeezing, so those settings require a fresh calculation rather than a simple extrapolation.
  • Adding failed-preparation energy to the resource contract could change the conclusion; the paper counts only successfully heralded probe energy, so a fixed-clock experiment without storage faces a different optimization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes an SU(1,1) interferometer in which mode a is prepared in a coherent state and mode b in a squeezed vacuum that is first sent through a heralded linear-optical module implementing photon subtraction, photon addition, or photon catalysis. It derives closed finite-transmissivity moment formulas, a three-moment pure-state QFI for parity-eigenstate inputs (Eq. 47), a dark-point parity CFI (Eq. 70), and a loss-dressed effective parity observable (Eq. 81). The authors compare conditional and success-weighted Fisher information under fixed-seed, fixed-total-energy, and fixed-arm-exposure protocols. The main quantitative result is Table V: for m=1, fixed gain g=0.75, Nbar_enc=9, and optimization over r<=1.25 and 0.65<=T<=0.995, the success-weighted QFI of photon subtraction, addition, and catalysis remains below the optimized Gaussian value 107.569, with P_j F_Q equal to 11.544, 30.940, and 104.290, respectively. An expanded catalysis scan shows a conditional branch with F_Q=189.890 but low dark-point parity extraction, which the paper interprets as a measurement mismatch rather than a state-preparation advantage.

Significance. The analytic results are a solid contribution: Eq. (47) unifies the three operations in a single moment formula, Eq. (70) gives a closed parity CFI with a transparent gap to the QFI, and Eq. (81) is an exact single-mode pulled-back observable for internal loss. The manuscript is parameter-free in the sense that all formulas follow from stated state models, and the numerics are cross-checked by Fock-cutoff convergence. The resource-accounting message—that conditional non-Gaussian QFI enhancement can disappear after success weighting and resource optimization—is valuable, concrete, and falsifiable. The significance is moderate: it sharpens the boundary for a specific near-term relevant setup, and the authors are mostly candid about the tested domain.

major comments (2)
  1. [V. Discussion] The statement that the fixed-gain no-advantage conclusion is "conservative" with respect to gain optimization is not supported by the paper's own formulas. The claim refers to the Gaussian QFI rising from 107.569 at g=0.75 to about 123.8 at g≈1.10, but Eq. (47) depends on g through C=cosh g and S=sinh g, and the resource constraint Eq. (38) makes |alpha| depend on g as well; the success-weighted metric P_j F_Q therefore also varies with g. The value 123.8 is only an optimized Gaussian benchmark at g≈1.10; it does not bound the non-Gaussian metrics at that gain. In particular, the PC conditional branch in Table VI has F_Q=189.890 at g=0.75, so whether P_PC F_Q at g≈1.10 lies above or below 123.8 is untested. Please provide a gain scan or gain optimization for the non-Gaussian operations over the same resource constraint, or remove the "conservative" claim and state explicitly that the no-advantage result is established only for g=0.75.
  2. [III.D.4] The central no-advantage result is a finite-domain numerical maximization at fixed g=0.75, not an analytic bound. The abstract and conclusion do include the "tested constraints" qualifier, but the paper should also state this qualifier wherever Table V is summarized in the discussion. This matters because the PC row of Table V sits at the T=0.995 boundary where the catalysis map is close to the identity, so the table does not probe the low-transmissivity PC regime where Sec. III.C reports conditional QFI improvements. The paper should explicitly note that no claim is made for the success-weighted PC metric in the low-T windows, or it should extend the optimized success-weighted PC scan to those windows.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V. Discussion] The number 123.8 for the gain-optimized Gaussian QFI appears without derivation or a supporting table; if retained, the underlying optimization (g, r, |alpha|) should be reported.
  2. [III.D.4] The phrase "near its unconstrained optimum" for g=0.75 is misleading in light of the paper's own statement that gain optimization raises the Gaussian QFI by about 15%; please rephrase to something like "near the middle of the gain range used here."
  3. [Appendix B] In Eq. (B3), "Rea>0" should read "Re a>0".
  4. [IV.D] The Fock cutoff d is used in Table VIII and in the convergence checks, but d is not defined in the main text; please define it as the photon-number cutoff of the single-mode Hilbert space.
  5. [Fig. 8] Panel (d) of Fig. 8 is labeled "dark-point extraction" but the vertical axis is not explicitly labeled; please label it as R_PC = F_C^Pi(0)/F_Q.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivations are self-contained and the optimized Gaussian benchmark is an external competitor within the same stated resource contract.

full rationale

The manuscript's central derivations do not reduce to their own inputs. The conditional QFI in Eq. (47) is obtained by inserting the moments N_j^(m), V_j^(m), M_j^(m), computed from the Kraus maps of Eqs. (10)-(16) and the finite-differential generators of Appendix A, into the standard pure-state variance formula 4Δ²(S2† n_a S2). The parity CFI in Eq. (70) follows from the pulled-back parity kernel of Eq. (65), and the lossy effective observable in Eq. (81) is derived independently in Appendix C from characteristic functions; no step presupposes the no-advantage conclusion. The fixed-gain Gaussian benchmark in Table V is computed by independently maximizing the Gaussian QFI over r and |α| at fixed g=0.75 and Nbar_enc=9, while the non-Gaussian entries are optimized over the same resource metric; no parameter is fitted to the outcome. Self-citations to earlier SU(1,1) papers, including Refs. [33,34,37,38], are used for contextual comparison of conventions and prior results, not as load-bearing justification for the present formulas. The paper explicitly states that the no-advantage claim is subject to fixed gain, m=1, parity readout, and the tested domains, and it flags the unoptimized-gain caveat in Section V. Even if the statement that the fixed-gain value 'captures ≈87% of this value, so the no-advantage conclusion is conservative' is logically incomplete as a defense against gain reoptimization, that is a correctness or scope concern rather than a circularity: the fixed-gain result itself is an honest, explicitly conditioned comparison. No definitional identity, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or self-citation chain forces the outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific physical model, a specific resource contract, and a finite search domain. The ledger lists the hand-chosen parameters and domain assumptions. There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (6)
  • OPA gain g = 0.75
    Hand-fixed common device setting for all benchmarks; the claimed no-advantage result is conditional on this value, which the authors note captures about 87 percent of the gain-optimized Gaussian QFI.
  • Fixed-seed squeezing r = 0.55
    Representative seed parameter used in fixed-preparation comparisons and figures; the conditional enhancement windows are parameter-dependent and change with r.
  • Fixed-seed coherent amplitude |alpha| = 1.2
    Representative coherent amplitude used with r=0.55; QFI differences in Figures 2 and 3 depend on it.
  • Module transmissivity T in operation-order screens = 0.93 for PS/PA, 0.10 for PC
    Representative high- and low-transmissivity points chosen to display conditional windows; not optimized in fixed-seed comparisons.
  • Resource level Nbar_enc = 9
    Hand-chosen total conditional-probe energy for Protocol II and the optimized benchmarks; the numerical optima such as 107.569 are specific to this level.
  • Optimization domain bounds for r and T = r<=1.25, 0.65<=T<=0.995; expanded PC r<=2.4
    Finite search domains define the reported optima; the global below-Gaussian claim is not an analytic bound and could change outside them.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information of a pure state parametrized by a unitary is four times the variance of the generator.
    Used in Eq. (40) to define F_Q; standard quantum estimation result.
  • domain assumption The SU(1,1) interferometer is modeled as S2(-g) U_phi S2(g) with ideal cancellation at phi=0.
    Section II.E, Eq. (36); defines the physical model under test.
  • domain assumption Inputs are restricted to a coherent state in mode a and a heralded squeezed-vacuum state in mode b; the reference Gaussian is coherent-plus-squeezed-vacuum.
    Section II.A and Section III.D; the no-advantage conclusion is relative to this family.
  • domain assumption Heralding uses ideal photon-number-resolving detection and Fock ancillas; failed preparations are assigned zero phase information.
    Section II.B and Section III.C; resource accounting excludes ancilla generation cost and detector inefficiency.
  • domain assumption Internal loss is modeled by fictitious beam splitters before the second OPA, with ideal output parity.
    Section IV.A, Eqs. (79)-(80); the lossy benchmark is for this ordering and readout.
  • domain assumption The conditional states are pure parity eigenstates, so the cross-covariance C_j^(m) vanishes and Eq. (47) is valid.
    Section II.C Eq. (20) and Section III.A; special to PS, PA, and PC on squeezed vacuum.
  • ad hoc to paper The OPA gain g is held fixed at 0.75 rather than optimized in the benchmark.
    Section III.D.4; the central no-advantage result depends on this restriction.
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical optima are sought over finite domains r<=1.25, 0.65<=T<=0.995, with expanded PC r<=2.4.
    Tables V and VI; the claim of a sharp boundary is a finite-domain numerical result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heralded Non-Gaussian Squeezed-State Inputs for Parity-Detection SU(1,1) Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVXLU2Z3

@misc{pith2026260804476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heralded Non-Gaussian Squeezed-State Inputs for Parity-Detection SU(1,1) Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVXLU2Z3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04476}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Gaussian operations can reshape the photon statistics of continuous-variable probes, but their metrological advantage is meaningful only when heralding probability and photon-number resources are counted consistently. We compare photon subtraction, photon addition, and photon catalysis as input-side heralding operations in a balanced SU(1,1) interferometer with parity detection. A unified finite-transmissivity map supplies closed conditional moments and the corresponding quantum Fisher information at arbitrary operation order; internal loss is absorbed into a single effective parity observable whose lossless limit recovers the ideal pulled-back measurement. At fixed preparation parameters, single-photon subtraction and addition improve the conditional phase information over the Gaussian reference across most of the high-transmissivity regime, while multi-photon catalysis opens useful low-transmissivity windows. However, when the coherent--squeezed allocation is independently optimized at fixed conditional-probe energy and fixed interferometer gain, the success-weighted Fisher information of all three non-Gaussian operations remains below the optimized Gaussian benchmark. This conclusion is subject to the tested constraints: single-photon operations, a coherent-plus-squeezed-vacuum Gaussian family, fixed gain, and parity readout. Photon catalysis separately generates a conditional branch with high local quantum Fisher information that dark-point parity extracts poorly, identifying a measurement mismatch rather than a state-preparation failure. The result draws a sharp boundary between conditional non-Gaussian enhancement and practically available precision under explicitly stated resource constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04476 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. SU(1,1) interferometer with input-side non-Gaussian state preparation. A coherent state enters mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Conditional QFI difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dark-point parity-sensitivity difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Conditional ideal parity phase sensitivity in the local working window, evaluated from the single-mode kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Conditional dark-point sensitivity difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ideal operation-order screen at fixed seed and gain. Top row: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fixed-seed comparisons evaluated from the moments used in Tables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Expanded photon-catalysis scan at fixed successful conditional-probe energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ideal parity extraction and restricted fixed-gain optima at fixed conditional-probe energy. Upper panels: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Conditional parity performance under equal internal loss, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Probability-weighted sensitivity-difference diagnostic The relative-performance measure follows the differ- ence construction of Ref. [30]. In addition to the parity- sensitivity difference in Eq. (62), define the QFI-bound difference by D(j,m) Q = 1q F (G) Q − 1q F (j,m) Q .(72) These differences are formed before the heralding proba- bility is introduce...

    work page

  2. [2]

    They varym= 1,2,3,4 with- out matching the conditional energy, so they diagnose operation order rather than a resource advantage

    Operation-order screening and single-photon scope The order-resolved scans useT= 0.93,r= 0.55, g= 0.75, and|α|= 1.2. They varym= 1,2,3,4 with- out matching the conditional energy, so they diagnose operation order rather than a resource advantage. The QFI and dark-point parity values are calculated from Eqs. (47) and (70); finite-phase curves use the exact...

    work page

  3. [3]

    AtT= 0.93, the per-attempt quantitiesP jFQ and PjF Π C (0) of PS and PA fall below their Gaussian val- ues even though the corresponding conditional quan- tities are larger

    PC hasP (m) PC →1, but its conditional and weighted dark-point values remain below the Gaussian benchmark throughout this screen. AtT= 0.93, the per-attempt quantitiesP jFQ and PjF Π C (0) of PS and PA fall below their Gaussian val- ues even though the corresponding conditional quan- tities are larger. A finite-phase comparison based on [PjF Π C (ϕ)]−1/2 ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    [30] after the operation-order screen has selected m= 1

    Protocol I: fixed-seed module insertion Table II follows the module-insertion convention of Ref. [30] after the operation-order screen has selected m= 1. The parameters|α|= 1.2,r= 0.55,g= 0.75, andT= 0.93 are fixed for all input states. The squeezing phase is chosen so that Re(α 2Mj)>0. Under this protocol, PS and PA increase both con- ditional quantities...

    work page

  5. [5]

    For each input operation,|α|is adjusted using Eq

    Protocol II: fixed total two-mode energy on a fixed-seed slice Table III repeats the comparison with total ¯Nenc = 9 fixed. For each input operation,|α|is adjusted using Eq. (38), whiler= 0.55,g= 0.75, andT= 0.93 are un- changed. The resulting rows form a fixed-rslice through the total-energy constraint. The same fixed-resource rows have the following arm...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We therefore maximize each metric independently over 0≤r≤1.25 and, for PS/PA/PC, 0.65≤T≤0.995, while holdingg= 0.75,m= 1, and ¯Nenc = 9 fixed

    Metric-specific fixed-gain optima at fixed total energy The apparent PS/PA improvement in Table III is rela- tive only to the unoptimized Gaussian point atr= 0.55. We therefore maximize each metric independently over 0≤r≤1.25 and, for PS/PA/PC, 0.65≤T≤0.995, while holdingg= 0.75,m= 1, and ¯Nenc = 9 fixed. For PS the feasible set excludesr= 0, where the su...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Protocol III: fixed sensing-arm photon exposure To match the photons incident on the single-arm phase object, Table VII fixes ¯n a,enc = 5.791, the Gaussian sensing-arm photon exposure in Table III, using Eq. (75). The seed parameters remainr= 0.55,g= 0.75, and T= 0.93. At equal sensing-arm photon exposure, PS/PA again have larger conditional values on th...

    work page

  8. [8]

    C. M. Caves, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Let- ters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  2. [10]

    M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Infor- mation7, 125 (2009), arXiv:0804.2981 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kolodyn- ski, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 60 (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    2015

  5. [13]

    Pezze, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Physical Re- view A33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    W. N. Plick, J. P. Dowling, and G. S. Agarwal, New Journal of Physics12, 083014 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Z. Y. Ou, Physical Review A85, 023815 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    A. M. Marino, N. V. Corzo Trejo, and P. D. Lett, Physical Review A86, 023844 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    M. V. Chekhova and Z. Y. Ou, Advances in Optics and Photonics8, 104 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Z. Y. Ou and X. Li, APL Photonics5, 080902 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    S. S. Szigeti, R. J. Lewis-Swan, and S. A. Haine, Physical Review Letters118, 150401 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Linnemann, H

    D. Linnemann, H. Strobel, W. Muessel, J. Schulz, R. J. Lewis-Swan, K. V. Kheruntsyan, and M. K. Oberthaler, Physical Review Letters117, 013001 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    D. Li, B. T. Gard, Y. Gao, C.-H. Yuan, W. Zhang, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A94, 063840 (2016), arXiv:1603.09019 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gao, Physical Review A94, 023834 (2016), arXiv:1606.08966 [quant-ph]

    Y. Gao, Physical Review A94, 023834 (2016), arXiv:1606.08966 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. Jing, C. Liu, Z. Zhou, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Ap- plied Physics Letters99, 011110 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    J. Kong, F. Hudelist, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Physical Review Letters111, 033608 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Hudelist, J

    F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Y. Ou, and 25 W. Zhang, Nature Communications5, 3049 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Manceau, G

    M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, and M. V. Chekhova, Physical Review Letters119, 223604 (2017), arXiv:1705.02662 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. E. Anderson, P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, T. Hor- rom, C. Hermann-Avigliano, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, Optica4, 752 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Gupta, B

    P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, B. E. Anderson, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, Optics Express26, 391 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Frascella, E

    G. Frascella, E. E. Mikhailov, N. Takanashi, R. V. Za- kharov, O. V. Tikhonova, and M. V. Chekhova, Optica 6, 1233 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    S. Hong, M. A. Feldman, C. E. Marvinney, D. Lee, C. Lee, M. T. Febbraro, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, Physical Review Research7, 023231 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    G. S. Agarwal and K. Tara, Physical Review A43, 492 (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Dakna, T

    M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrny, L. Knoll, and D.-G. Welsch, Physical Review A55, 3184 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    Zavatta, S

    A. Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, Science306, 660 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, Physical Review Letters 88, 250401 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0202164

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Parigi, A

    V. Parigi, A. Zavatta, M. Kim, and M. Bellini, Science 317, 1890 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Kumar, Rishabh, and S

    C. Kumar, Rishabh, and S. Arora, Physical Review A 105, 052437 (2022), arXiv:2202.09849 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Xu, and L. Zhang, Optics Commu- nications444, 102 (2019), arXiv:1810.00131 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Z. Zhao, Q. Kang, H. Zhang, T. Zhao, C. Liu, and L. Hu, Optics Express32, 28267 (2024), arXiv:2403.15761 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Q.-K. Gong, D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Physical Review A96, 033809 (2017), arXiv:1609.03308 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Guo, Y.-F

    L.-L. Guo, Y.-F. Yu, and Z.-M. Zhang, Optics Express 26, 29099 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Xin, Optics Express29, 43970 (2021)

    J. Xin, Optics Express29, 43970 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Hou, J.-D

    L.-L. Hou, J.-D. Zhang, and S. Wang, Optics Communi- cations537, 129417 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Y. Xu, T. Zhao, Q. Kang, C. Liu, L. Hu, and S. Liu, Optics Express31, 8414 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Q. Kang, Z. Zhao, Y. Xu, T. Zhao, C. Liu, and L. Hu, Physica Scripta99, 085111 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Jiang, Z

    T. Jiang, Z. Zhao, Q. Kang, T. Zhao, N. Zhou, C. Liu, and L. Hu, Phase sensitivity for an SU(1,1) interfer- ometer via multiphoton subtraction at the output port (2024), arXiv:2410.17612

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Z. Li, Q. Kang, T. Zhao, C. Liu, L. Hu, and C. Deng, Phase estimation via delocalized photon subtraction operation inside the SU(1,1) interferometer (2025), arXiv:2506.07684

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. Jana, D. Baheti, P. Grossiord, F. Bretenaker, N. Be- labas, and S. De, Sensitivity evaluation of SU(1,1) inter- ferometers with arbitrary input probe state and homo- dyne detections (2026), arXiv:2605.22029

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang, W

    H. Zhang, W. Ye, C. Wei, C. Liu, Z. Liao, and L. Hu, Physical Review A103, 052602 (2021), arXiv:2012.02441 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fan, Physical Review A45, 6928 (1992)

    H.-y. Fan, Physical Review A45, 6928 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    Fan, Annals of Physics323, 500 (2008)

    H.-y. Fan, Annals of Physics323, 500 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Combes, C

    J. Combes, C. Ferrie, Z. Jiang, and C. M. Caves, Physical Review A89, 052117 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Fan and Q

    H.-Y. Fan and Q. Guo, Communications in Theoretical Physics48, 823 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.