Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Quantum noise reduction schemes for KAGRA post-O5 upgrade

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For KAGRA post-O5, a detuned 85 m filter cavity with optimized parameters gives the greatest binary-neutron-star detection range among compared quantum-noise schemes, raising the detection rate by at least 23% over frequency-independent…

desk verdict Useful, competent KAGRA design comparison, but the headline FC advantage rests on unmodeled dephasing and a low-data loss fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06229 v1 pith:SBBC3QR4 submitted 2026-08-06 hep-ex

Yuhang Zhao , Marc Eisenmann , Michael Page , Zong-Hong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex PACS 04.80.Nn
keywords gravitationalwavedetectorsquantumnoisesqueezedvacuumfrequency-dependentsqueezingfiltercavityKAGRAbinaryneutronstarrangeEPR
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 which quantum-noise-reduction scheme KAGRA should adopt after its fifth observing run, given that the underground site allows only about 85 m for a filter cavity. Comparing frequency-independent squeezing (FIS), filter-cavity frequency-dependent squeezing (FC), an amplitude filter cavity (AFC), a frequency-dependent beam splitter (FDBS), and an EPR two-mode-squeezing scheme, it finds that FC outperforms AFC and FDBS at all frequencies. When low-frequency noise is quantum-dominated, an 85 m detuned filter cavity with numerically optimized input-mirror transmissivity and detuning provides the largest binary-neutron-star (BNS) range, at least 23% higher detection rate than FIS; when low-frequency noise is classical-dominated, FIS wins. EPR is best for heavier binary systems. The paper also argues that filter-cavity detuning alone can be re-tuned to compensate for arm-power and loss variations after construction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the detuned, over-coupled filter cavity, modeled by a frequency-dependent 2x2 transfer matrix that rotates the injected squeezed-vacuum quadrature from phase squeezing at high frequencies toward amplitude squeezing at low frequencies. The argument is carried by a three-port input-output model of the cavity with losses entering as additional vacuum ports, an empirical loss scaling law (loss per round trip proportional to the 0.3 power of the confocal cavity length) used to set realistic round-trip losses for the 85 m cavity, and particle-swarm optimization over squeezing level, input-mirror transmissivity, and detuning. The optimized parameters, capped at 15 dB squeezing, yield the claimed BNS range gains.

What would settle it

Lock an 85 m detuned, over-coupled filter cavity with the proposed parameters and measure the squeezing degradation due to dephasing and locking noise at the operating point; if the degradation is large enough that less than about 15 dB of effective squeezing reaches the interferometer, the predicted at least 23% BNS detection-rate gain over FIS will not appear in the measured sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that for KAGRA post-O5's high-frequency configuration, the conventional detuned filter-cavity scheme is the best single-mode choice and beats the EPR scheme for BNS sources under the realistic 85 m length constraint, provided filter-cavity parameters are numerically optimized rather than set by analytic formulas. With 13 ppm round-trip losses and optimized input mirror transmissivity (about 63 ppm) and detuning, the FC scheme improves the BNS detection rate by at least 23% compared with frequency-independent squeezing; the paper also reports a 7% to 14% BNS-range gain over the EPR scheme, corresponding to a 23% to 48% detection-rate increase depending on loss assumptions. FIS remains preferred when low-frequency noise is dominated by classical noise, and EPR is preferred for heavy binary systems. AFC and FDBS schemes are not competitive.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative comparison assumes an 85 m detuned filter cavity can be locked and operated without dephasing or locking errors that degrade the injected squeezing; this is not modeled in the FC calculation, even though the paper cites dephasing as the main problem for short filter cavities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KAGRA should implement a detuned 85 m filter cavity with optimized input-mirror transmissivity and detuning to maximize BNS detection rate under quantum-noise-dominated low frequencies.
  • If low-frequency noise remains classical-dominated, as with low-quality-factor suspensions, frequency-independent squeezing is the better and simpler choice, needing no filter cavity.
  • Filter-cavity detuning can be re-optimized after commissioning to compensate for arm-power changes between half and full design value and for different intra-cavity loss conditions, without replacing the input mirror.
  • AFC and FDBS schemes can be deprioritized for KAGRA post-O5, while the EPR scheme should be retained as the option for heavier binary systems.
  • The reported 7% to 14% BNS-range gain over EPR translates to 23% to 48% more detections, making the FC choice consequential for event rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If KAGRA's actual suspension quality lands between the high- and low-quality scenarios considered, the crossover between FIS and FC will shift; a measured sensitivity curve after upgrade could decide which scheme to activate.
  • The same parameter-optimization and loss-scaling approach could be applied to other space-constrained underground detectors to choose between a filter cavity and EPR squeezing.
  • The claim that detuning alone compensates for arm-power and loss variations assumes the detuning actuator has enough range and precision, which the paper does not quantify.
  • The 23% detection-rate gain assumes an isotropic BNS source distribution; a strongly anisotropic distribution could make the realized rate gain differ from the quoted figure.
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. This manuscript compares five quantum noise reduction schemes—frequency-independent squeezing (FIS), filter-cavity frequency-dependent squeezing (FC), amplitude filter cavity (AFC), frequency-dependent beam splitter (FDBS), and EPR squeezing—for the KAGRA post-O5 high-frequency configuration. The authors develop a general cavity input-output model with loss ports, propose an empirical loss scaling law for filter cavities as a function of equivalent confocal length, and evaluate the astrophysical BNS range using an external detector model. They use particle swarm optimization to tune filter-cavity parameters and conclude that FC outperforms AFC and FDBS at all frequencies, that FC provides the largest BNS range when low-frequency noise is quantum dominated, and that an 85 m FC yields a 23–48% increase in BNS detection rate compared with FIS, with EPR best for heavy binaries.

Significance. The study is timely and practically relevant for KAGRA's post-O5 planning, and it performs a broader comparison of five quantum noise reduction schemes than is usually presented. The use of particle swarm optimization instead of the analytic filter-cavity formulas for loss-dominated cavities is a sensible methodological choice, and the use of an external detector model for BNS range evaluation is a strength. However, the central recommendation for FC is built on two load-bearing assumptions that are not fully quantified: the absence of dephasing and locking errors in the detuned FC, and the validity of the empirical loss scaling law. If the authors can model or bound the dephasing effect and provide a more complete characterization of the loss scaling, the work would provide a reliable quantitative basis for the KAGRA upgrade decision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 5 discussion] The text explicitly states that 'Neither the AFC nor the FDBS scheme outperforms the FC scheme, despite the absence of the dephasing effect associated with the latter,' and Section I cites Ref. [37] identifying dephasing and locking precision as the main issue for short filter cavities. Yet the FC transfer matrix in Eqs. 14 and 16 contains no phase-noise or detuning-jitter term, and the BNS-range comparison in Section V does not include one. Since a 23% detection-rate increase corresponds to roughly a 7% BNS-range improvement, an unmodeled few-percent degradation of FC sensitivity could erase or reverse the claimed advantage over FIS or EPR. The manuscript should model the dephasing/locking noise or bound its magnitude and demonstrate that the conclusion is robust.
  2. [Section II C, Eq. (9)] Equation (9), L = 10 x L_conf^0.3, is presented as an empirical scaling law for cavity losses, but the paper gives no underlying data table, no fit uncertainties, no number of data points, and no fit-quality measure. Figure 2 shows a blue curve and a few measured points, but the extrapolation to an 85 m cavity is load-bearing: Table I's optimal input-mirror transmissivities (58 and 63 ppm at 38 and 13 ppm losses) and the range curves in Fig. 6 depend directly on the assumed loss level. Please report the full set of measured loss values, the fitting procedure, and the sensitivity of the BNS-range ranking to the scaling coefficient and exponent.
  3. [Section IV, Table I] The particle swarm optimization is described as optimizing three parameters—squeezing level, input-mirror transmissivity, and detuning—but Table I reports only transmissivity values. The optimized detunings for the 40 m and 85 m cases, and the resulting filter-cavity bandwidths, are not reported anywhere, and Eqs. 24–25 are dismissed as no longer optimal without a replacement formula. Without the detuning values and the actual filter-cavity transfer functions used, the quantitative claims in Figs. 5–7 and the 23–48% rate gain cannot be independently reproduced or checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure captions 2 and 3] The captions contain the typo 'fucntion' for 'function', and the Introduction contains 'nuclesosynthesis' for 'nucleosynthesis'; these should be corrected during editing.
  2. [Section II C, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) uses the symbol L both for round-trip loss and for cavity length, which makes the expression 'L/(2τ) = c L/(2 L)' confusing; please distinguish the two quantities with different symbols.
  3. [Section VII, Appendix A] The appendix on the low-quality-factor suspension scenario is very brief and contains no equations or description of how the low-quality suspension is modeled; it should either be expanded or integrated into the main text with a short description.
  4. [References] Reference [44] contains LaTeX artifacts ('<? tex \break?>') and several references have inconsistent formatting; the reference list should be cleaned before submission.
  5. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract states 'at least 23% increase' without specifying the loss assumptions, while the text gives a range 23–48% depending on the 13 ppm and 38 ppm cases; please state the assumed loss conditions in the abstract for precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KAGRA scheme comparison is a forward-model study; the empirical loss scaling and self-cited loss measurements are inputs, not predictions of the model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Quantum-noise spectra are computed from the standard two-photon formalism (Eqs. 11-16), with the filter-cavity transfer matrix G derived from the cavity input-output relation (Eq. 4); BNS range is then evaluated with an external detector model using benchmark loss values. The only fitted input is the empirical loss scaling law (Eq. 9, L = 10 x L_conf^0.3, and Eq. 10, L_low = 3.5 x L_conf^0.3), calibrated to measured optical-loss data from Refs. [18,42,43,44], including two self-cited measurements [36,44]. Those measurements are external, falsifiable data points; the resulting fit is not a quantity the paper then claims to predict. The optimized filter-cavity parameters (input-mirror transmissivity, detuning, squeezing level) are design choices chosen to maximize BNS range, and the reported 23-48% detection-rate gain is presented as a conditional model projection, not as an independently predicted datum. No equation reduces to another equation by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged, unmodeled dephasing and locking errors (Section I, citing Ref. [37], and the Fig. 5 discussion) are a limitation that affects the robustness of the recommendation, but they do not make the derivation circular. The self-citations here are empirical benchmarks, not load-bearing assertions of uniqueness or derivational authority, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central comparison rests on standard quantum optics, assumed KAGRA design parameters, and an empirical loss scaling law fitted to a few measurements. The optimized filter cavity parameters (squeezing 15 dB, Tin values, detuning) and the loss scaling coefficients are free parameters that shape the BNS range results. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Injected squeezing level = 15 dB (optimized; upper limit of 10 to 15 dB range)
    Particle swarm optimization consistently selected 15 dB; the authors cap at 15 dB to remain conservative. The BNS range results depend on this choice.
  • Filter cavity input mirror transmissivity = 26 ppm (40 m, 10 ppm loss), 31 ppm (40 m, 30 ppm), 58 ppm (85 m, 38 ppm), 63 ppm (85 m, 13 ppm)
    PSO-optimized values in Table I; filter cavity performance and the FC versus FIS comparison depend directly on these.
  • Filter cavity detuning = not tabulated; set and optimized per case
    Detuning is one of the three PSO-optimized parameters; Section V also shows BNS range versus detuning, so the central result depends on the optimized detuning.
  • Empirical loss scaling coefficient and exponent = L = 10 * L_conf^0.3 (Eq. 9); lower envelope 3.5 * L_conf^0.3 (Eq. 10)
    Fit to selected cavity loss measurements in Fig. 2; the 40 m and 85 m loss assumptions (13 to 38 ppm) derive from this scaling, so the BNS comparison inherits its uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Two-photon formalism and cavity input-output relations (Eqs. 1 to 4) correctly describe lossy optical cavities coupled to squeezed fields.
    Standard quantum optics framework from Caves and Kimble et al.; used throughout Sections II to IV.
  • domain assumption Total quantum noise is the sum of four independent contributions: injection, arm loss, signal-recycling loss, and detection loss (Eq. 11).
    Noise budget decomposition assumes these noise sources are uncorrelated; standard in GW detector noise budgets but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption KAGRA post-O5 HF parameters in Table I (arm power 1.3 MW, TSEM 0.5%, 40 kg mirrors, and others) are the correct design values.
    Taken from KAGRA decadal upgrade strategy [35]; if the actual parameters differ, the range numbers and scheme ranking may shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Dephasing and locking errors for the 85 m detuned filter cavity are negligible for the quantum noise comparison.
    The paper notes Ref. [37] identifies dephasing and locking precision as the main issue for short filter cavities, but the simulation does not model it; the comparison favors FC.
  • standard math Particle swarm optimization converges to the global optimum for the filter cavity parameters.
    No convergence guarantees are shown; this is assumed in the optimization results.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical loss scaling L = 10 * L_conf^0.3 extrapolated from measured cavities is valid for an 85 m KAGRA-scale cavity.
    Used to set the 13 to 38 ppm loss scenarios; extrapolation beyond the measured range and without uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum noise reduction schemes for KAGRA post-O5 upgrade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBBC3QR4

@misc{pith2026260806229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum noise reduction schemes for KAGRA post-O5 upgrade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBBC3QR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06229}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum noise, arising from the quantisation of electromagnetic field, has been a limiting noise source for current gravitational wave (GW) detectors. Squeezed vacuum modifies quantum fluctuations and has been routinely employed. To reduce quantum noise, the current solution is to combine squeezed vacuum with a detuned over-coupled optical cavity (filter cavity) to achieve frequency-dependent squeezing (FDS). The sensitivity to GW signals can be decomposed into a noise budget. Depending on the detector configuration, the contribution from noise sources other than quantum noise can be significant. In particular, suspension noise from multi-stage pendulums is a key factor in quantum-noise reduction design. In the context of KAGRA post-O5, we have compared quantum noise reduction schemes, frequency-independent squeezing (FIS), FDS with a filter cavity (FC), FDS with an amplitude filter cavity (AFC), FDS with a frequency-dependent beam splitter (FDBS) and EPR scheme. The FC scheme was found to outperform the AFC and FDBS schemes at all frequencies. It was found that FIS scheme gives the largest Binary Neutron Star (BNS) range when low frequency noise is dominated by classical noise, while the FC scheme gives the largest BNS range when low-frequency noise becomes dominated by quantum noise. Optimised filter cavity parameters could substantially improve the BNS range. This would allow at least 23% increase in the detection rate for an 85 m filter cavity, compared with using FIS scheme. Once a filter cavity is constructed with optimised parameters, refining its detuning can fully compensate for the variations in arm power (from half to full design value) and for different intra-cavity loss conditions. The EPR scheme performs best for the detection of heavy binary systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of an optical cavity. (a) Simplified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Optical losses as a fucntion of confocal cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Contribution of optical losses to the total band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Schematic of quantum noise reduction schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Quantum noise from different quantum noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Detection range as a function of binary system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Quantum noise from different quantum noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Detection range for KAGRA post-O5 after con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    McCuller, S

    L. McCuller, S. Dwyer, A. C. Green, H. Yu, K. Kuns, L. Barsotti, C. Blair, D. Brown, A. Effler, M. Evans, et al. , Ligo’s quantum response to squeezed states, Phys- ical Review D 104, 062006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al. , Observation of gravi- 9 tational waves from a binary black hole merger, Physical review letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    L. S. Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, et al. , Advanced ligo, Classical and quantum gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, et al., Advanced virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, H. Yamamoto, and K. Collaboration), Interferometer design of the ka- gra gravitational wave detector, Physical Review D— Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 88, 043007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. , Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second ligo-virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Physical review D 103, 122002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    A. Ray, I. M. Hernandez, S. Mohite, J. Creighton, and S. Kapadia, Nonparametric inference of the population of compact binaries from gravitational-wave observations using binned gaussian processes, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 957, 37 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, et al. , Gw170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Physical review letters 121, 161101 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    D. C. H. J. . K. V. . R. D. . T. L. . . S. D. . V. S. . Y. S. . . 245 and L. C. O. C. A. I. . . H. G. . . H. D. A. . . M. C. . . P. D. . V. S. . 247, A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the hubble constant, Nature 551, 85 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    M. Isi, W. M. Farr, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Testing the black-hole area law with gw150914, Physical Review Letters 127, 011103 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    A. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adkins, D. Agarwal, et al. , Observation of gravita- tional waves from the coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 m￿ com- pact object and a neutron star, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Le...

    2024

  4. [11]

    A. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, et al. , Gw241011 and gw241110: Exploring binary formation and fundamental physics with asymmetric, high-spin black hole coalescences, The Astrophys...

    2025

  5. [12]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., Gw190521: a binary black hole merger with a total mass of 150 m￿, Physical review letters 125, 101102 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    A. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, et al. , Gw231123: a binary black hole merger with total mass 190–265 m￿, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters 993, L25 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Physical Review D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  8. [15]

    Gao, L.-a

    L. Gao, L.-a. Zheng, B. Lu, S. Shi, L. Tian, and Y. Zheng, Generation of squeezed vacuum state in the millihertz frequency band, Light: Science & Applications 13, 294 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nonde- molition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics, Physical Review D 65, 022002 (2001)

    2001

  10. [17]

    F. Y. Khalili, Quantum variational measurement in the next generation gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy 76, 102002 (2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    Evans, L

    M. Evans, L. Barsotti, P. Kwee, J. Harms, and H. Miao, Realistic filter cavities for advanced gravitational wave detectors, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation, and Cosmology 88, 022002 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Corbitt, N

    T. Corbitt, N. Mavalvala, and S. Whitcomb, Optical cav- ities as amplitude filters for squeezed fields, Physical Re- view D 70, 022002 (2004)

    2004

  13. [20]

    F. Y. Khalili, H. Miao, and Y. Chen, Increasing the sensi- tivity of future gravitational-wave detectors with double squeezed-input, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 80, 042006 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Y. Ma, H. Miao, B. H. Pang, M. Evans, C. Zhao, J. Harms, R. Schnabel, and Y. Chen, Proposal for gravitational-wave detection beyond the standard quan- tum limit through epr entanglement, Nature Physics 13, 776 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    X. Liu, S. Shi, Y. Wu, X. Wang, L. Tian, W. Li, Y. Wang, and Y. Zheng, Continuous variable quantum communi- cation with 40 pairs of entangled sideband modes, Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 68, 124211 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Bar- suglia, M. Beker, et al. , The einstein telescope: A third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  17. [24]

    Jones, T

    P. Jones, T. Zhang, H. Miao, and A. Freise, Implications of the quantum noise target for the einstein telescope infrastructure design, Physical Review D 101, 082002 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    J. Ding, E. Capocasa, I. Ahrend, F. Liu, Y. Zhao, and M. Barsuglia, Performance of multiple filter- cavity schemes for frequency-dependent squeezing in gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D 112, 122001 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    X. Peng, D. Martynov, Z. Zhu, and T. Zhang, Ap- proaches of frequency-dependent squeezing for the low frequency detector of the einstein telescope, Physical Re- view D 110, 082006 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Nishino, S

    Y. Nishino, S. Danilishin, Y. Enomoto, and T. Zhang, Frequency-dependent squeezing for gravitational-wave detection through quantum teleportation, Physical Re- view A 110, 022601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    McCuller, C

    L. McCuller, C. Whittle, D. Ganapathy, K. Komori, M. Tse, A. Fernandez-Galiana, L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. MacInnis, F. Matichard, et al. , Frequency-dependent squeezing for advanced ligo, Physical review letters 124, 171102 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Y. Zhao, N. Aritomi, E. Capocasa, M. Leonardi, M. Eisenmann, Y. Guo, E. Polini, A. Tomura, K. Arai, Y. Aso, et al. , Frequency-dependent squeezed vacuum 10 source for broadband quantum noise reduction in ad- vanced gravitational-wave detectors, Physical review let- ters 124, 1...

    2020

  23. [30]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, L. Mc- Culler, et al. , Broadband quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys- ical Review X 13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, A. Ain, S. Albanesi, C. Alléné, A. Allocca, A. Amato, C. Amra, M. Andia, T. Andrade, et al. , Frequency-dependent squeezed vacuum source for the advanced virgo gravitational-wave detector, Physical review letters 131, 041403 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, L. Aiello, A. Allocca, A. Am- ato, S. Ansoldi, S. Antier, M. Arène, N. Arnaud, S. As- cenzi, et al. , Increasing the astrophysical reach of the ad- vanced virgo detector via the application of squeezed vac- uum states of light, Physical review letters ...

    2019

  26. [33]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. Blair, D. Brown, S. e. Dwyer, A. Effler, et al. , Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Physical Review Letters 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Reitze, R

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Bar- sotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne, R. Eisenstein, et al. , Cosmic explorer: the us contribu- tion to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond ligo, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04833 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Akutsu, M

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, M. Aoumi, A. Araya, Y. Aso, L. Baiotti, R. Bajpai, K. Cannon, A.-Y. Chen, D. Chen, et al. , Decadal upgrade strategy for kagra toward post-o5 gravitational-wave astronomy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03392 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Capocasa, Y

    E. Capocasa, Y. Guo, M. Eisenmann, Y. Zhao, A. To- mura, K. Arai, Y. Aso, M. Marchiò, L. Pinard, P. Prat, et al. , Measurement of optical losses in a high-finesse 300 m filter cavity for broadband quantum noise reduction in gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D 98, 0...

    2018

  30. [38]

    F. Y. Khalili, Optimal configurations of filter cavity in future gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D— Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 81, 122002 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    M. A. Page, M. Goryachev, H. Miao, Y. Chen, Y. Ma, D. Mason, M. Rossi, C. D. Blair, L. Ju, D. G. Blair, et al., Gravitational wave detectors with broadband high fre- quency sensitivity, Communications Physics 4, 27 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    C. Bond, D. Brown, A. Freise, and K. A. Strain, Interfer- ometer techniques for gravitational-wave detection, Liv- ing reviews in relativity 19, 3 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    B. J. Slagmolen, M. B. Gray, K. G. Baigent, and D. E. McClelland, Phase-sensitive reflection technique for char- acterization of a fabry–perot interferometer, Applied Op- tics 39, 3638 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    N. Jin, C. A. McLemore, D. Mason, J. P. Hendrie, Y. Luo, M. L. Kelleher, P. Kharel, F. Quinlan, S. A. Did- dams, and P. T. Rakich, Micro-fabricated mirrors with finesse exceeding one million, Optica 9, 965 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Collaboration, Optical characterization of the ad- vanced<? tex \break?> virgo gravitational wave detector for<? tex \break?> the o4 observing run, Applied optics 64, 4710 (2025)

    V. Collaboration, Optical characterization of the ad- vanced<? tex \break?> virgo gravitational wave detector for<? tex \break?> the o4 observing run, Applied optics 64, 4710 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Y. Zhao, M. Vardaro, E. Capocasa, J. Ding, Y. Guo, M. Lequime, and M. Barsuglia, Optical losses as a func- tion of beam position on the mirrors in a 285-m sus- pended fabry-perot cavity, Physical Review Applied 22, 054040 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Isogai, J

    T. Isogai, J. Miller, P. Kwee, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, Loss in long-storage-time optical cavities, Optics express 21, 30114 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Capocasa, M

    E. Capocasa, M. Barsuglia, J. Degallaix, L. Pinard, N. Straniero, R. Schnabel, K. Somiya, Y. Aso, D. Tat- sumi, and R. Flaminio, Estimation of losses in a 300 m filter cavity and quantum noise reduction in the ka- gra gravitational-wave detector, Physical Review D 93, 082004 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Kozlowski, L.-W

    T. Kozlowski, L.-W. Wei, A. D. Spector, A. Hallal, H. Frädrich, D. C. Brotherton, I. Oceano, A. Ejlli, H. Grote, H. Hollis, et al. , Design and performance of the alps ii regeneration cavity, Optics express 33, 11153 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    P. Kwee, J. Miller, T. Isogai, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, Decoherence and degradation of squeezed states in quan- tum filter cavities, Physical Review D 90, 062006 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Whittle, K

    C. Whittle, K. Komori, D. Ganapathy, L. McCuller, L. Barsotti, N. Mavalvala, and M. Evans, Optimal detun- ing for quantum filter cavities, Physical Review D 102, 102002 (2020). 11 TABLE I: Summary of the relevant interferometer parameters. Parameter Symbol Value Carrier wavele...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.