Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometry beyond the standard quantum limit

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A room-temperature optical magnetometer reaches 2.1 ± 0.3 dB below the standard quantum limit around 7 kHz by combining variational readout with EPR conditioning.

desk verdict A careful, potentially first demonstration of sub-SQL optical magnetometry at acoustic frequencies, with the caveat that the headline 2.1 dB margin is reconstructed from the same model that defines the SQL. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06815 v1 pith:S6G72XYX submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Jun Jia , Túlio Brito Brasil , Maimouna Bocoum , Andrea Grimaldi , Laurits M{o}berg , Mikhail Balabas , Jörg Helge Müller , Emil Zeuthen
show 1 more author
Eugene Simon Polzik
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords opticalmagnetometrystandardquantumlimitEinstein-Podolsky-RosenentanglementvariationalreadoutponderomotivesqueezingbackactionacousticfrequencysensingFaradaymagnetometer
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 reports a room-temperature optical atomic magnetometer whose noise-equivalent magnetic-field sensitivity falls below the standard quantum limit (SQL) in the low-acoustic frequency band. The central claim is that combining variational readout, detecting the collective spin at a rotated quadrature $\theta_{\mathrm{mag}} \approx -55^\circ$, with EPR conditioning, using one arm of an entangled two-mode optical state to subtract correlated noise at phase $\phi_{\mathrm{EPR}} \approx 130^\circ$, yields $2.1 \pm 0.3$ dB of suppression below the SQL near 7 kHz at a Larmor frequency of 10.7 kHz. This matters because earlier sub-SQL optical magnetometry operated at radio-frequency Larmor precession, whereas the kilohertz acoustic band is the range relevant to biomedical and geomagnetic sensing. If the claim holds, engineered quantum correlations can relocate and reshape the sensitivity of a continuous Faraday magnetometer instead of relying on probe-power scaling.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a linear-response spin-oscillator model of the Faraday magnetometer. The collective spin is treated as a damped harmonic oscillator with Larmor frequency $\Omega_S$, susceptibilities $\chi_S(\Omega)$ and $\rho_S(\Omega)$, readout rate $\Gamma_S$, and decoherence $\gamma_S$, coupled to the probe through the quadrature interaction $H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{\Gamma_S}\,X_S X_L-\sqrt{A_B}\,B_{\mathrm{RF}} P_S$. Variational readout rotates the detected light quadrature by $\theta_{\mathrm{mag}}$, producing a nonzero imprecision-backaction correlation term proportional to $\Gamma_S \mathrm{Re}[\chi_S(\Omega)]\sin(2\theta_{\mathrm{mag}})$, i.e., ponderomotive squeezing. EPR conditioning replaces the vacuum mode in the probe's orthogonal polarization with one mode of a two-mode squeezed state and combines the atomic photocurrent with the other mode through a Wiener filter, subtracting correlated noise; the hybrid configuration does both at once. The spin response functions and loss model are common to all configurations, so the configurations differ only in the correlation term $S_{\mathrm{corr}}(\Omega)$.

What would settle it

Measure the hybrid-conditioned photocurrent at the 7 kHz sideband while sweeping probe power, and compare the noise floor against an SQL computed from parameters fixed independently of the fitted noise partition, for example from the RF-driven spin response alone. If the model misassigns technical or inhomogeneous-broadening noise to backaction or imprecision, the inferred SQL and the reported 2.1 dB margin would shift by an amount comparable to the misassigned noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the standard quantum limit in continuous Faraday magnetometry is not a hard floor set by probe power but can be exceeded by creating correlations between measurement imprecision and quantum backaction. With the spin precessing at 10.7 kHz, the uncorrelated readout reference gives a peak sensitivity of about $65\ \mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$; EPR conditioning alone reaches about $47\ \mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ and gives $1.4 \pm 0.2$ dB below the SQL at $\phi_{\mathrm{EPR}} = 130^\circ$, while the hybrid configuration, with the variational readout at $\theta_{\mathrm{mag}} \approx -55^\circ$, reaches $2.1 \pm 0.3$ dB below the SQL near 7 kHz. The paper further claims that the depth, central frequency, and bandwidth of the enhancement are tunable through the two phases, and that frequency-dependent optimization of the conditioning phase would extend the enhancement over roughly an 8 kHz window, broadening the 3 dB detection bandwidth from about 8 kHz to about 13 kHz. These results are presented as the first sub-SQL optical magnetometry in the acoustic frequency regime.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 2.1 dB margin is computed, not read directly: the experimenters fit a model of the atom-light measurement to the same noise spectra they compare against the standard quantum limit, so the claim stands or falls on whether that model correctly divides the measured noise into light-imprecision, backaction, and intrinsic atomic parts near 7 kHz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-SQL optical magnetometry is no longer confined to radio-frequency Larmor precession; the same room-temperature apparatus operates below the SQL at about 7 kHz, in the acoustic band relevant to biomagnetic and geomagnetic sensing.
  • The enhancement depth, central frequency, and bandwidth become controllable via the variational readout angle and the EPR conditioning phase, relaxing the usual peak-sensitivity-versus-bandwidth trade-off.
  • Frequency-dependent optimization of the conditioning phase would extend quantum enhancement over an approximately 8 kHz window and widen the 3 dB detection bandwidth from roughly 8 kHz to 13 kHz.
  • Because increasing probe power degrades the collective spin length, quantum correlation engineering becomes the practical route to improved sensitivity instead of power scaling.
  • The vector magnetometer model predicts a direction- and frequency-dependent quantum-limited sensitivity, suggesting that multi-axis probing or a frequency-dependent measurement basis would be needed for optimal broadband operation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the sub-SQL margin is reconstructed from a fitted model rather than read directly from a single noise trace, a natural test would be to verify the inferred SQL against an independent calibration, for example by injecting a known vacuum-noise-limited probe and checking the model's partition of imprecision versus backaction at 7 kHz.
  • The same recipe, rotated readout plus an entangled reference channel combined by Wiener filtering, should transfer to other linear Faraday sensors, including solid-state spin ensembles and hot-vapour SERF-type magnetometers, once their susceptibilities are known.
  • The predicted sensitivity anisotropy at acoustic Larmor frequencies implies that a dual-quadrature or vector readout may outperform any single-axis configuration, a possibility the paper mentions but does not demonstrate experimentally.
  • A filter cavity or negative-mass reference oscillator implementing the frequency-dependent optimal conditioning phase would convert the demonstrated narrowband enhancement into a broadband one; this is a concrete engineering step suggested by the data.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a room-temperature optical atomic magnetometer operating at Larmor frequencies near 10 kHz and claims to surpass the standard quantum limit (SQL) by combining variational readout with EPR-entangled probe conditioning. The central result is a hybrid configuration (θ_mag ≈ −55°, φ_EPR ≈ 130°) that allegedly achieves 2.1 ± 0.3 dB suppression of the noise-equivalent magnetic-field sensitivity below the SQL around 7 kHz (Fig. 4d and inset). The authors first characterize the noise budget and validate near-SQL operation at 59 kHz, then demonstrate variational readout, EPR conditioning, and the hybrid combination, supported by a linear-response model and extensive calibration.

Significance. If the central claim is sound, this would be the first demonstration of sub-SQL optical magnetometry in the low-acoustic frequency range, which is relevant for biomedical and geomagnetic sensing. The paper is strong in experimental methodology: it includes detailed calibration of the spin transfer function, cross-validation against observed ponderomotive squeezing, RF-driven response fits, and a Monte Carlo bootstrap for statistical uncertainty. The ratio S_meas/S_SQL cancels the transduction factor A_B and the spin susceptibility ρ_S(Ω), which reduces some calibration dependence. However, the headline margin is model-reconstructed rather than directly measured, and the SQL reference itself is derived from the same Lorentzian spin model used to fit the data. The paper's own supplementary material reports systematic Lorentzian residuals and improved Voigt fits, making the model-form sensitivity of the 2.1 dB claim a load-bearing issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'BENCHMARKING AGAINST THE STANDARD QUANTUM LIMIT'; Eq. (8); Supplementary Sec. XI] The sub-SQL margin is not a directly measured quantity. Both the conditional spectrum and the SQL reference in Eq. (8) are computed from the same Lorentzian susceptibility model, with parameters Γ_S, γ_S, n_S, and A_B extracted by fitting the same spin-noise data. In the ratio S_meas/S_SQL, A_B and ρ_S cancel, but the ratio still depends on χ_S, Γ_S, and cos(θ_mag), all of which inherit the Lorentzian lineshape assumption. Supplementary Sec. XI explicitly reports a systematic deviation between Lorentzian fits and data within ±500 Hz of resonance, reduced by a Voigt model, and Methods acknowledges that off-resonant modelling is complicated by residual magnetic-field inhomogeneities and adjacent Zeeman manifolds. Because the 2.1 dB claim is evaluated at ~3.7 kHz detuning, where Voigt wings can differ from Lorentzian tails, a Voigt correction could shift the inferred SQL and reduce the margin. I ask the authors to quantify the model-form uncertainty by recomputing the margin with the Voigt susceptibility and/or by extracting the SQL directly from the data in a way that does not assume the same lineshape model.
  2. [Methods, 'BENCHMARKING AGAINST THE STANDARD QUANTUM LIMIT'] The SQL validation was performed on a different Cs cell of identical geometry, because the original cell's atomic density had degraded. The text asserts that this does not affect the results since the SQL depends only on the cell's own parameters, which is logically correct if the model is fully universal. However, the validation is intended to test the theoretical SQL model against experimental data; without validation on the same cell used for the 2.1 dB claim, the transfer of the model relies on the unverified assumption that the measurement cell has no additional inhomogeneous broadening or other lineshape anomalies beyond the fitted Lorentzian parameters. Please provide explicit evidence that the measurement cell's noise spectra are consistent with the same model form (e.g., by showing the fit residuals for the measurement cell in the off-resonant window), or state this as a caveat on the claim.
  3. [Methods, 'UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND MODEL UNCERTAINTY'] The quoted ±0.3 dB uncertainty on the sub-SQL margin is obtained from a parametric Monte Carlo bootstrap over the fit covariance matrix only. This does not include systematic contributions from model-form uncertainty (Lorentzian versus Voigt), from the cell-swapped SQL validation, or from the ±10% model-data agreement in the off-resonant window that the authors themselves cite. Since the systematic residuals are comparable in size to the quoted statistical error, the reported uncertainty likely understates the true uncertainty of the 2.1 dB margin. Please provide a more conservative uncertainty estimate that includes these systematic contributions, or give a quantitative argument for why they are negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract claims 'we demonstrate such sensitivity' and 'we demonstrate overcoming the limit'; because the sub-SQL sensitivity is reconstructed from a fitted model rather than measured directly as a raw noise trace, consider phrasing such as 'we report a reconstructed sensitivity that exceeds the SQL' to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Fig. 4d caption and inset] The inset is described as 'conditional variance normalized to the SQL' but the vertical axis label is not defined in the caption; please state explicitly that the normalization uses the SQL from Eq. (8) with the calibrated parameters, and clarify whether the spin thermal noise and optical losses are included in the numerator.
  3. [Methods, 'BENCHMARKING AGAINST THE STANDARD QUANTUM LIMIT'] The sentence 'the choice of calibration cell does not affect the results' is too strong given that the validation is meant to test the model against experiment; consider rephrasing to explain why cell-specific parameters are sufficient for transferring the validation.
  4. [Throughout] The terms 'beyond-SQL' and 'sub-SQL' are used interchangeably; please define the preferred term once in the introduction and use it consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Sub-SQL margin is a joint-fit prediction sharing the SQL reference's fitted Lorentzian model, not a directly measured benchmark comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, 'Uncertainty analysis and model uncertainty'; Eq. (8); Fig. 4d inset]
    "During the sub-SQL analysis, the transduction coefficient A_B and the RF field amplitude cancel in the ratio S_meas/S_SQL, and therefore do not contribute to the sub-SQL uncertainty budget. ... The sub-SQL margin is evaluated at the frequency of maximum quantum noise reduction predicted by the joint fit and the reported value and 1σ uncertainty are the mean and standard deviation of the resulting bootstrap distribution."

    The headline 2.1 dB margin is obtained by evaluating the joint-fit model at a frequency chosen by the same fit. Both the reconstructed sensitivity in Eq. (7) and the SQL in Eq. (8) are built from the same fitted Lorentzian parameters χ_S, ρ_S, Γ_S, γ_S; in the ratio S_meas/S_SQL, ρ_S and A_B cancel, leaving S_meas/(η_out Γ_S |χ_S| cos²θ_mag). Thus the margin is not an independent field-calibrated measurement of a quantum advantage but a prediction of the fitted spin model. The paper itself concedes that the Lorentzian 'does not fully reproduce the off-resonant lineshape' and is improved by a Voigt profile, which would alter the inferred SQL and shift the 2.1 dB number; the parametric bootstrap covers only fit covariance, not this model-form freedom.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain: references [34,37] motivate the optimal conditioning phase, but the hybrid model is re-derived in Supplementary Sec. VIII, and the EPR source/atomic oscillator descriptions in prior papers are normal experimental context. The raw quantum effects (up to ~5 dB conditional squeezing, ~3 dB EPR suppression relative to the vacuum-driven reference) are directly observed and independent of the SQL model. However, the specific sub-SQL claim central to the abstract and conclusion—2.1±0.3 dB below SQL near 7 kHz—is not a directly measured number. It is reconstructed by converting measured spin-noise spectra to field sensitivity using a transfer function whose parameters come from fitting those same spectra, and the SQL reference is computed from the same spin-susceptibility model. The paper's own acknowledgement of Lorentzian lineshape residuals and the improved Voigt fit indicates a model-form sensitivity that is not included in the quoted 0.3 dB uncertainty, so the headline margin is partly self-consistent by construction rather than fully externally benchmarked. Score 4 reflects this partial circularity while recognizing the independent content of the observed squeezing and the model's cross-validation against a separate calibration cell.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a calibrated linear-response model of the spin oscillator and measurement. Most quantitative quantities used to compute the SQL and the sensitivity are fitted to the same measured spectra, and the SQL benchmark uses a dark-decoherence definition and was validated on a separate cell. No new physical entities are introduced; the EPR source, spin oscillator, and noise channels are described in the group's prior publications.

free parameters (7)
  • Spin readout rate Γ_S = 9.3 kHz (10.7 kHz Larmor), 8.2 kHz (58.8 kHz)
    Fitted from the spin-noise spectra; sets the imprecision/backaction balance and enters the SQL reference.
  • Spin decoherence rate γ_S = 0.19 kHz / 0.24 kHz
    Fitted from narrowband spin-noise Lorentzian; used in susceptibilities χ_S and ρ_S.
  • Effective thermal occupation n_S = 3.4 / 1.8
    Fitted to spin-noise spectra; contribution to intrinsic spin noise and to noise budget decomposition.
  • Broadband spin parameters Γ_bb, γ_bb, n_bb = Γ_bb = 2 / 3.5 kHz, γ_bb = 145 kHz, n_bb = 3.4 / 1.8
    Fitted to the broad wings of the spin-noise spectrum; part of model separating intrinsic spin noise.
  • Transduction factor A_B = 2.6(5) / 2.3(4) × 10^-3 Hz²/fT²
    Fitted from RF-driven spin-noise response; cancels in the sub-SQL ratio but shapes the absolute sensitivity scale.
  • Hybrid detection angle θ_mag = -55 degrees
    Extracted from a fit to the variational-readout spectra driven by EPR fluctuations; used for the hybrid configuration.
  • Two-mode squeezing factor r = 1.43
    Characterized from the EPR source; gives the conditional noise reduction and enters the model spectra.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linearized Bloch equation and input-output relations for the Faraday interaction (Supplementary Sec. I).
    Assumes small transverse spin components, weak RF drive, and a linearly polarized probe so the dynamics linearize around a strongly polarized spin state.
  • domain assumption Markovian white Langevin noise for spin decoherence with symmetrized spectrum n_s + 1/2.
    Used in the noise decomposition (Methods Eq. S19); assumes thermal Gaussian noise.
  • domain assumption Lorentzian spin susceptibility with power-broadened γ_S plus an additional broadband spin-noise channel (γ_bb, Γ_bb).
    The model for the measured spin-noise shape; the broadband channel is invoked to explain faster-decaying spin modes (Refs. 32, 33).
  • domain assumption SQL is defined using the intrinsic (dark) decoherence rate rather than the power-broadened rate, with power-broadening effects negligible at the analyzed off-resonant frequencies.
    Methods 'Benchmarking against the standard quantum limit' and Supplementary Sec. IV: the SQL reference uses dark decoherence; the validity is asserted for off-resonant detunings.
  • standard math Non-causal Wiener filter is appropriate for offline processing of stationary data.
    Supplementary Sec. VII: closed-form frequency-domain optimal gain g_opt(Ω) = -S*_mag,EPR/S_EPR; assumes access to the full time record.
  • ad hoc to paper The SQL validation performed on a different Cs cell is applicable to the measurement cell because the SQL depends only on that cell's own parameters.
    Methods: 'the choice of calibration cell does not affect the results'; this is a justification for the cell swap rather than an externally established fact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometry beyond the standard quantum limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6G72XYX

@misc{pith2026260806815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometry beyond the standard quantum limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6G72XYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06815}
}
read the original abstract

Optical atomic magnetometry is a powerful tool for continuous sensing applications, yet, in the absence of quantum correlations, its sensitivity is limited by the standard quantum limit (SQL) stemming from a trade-off between optical probe imprecision and quantum measurement backaction. Beyond-SQL sensitivity requires quantum correlations that modify these measurement noise sources. Here we demonstrate such sensitivity by using entangled state of the probe light and by engineering correlations between measurement imprecision and backaction. Having first explored SQL in a broad range of frequencies, we demonstrate overcoming the limit by combining variational readout with coupling the magnetometer to one mode of a bipartite entangled light state and conditioning the results on the other entangled mode. Tuning the detected light quadratures and combining the signals from the two measurement channels, we achieve sensitivity beyond the SQL in a broad range of acoustic frequencies which has so far remained inaccessible to quantum-noise-limited optical magnetometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Principles of the entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometer and quantum-noise cancellation. a, The input state of the pair of light beams (1064 and 852 nm) is EPR-entangled. The probe beam at 852 nm interacts off-resonantly with an ensemble of Cs atoms optically pumped parallel to the dc magnetic field B0. Quantum noise in the quadrature θmag, defined by the quarter waveplate (QWP), the half-wave plate (HWP), and p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Noise budget and sensitivity limits of an RF orientation-based optical magnetometer. a, Measured phase quadrature (θmag = 0 ◦ ) of the spin noise spectrum for a vacuum-noise-limited probe (red trace) in probe shot noise units. The red dashed curve shows the fitted spin noise and the shaded areas present individual noise contributions: quantum backaction (red), measurement imprecision (blue), spin thermal noise (grey… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantum-enhanced optical magnetometer enabled by variational readout. The output-light phasor diagrams illustrate the quantum enhancement mechanism of the variational readout. At θmag = 0 ◦ (left inset), imprecision (PL) and backaction (ΓSχS(Ω)XL) are uncorrelated, add incoherently, and lie along the signal (BRF) limiting the sensitivity. Rotating the detection quadrature away from the pure phase quadrature (θmag , … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometer. a, Entanglement injection and no variational readout, the magnetometer detection phase phase (θmag = 0 ◦ ) while the 1064-nm reference mode is measured with a tunable phase (ϕEPR). The plot shows the noise-equivalent magnetic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical magnetometer with frequency-optimized de￾tection and EPR conditioning phases. Teal, red, and purple curves show the predicted quantum-enhanced magnetometer sensitivity for variational readout (VR), EPR conditioning, and hybrid configura￾tion, respectively, base…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Devoret, M

    Clerk, A. A., Devoret, M. H., Girvin, S. M., Marquardt, F. & Schoelkopf, R. J. Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification.Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155–1208 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Braginsky, V . B. & Khalili, F. Y .Quantum measurement(Cam- bridge University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Aspelmeyer, M., Kippenberg, T. J. & Marquardt, F. Cavity op- tomechanics.Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391–1452. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.1391

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.1391

  4. [4]

    Classical and quantum restrictions on the detec- tion of weak disturbances of a macroscopic oscillator.Zh

    Braginsky, V . Classical and quantum restrictions on the detec- tion of weak disturbances of a macroscopic oscillator.Zh. Eksp. Teor . Fiz53, 1434–1441 (1967)

    work page 1967

  5. [5]

    Khalili, F. Y . & Zeuthen, E. Quantum limits for stationary force sensing.Phys. Rev. A103, 043721 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [7]

    & Romalis, M

    Budker, D. & Romalis, M. Optical magnetometry.Nat. Phys. 3, 227–234 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [8]

    & Kimball, D

    Budker, D. & Kimball, D. F. J.Optical Magnetometry(Cam- bridge University Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [9]

    Wasilewski, W.et al.Quantum noise limited and entanglement- assisted magnetometry.Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 62 references
  1. [10]

    & Scully, M

    Fleischhauer, M., Matsko, A. & Scully, M. Quantum limit of optical magnetometry in the presence of ac Stark shifts.Phys. Rev. A62, 013808 (2000)

    2000

  2. [11]

    V ., Hammerer, K., Korolev, N

    Vasilyev, D. V ., Hammerer, K., Korolev, N. & Sørensen, A. S. Quantum noise for faraday light–matter interfaces.J. Phys. B 45, 124007 (2012)

    2012

  3. [12]

    & Khalili, F

    Braginsky, V . & Khalili, F. Quantum nondemolition mea- surements: the route from toys to tools.Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1996). URLhttps://journals.aps.org/rmp/ abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1

    1996 doi

  4. [13]

    Phys.11, 389–392 (2015)

    Vasilakis, G.et al.Generation of a squeezed state of an oscil- lator by stroboscopic back-action-evading measurement.Nat. Phys.11, 389–392 (2015)

    2015

  5. [14]

    M., Bianchet, L

    Colangelo, G., Ciurana, F. M., Bianchet, L. C., Sewell, R. J. & Mitchell, M. W. Simultaneous tracking of spin angle and amplitude beyond classical limits.Nature543, 525–528 (2017)

    2017

  6. [15]

    & Mitchell, M

    Troullinou, C., Jim ´enez-Mart´ınez, R., Kong, J., Lucivero, V . & Mitchell, M. Squeezed-light enhancement and backaction evasion in a high sensitivity optically pumped magnetometer. Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 193601 (2021)

    2021

  7. [16]

    Polzik, E. S. & Hammerer, K. Trajectories without quantum uncertainties.Annalen der Physik527(2015). URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201400099

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    B., Thomas, R

    Møller, C. B., Thomas, R. A., Vasilakis, G.et al.Quantum back-action-evading measurement of motion in a negative mass reference frame.Nature547, 191–195 (2017). URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22980

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    Kampel, N.et al.Improving broadband displacement detection with quantum correlations.Phys. Rev. X7, 021008 (2017)

    2017

  10. [19]

    & Schliesser, A

    Mason, D., Chen, J., Rossi, M., Tsaturyan, Y . & Schliesser, A. Continuous force and displacement measurement below the standard quantum limit.Nat. Phys.15, 745–749 (2019)

    2019

  11. [20]

    Commun.15, 4146 (2024)

    Bærentsen, C.et al.Squeezed light from an oscillator measured at the rate of oscillation.Nat. Commun.15, 4146 (2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    J., Cripe, J., Mansell, G

    Yap, M. J., Cripe, J., Mansell, G. L.et al.Broadband reduction of quantum radiation pressure noise via squeezed light injec- tion.Nat. Photon.14, 19–23 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    Ganapathy, D., Jia, W., Nakano, M.et al.Broad- band Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO Detectors with Frequency-Dependent Squeezing.Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.13.041021

    2023

  14. [23]

    Jia, W.et al.Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational- wave detector below the standard quantum limit.Science385, 1318–1321 (2024)

    2024

  15. [24]

    L., Khalili, F

    Danilishin, S. L., Khalili, F. Y . & Miao, H. Advanced quan- tum techniques for future gravitational-wave detectors.Liv- ing Rev. Relativ.22(2019). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s41114-019-0018-y

    2019

  16. [25]

    K.et al.Quan- tum sensors for biomedical applications.Nat

    Aslam, N., Zhou, H., Urbach, E. K.et al.Quan- tum sensors for biomedical applications.Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157–169 (2023). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s42254-023-00558-3

    2023

  17. [26]

    J., Knuutila, J

    H ¨am¨al¨ainen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J. & 12 Lounasmaa, O. V . Magnetoencephalography—theory, instru- mentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the work- ing human brain.Rev. Mod. Phys.65, 413 (1993)

    1993

  18. [27]

    Earth’s field magnetometry.Rep

    Stuart, W. Earth’s field magnetometry.Rep. Prog. Phys.35, 803–881 (1972)

    1972

  19. [28]

    Geomagnetism and earthquake prediction

    Rikitake, T. Geomagnetism and earthquake prediction. Tectonophysics6, 59–68 (1968)

    1968

  20. [29]

    R.et al.Micrometer-scale magnetic imaging of geological samples using a quantum diamond microscope

    Glenn, D. R.et al.Micrometer-scale magnetic imaging of geological samples using a quantum diamond microscope. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.18, 3254–3267 (2017)

    2017

  21. [30]

    Hammerer, K., Sørensen, A. S. & Polzik, E. S. Quantum inter- face between light and atomic ensembles.Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1041–1093 (2010)

    2010

  22. [31]

    Geremia, J., Stockton, J. K. & Mabuchi, H. Tensor polarizabil- ity and dispersive quantum measurement of multilevel atoms. Phys. Rev. A73, 042112 (2006)

    2006

  23. [32]

    Commun.7, 11356 (2016)

    Borregaard, J.et al.Scalable photonic network architecture based on motional averaging in room temperature gas.Nat. Commun.7, 11356 (2016)

    2016

  24. [33]

    & Firstenberg, O

    Shaham, R., Katz, O. & Firstenberg, O. Quantum dynam- ics of collective spin states in a thermal gas.Phys. Rev. A 102, 012822 (2020). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.102.012822

    2020

  25. [34]

    Zeuthen, E., Polzik, E. S. & Khalili, F. Y . Gravitational wave detection beyond the standard quantum limit using a negative-mass spin system and virtual rigidity.Phys. Rev. D 100, 062004 (2019). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.100.062004

    2019

  26. [35]

    & Stamper-Kurn, D

    Buchmann, L., Schreppler, S., Kohler, J., Spethmann, N. & Stamper-Kurn, D. Complex squeezing and force measure- ment beyond the standard quantum limit.Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 030801 (2016)

    2016

  27. [36]

    Master’s thesis, University of Copenhagen (2023)

    Zoumis, A.Laser Noise Stabilisation for Low Frequency Quan- tum Back Action Cancellation. Master’s thesis, University of Copenhagen (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    Novikov, V .et al.Hybrid quantum network for sensing in the acoustic frequency range.Nature643, 955–960 (2025)

    2025

  29. [38]

    Li, J.et al.SERF atomic magnetometer–recent advances and applications: A review.IEEE Sensors Journal18, 8198–8207 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.29944(2026)

    Jin, X.et al.Four Generations of Quantum Biomedical Sensors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.29944(2026)

    2026

  31. [40]

    Zuo, S.et al.Ultrasensitive Magnetoelectric Sensing System for Pico-Tesla MagnetoMyoGraphy.IEEE Trans. Biomed. Cir- cuits Syst.14, 971–984 (2020)

    2020

  32. [41]

    B., Novikov, V ., Kerdoncuff, H.et al.Two-colour high-purity Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen photonic state.Nat

    Brasil, T. B., Novikov, V ., Kerdoncuff, H.et al.Two-colour high-purity Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen photonic state.Nat. Commun.13(2022). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-022-32495-7

    2022

  33. [42]

    B.et al.Acoustic fre- quency atomic spin oscillator in the quantum regime.Nat

    Jia, J., Novikov, V ., Brasil, T. B.et al.Acoustic fre- quency atomic spin oscillator in the quantum regime.Nat. Commun.14(2023). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-023-42059-y

    2023

  34. [43]

    Grimaldi, A., Novikov, V ., Brasil, T. B. & Polzik, E. S. Coher- ent phase control of two-color continuous variable entangled light.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03303(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Jia, J.Conditional broadband quantum noise reduction with negative mass spin oscillators. Ph.d. thesis, Copenhagen University (2024). URLhttps://nbi.ku.dk/english/ theses/phd-theses/jun-jia/

    2024

  36. [45]

    Yu, H.et al.Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of LIGO.Nature583, 43–47 (2020)

    2020

  37. [46]

    J., Levin, Y ., Matsko, A

    Kimble, H. J., Levin, Y ., Matsko, A. B.et al.Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nondemolition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics.Phys. Rev. D65, 022002 (2001). URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.022002

    2001 doi

  38. [47]

    W.et al.Optimal quantum noise cancellation with an entangled witness channel.Phys

    Gould, D. W.et al.Optimal quantum noise cancellation with an entangled witness channel.Phys. Rev. Research3, 043079 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    Entanglement-enhanced optical magnetometry beyond the standard quantum limit

    Solomon Jr, O. M. PSD computations using Welch’s method. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report N92, 10–2172 (1991). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been supported by VILLUM FONDEN un- der a Villum Investigator Grant, grant no. 25880, by the Novo Nordisk Foundation through Copenhagen C...

    1991

  40. [49]

    For a vacuum limited probe field, the input quadratures satisfy: Svac(Ω) =S X in L,X in L (Ω) =S P in LP in L (Ω) = 1 2,SX in L,P in L (Ω) = 0.(S16) When the probe’s orthogonal polarization mode is replaced by one of an EPR entangled state, the spectra characterize both the fl...

  41. [50]

    D. A. Steck, Cesium D line data, (2003)

    2003

  42. [51]

    R. A. Thomas, M. Parniak, C. Østfeldt,et al., Entanglement between distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems, Nat. Phys.17, 228–233 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Novikov, J

    V. Novikov, J. Jia, T. B. Brasil, A. Grimaldi, M. Bocoum, M. Balabas, J. H. M¨ uller, E. Zeuthen, and E. S. Polzik, Hybrid quantum network for sensing in the acoustic frequency range, Nature643, 955 (2025)

    2025

  44. [53]

    Julsgaard,Entanglement and Quantum Interactions with Macroscopic Gas Samples, Ph.d

    B. Julsgaard,Entanglement and Quantum Interactions with Macroscopic Gas Samples, Ph.d. thesis, University of Aarhus (2003)

    2003

  45. [54]

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum measurement theory in gravitational-wave detectors, Living Rev. Relativ.15, 10.12942/lrr-2012-5 (2012)

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    S. L. Danilishin, F. Y. Khalili, and H. Miao, Advanced quantum techniques for future gravitational-wave detectors, Living Rev. Relativ.22, 10.1007/s41114-019-0018-y (2019)

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Braginsky, Classical and quantum restrictions on the detection of weak disturbances of a macroscopic oscillator, Zh

    V. Braginsky, Classical and quantum restrictions on the detection of weak disturbances of a macroscopic oscillator, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz53, 1434 (1967)

    1967

  48. [57]

    V. B. Braginsky and F. Y. Khalili,Quantum measurement(Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  49. [58]

    F. Y. Khalili and E. Zeuthen, Quantum limits for stationary force sensing, Phys. Rev. A103, 043721 (2021). 11

    2021

  50. [59]

    H. Yu, L. McCuller, M. Tse, N. Kijbunchoo, L. Barsotti, and N. Mavalvala, Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of ligo, Nature583, 43 (2020)

    2020

  51. [60]

    R. G. Brown and P. Y. Hwang, Introduction to random signals and applied kalman filtering: with matlab exercises and solutions, Introduction to random signals and applied Kalman filtering: with MATLAB exercises and solutions (1997)

    1997

  52. [61]

    D. W. Gould, M. J. Yap, V. B. Adya, B. J. Slagmolen, R. L. Ward, and D. E. McClelland, Optimal quantum noise cancellation with an entangled witness channel, Phys. Rev. Research3, 043079 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Entanglement purification of gaussian continuous variable quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4002 (2000)

    2000

  54. [63]

    Andalkar and R

    A. Andalkar and R. B. Warrington, High-resolution measurement of the pressure broadening and shift of the csd1 andd2 lines by n 2 and he buffer gases, Phys. Rev. A65, 032708 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

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