Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

A phase-tuned squeezed state beats the vacuum-probe sensitivity limit in gravimetry at every interaction time.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Tilted (position-momentum correlated) squeezed vacuum probes give a quantum Fisher information advantage over vacuum probes for estimating gravitational acceleration at all interaction times, unlike canonical quadrature squeezing.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection The central QFI formula and the all-time θ=π/4 advantage are correct, but the Supplemental Material's covariance matrix is wrong, undermining the CFI/saturation claims and the cosh^2(2r) asymptotic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.13973 v3 pith:64IZTMFI submitted 2025-10-15 quant-ph

Towards gravimetry enhancement with squeezed states

Oziel R. de Araujo , Lucas S. Marinho , Jonas F. G. Santos , Carlos H. S. Vieira This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologygravimetrysqueezed statesquantum Fisher informationposition-momentum correlationCramér–Rao boundGaussian statesgravitational acceleration estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 the phase of a squeezed quantum probe—not just its amplitude—can improve the precision of gravitational acceleration estimation. Using a Gaussian squeezed vacuum state falling under a uniform gravitational field, the authors derive an exact expression for the quantum Fisher information and find that states with position-momentum correlation (for example, squeezing phase θ=π/4) beat the vacuum-probe shot-noise limit for every interaction time, while squeezing along a canonical quadrature only helps in one time regime. They also show that a projective momentum measurement can saturate the quantum limit, but the optimal squeezing phase changes with time. The significance is that rotating the squeezing direction is an energy-free knob that could enhance real gravimeters, and the result suggests adaptive phase control as a design principle.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the quantum Fisher information for estimating g from a free-falling Gaussian probe depends on both the squeezing amplitude r and the squeezing phase θ. For θ=0 (position squeezing) the advantage over vacuum appears only at long times; for θ=π/2 (momentum squeezing) only at short times. For intermediate phases, which produce a nonzero position-momentum correlation γ=sinh(2r) sin(2θ), the relative QFI Q=F_g/F_g^vac stays above 1 at all times, so the correlated squeezed probe always outperforms the vacuum. The paper further demonstrates that a projective momentum measurement attains the QFI bound, while position and heterodyne measurements do not, and tha

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum Fisher information formula Eq. (2) for a squeezed vacuum state in a uniform gravitational field, together with the position-momentum correlation parameter γ=sinh(2r) sin(2θ) that appears in the covariance matrix. In the short-time limit the QFI is proportional to σ²/σ₀², and in the long-time limit to (σ₀²/σ²+γ²); these two asymptotic factors are what make correlated phases advantageous at both ends of the time domain. The paper also uses the classical Fisher information for Gaussian projective measurements—parameterized by s, covering position (s→0), momentum (s→∞), and heterodyne (s=1)—to determine which measurement scheme reaches the quantum limit.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a pure Gaussian state evolving unitarily under a perfectly uniform gravitational field, with no decoherence, no temperature, no detection inefficiency, and no gravity-gradient terms; if any of these are present, the predicted all-time advantage over vacuum probes may not survive.

What would settle it

Compute the quantum Fisher information for the same Hamiltonian with a thermal (mixed) squeezed state or under a Markovian momentum-diffusion master equation, and check whether the ratio Q=F_g/F_g^vac dips below 1 at any interaction time; if it does, the central claim fails. Alternatively, run a cold-atom free-fall experiment with θ≈π/4 squeezed probes and compare long-time sensitivity against vacuum probes.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A gravimeter using a single free-falling probe squeezed at an intermediate phase should estimate g better than a vacuum-state probe at every free-fall time, with no extra energy cost.
  • A projective momentum measurement saturates the Cramér–Rao bound; position or heterodyne measurements cannot reach the quantum limit.
  • The QFI advantage is independent of the value of g itself, so the improvement holds for any uniform gravitational field strength.
  • Because the optimal squeezing phase is time-dependent, staying at the quantum limit requires adaptive or dynamically controlled squeezing orientation.
  • With parameters typical of cold cesium atoms (4.3 dB squeezing, σ₀ = 30 nm, 500 ms fall), the model yields a sensitivity around 1×10⁻⁷ m·s⁻²/√Hz, in line with current gravimeters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One likely extension: the same phase-tuning effect should appear in any parameter estimation driven by a quadratic Hamiltonian, such as measuring forces or accelerations in optomechanical systems; the paper does not explore this.
  • Realistic gravimetry includes decoherence, temperature, and detection losses; the pure-state QFI is an upper bound, so a finite-temperature or Lindblad calculation could reveal time windows where the claimed all-time advantage shrinks or vanishes.
  • The time-dependent optimal phase implies a feedback protocol that rotates the squeezing axis as the probe falls; this is not proposed in the paper but follows directly from its numerical scan of θ at fixed r.
  • Since position-momentum correlations are already a known resource in continuous-variable quantum computing, this result implicitly adds quantum sensing to that resource's applications, a connection the paper mentions but leaves undeveloped.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper treats a single massive particle in a uniform gravitational field, initialized in a pure squeezed vacuum Gaussian state, and evaluates the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for estimating the gravitational acceleration g. Equation (2) gives F_g(τ,r,θ) analytically. The paper defines a relative QFI Q = F_g/F_vac and shows that a squeezing phase producing position-momentum correlations (e.g., θ=π/4) gives Q>1 at all times, whereas canonical phases θ=0 and θ=π/2 beat the vacuum only in complementary time regimes. It also analyzes classical Fisher information for Gaussian projective measurements and claims that projective momentum measurements, combined with a time-dependent adjustment of the squeezing phase, can saturate the QFI bound.

Significance. The central QFI calculation is useful and appears essentially correct. It is an analytic, parameter-free expression that can be checked directly, and the qualitative all-time QFI advantage of position-momentum correlated probes over the vacuum is a clean and interesting result. The paper's emphasis on the squeezing phase as a resource that is independent of the squeezing amplitude is also valuable. However, the measurement-saturation claim is not supported by the paper's own formulas: the large-τ scaling of Eq. (2) and Eq. (S34) contradicts the claimed saturation by momentum measurements. In addition, the asymptotic RQFI values for θ=π/4 in Table I and Eq. (S30) are internally inconsistent with Eq. (2) and Eq. (S27). Because the measurement claim appears in the abstract and conclusions, the manuscript needs substantial revision before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I; SM Eq. (S30); discussion after Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) and SM Eq. (S27) imply that for θ=π/4 the asymptotic RQFI is Q∞ = σ0²(1+γ²)/σ² = cosh(2r). Table I and SM Eq. (S30) instead report cosh²(2r), while the main-text discussion around Fig. 1(f) states (sinh²2r + sech 2r). These three statements are mutually inconsistent. The correct leading coefficient is cosh(2r). Please correct Table I, Eq. (S30), and the corresponding main-text sentence.
  2. [SM Eq. (S20); main text after Eq. (2)] The long-time factorization F_{τ≫τ0} ≈ [σ0²/σ² + γ²] F_vac_{τ≫τ0} is not consistent with Eq. (2) for intermediate θ. From Eq. (2), the leading large-τ coefficient of F_g is (1+γ²)/(4σ²), so the correct ratio of the leading coefficients is σ0²(1+γ²)/σ², not σ0²/σ²+γ². SM Eq. (S20) also labels the vacuum factor as F_vac_{g,τ→0}(τ), which is confusing and, as written, incorrect. This affects the claimed long-time enhancement factors in the main text.
  3. [Eq. (S34); Fig. 3(a); abstract and conclusion] Using the paper's own formulas, the momentum-measurement CFI is I_mom = 4m²σ²τ²/[ℏ²(1+γ²)], while Eq. (2) gives F_g ~ (1+γ²)τ⁴/(4σ²) at large τ. Therefore R = I_mom/F_g → 16m²σ⁴/[ℏ²(1+γ²)²τ²] → 0. A projective momentum measurement cannot saturate the QFI at long times, for any fixed θ; since γ is bounded for fixed r, making θ time-dependent does not remove the τ⁻² decay. Thus the statement that momentum measurements 'can saturate the QFI bound' (Fig. 3(a), abstract, conclusion) is unsupported and contradicted by Eqs. (2) and (S34). This claim must be removed or replaced by a correct analysis; if saturation occurs only in a finite time window, that should be stated and demonstrated explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SM Eq. (S12)] At τ=0, the covariance matrix in Eq. (S12) satisfies det σ = ℏ² in the doubled-covariance convention used in Eq. (S17). This is the correct purity condition for a single-mode pure Gaussian state, so the covariance matrix is valid. I note this because a purity concern has been raised; the issue does not land.
  2. [Eq. (2) vs SM Eq. (S18)] The τ³ coefficient is written as 2τ0 sinh(2r) sin(2θ)/σ0² τ³ in Eq. (2) and as 2m sinh(2r) sin(2θ)/ℏ τ³ in Eq. (S18). These are equivalent, but the notational difference may confuse readers.
  3. [Fig. 3] The text reports approximate saturation values R≈0.4 for position measurements and R≈0.5 for heterodyne detection, but no explicit derivation from Eqs. (S33)–(S35) is provided. Please show the relevant limits or add a short derivation.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'can fail to achieve a QFI surpassing the shot-noise limit, regardless of the interaction time' is ambiguous for canonical quadratures: the paper's own results show a time-regime-dependent advantage, not a universal absence of advantage. Rephrase to avoid implying that canonical squeezing never helps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; QFI/CFI are computed from the defined Gaussian probe with standard formulas, and the self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The input is the pure Gaussian state (S1)/(1), with sigma and gamma explicitly defined as functions of r and theta. The evolved mean and covariance are obtained from the Feynman propagator (S2)-(S13), and the QFI (2)/(S18) is obtained by substituting those objects into the standard pure-Gaussian QFI formula (S17). The CFI expressions (S32)-(S35) follow from the standard Gaussian measurement-update rule (S31). No parameter is fitted to the target result, and no equation is identified with an input by construction: the phase dependence of the QFI is a computed consequence of the state and dynamics, not an assumption equivalent to the conclusion. The self-citations [58-61] (and related group citations [52-56]) are used only to motivate position-momentum correlations as a resource; they do not fix any constant, enforce any uniqueness condition, or supply any step in Eq. (2) or the CFI formulas, so they are non-load-bearing. The SM covariance-matrix inconsistency noted in the review is a correctness/internal-consistency concern, not a circularity: even if the covariance matrix (S12) is invalid, the paper's derivation does not reduce to its own inputs. The minor score reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, not a circular derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Gaussian metrology formulas and the idealized free-fall model; no parameters are fitted to data. The only nonstandard input is the identification of the vacuum-state QFI with the shot-noise limit.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The gravitational field is uniform, U(z)=mgz, and the particle evolves unitarily under H=p^2/2m+mgz with no decoherence.
    Used throughout; any real gravimeter has gradients, noise, and losses. Appears in 'The model' and SM Section I.
  • ad hoc to paper The probe is a pure squeezed vacuum Gaussian state parameterized by (r, theta), with position-momentum correlation gamma=sinh(2r)sin(2theta).
    This state family is the object of study; the phase theta is the paper's central control parameter. Introduced in Eq. (1).
  • standard math The QFI of a pure Gaussian state is F = Tr[(sigma^{-1} d sigma)^2]/4 + 2 (dd)^T sigma^{-1} (dd) (Eq. S17).
    Standard result from Gaussian quantum metrology (Refs [32,34,58,71]); used to obtain Eq. (2).
  • standard math Feynman propagator for a linear potential (Eq. S2) determines the time-evolved covariance matrix.
    Standard path-integral result; used in SM Section I to compute the evolved state and covariance.
  • domain assumption Local Gaussian projective measurements are modeled by sigma_tilde = sigma + sigma_m with sigma_m = Diag[s, s^{-1}]/2.
    Restricts measurements to Gaussian POVMs (homodyne/heterodyne/projective position-momentum); borrowed from Refs [66,67].
  • ad hoc to paper The vacuum-state QFI defines the 'shot-noise limit'.
    Nonstandard identification: the paper's SQL is not a fixed-energy or multi-particle SQL, which weakens the stated 'surpass the shot-noise limit' claim.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards gravimetry enhancement with squeezed states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64IZTMFI

@misc{pith2026251013973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards gravimetry enhancement with squeezed states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64IZTMFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13973}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate the sensitivity of gravitational acceleration estimation using squeezed probe states in a quantum metrology framework. In particular, we analyze how the squeezing phase, beyond its amplitude, affects the attainable precision. We show that probes squeezed along the canonical phase-space quadratures can surpass the shot-noise limit only in specific time regimes, whereas position-momentum correlated input states can consistently overcome this limit across all interaction times. Furthermore, we demonstrate that optimal sensitivity can be achieved by combining projective momentum measurements with a time-dependent adjustment of the squeezing phase. Our results highlight the fundamental role of phase-engineered squeezing in quantum gravimetry protocols and provide new insights into the design of optimized sensing strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13973 by Carlos H. S. Vieira, Jonas F. G. Santos, Lucas S. Marinho, Oziel R. de Araujo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: QFI for estimation of g as a function of the evolution time τ /τ0 for different amplitudes and phases of the squeezed input state. Panels (a-c) correspond to the short-time evolution regime, while panels (d-f) depict the dynamics at the long-time limit. Curves represent squeezing intensities r = 0.4 (solid black line), r = 0.5 (dashed red line), r = 0.6 (dotted blue line), for distinct squeezing phases θ o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Relative Quantum Fisher Information (RQFI) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Behavior of the ratio R(τ, r, θ, s) = Ig(τ, r, θ, s)/Fg(τ, r, θ) between the CFI and the QFI bound for different measurement schemes, as a function of the squeezing phase θ and the evolution time τ . Here, the squeezing parameter r = 0.5 is kept fixed across all panels and the measurement setting s varies from one panel to another. Panel (a) shows the case s → ∞ (projective momentum measurement), (b) corre… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The phaseθsets the quadrature along which squeezing is applied and determines the orientation of the uncer- tainty ellipse in phase space (See Supplemental Material (SM) [51])

    =N 0 exp − (z2 0 +z ′2 0 ) 4σ2 + iγ(z 2 0 −z ′2 0 ) 4σ2 ,(1) that formally corresponds to a squeezed vacuum state, whererandθrepresent the squeezing amplitude and phase, respectively.N 0 = 1/( √ 2πσ) denotes the normal- ization constant,σ=σ 0[cosh(2r)−sinh(2r) cos(2θ)] 1/2 is the position uncertainty at initial time,σ 0 the standard deviation of the vacuu...

    2024

  2. [2]

    Rademacher, J

    M. Rademacher, J. Millen, and Y. L. Li, Quantum sens- ing with nanoparticles for gravimetry: when bigger is better, Advanced Optical Technologies9, 227 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    J. Wei, J. Huang, and C. Lee, Adaptive robust high- precision atomic gravimetry, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012064 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Guyomard, P

    J. Guyomard, P. Clad´ e, and S. Reynaud, Single-bounce quantum gravimeter to measure the free-fall of anti- 6 hydrogen (2025), arXiv:2505.04771 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Cassens, B

    C. Cassens, B. Meyer-Hoppe, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, Entanglement-enhanced atomic gravimeter, Phys. Rev. X15, 011029 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision grav- ity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia 38, 25 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    G. W. Biedermann, X. Wu, L. Deslauriers, S. Roy, C. Ma- hadeswaraswamy, and M. A. Kasevich, Testing gravity with cold-atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. A91, 033629 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Bidel, O

    Y. Bidel, O. Carraz, R. Charri` ere, M. Cadoret, N. Za- hzam, and A. Bresson, Compact cold atom gravimeter for field applications, Applied Physics Letters102, 144107 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Anders, A

    F. Anders, A. Idel, P. Feldmann, D. Bondarenko, S. Lori- ani, K. Lange, J. Peise, M. Gersemann, B. Meyer-Hoppe, S. Abend, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, L. San- tos, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, Momentum entanglement for atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140402 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Abend, M

    S. Abend, M. Gebbe, M. Gersemann, H. Ahlers, H. M¨ untinga, E. Giese, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, C. L¨ ammerzahl, W. Ertmer, W. P. Schleich, and E. M. Rasel, Atom-chip fountain gravimeter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 203003 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Ichikawa, S

    G. Ichikawa, S. Komamiya, Y. Kamiya, Y. Minami, M. Tani, P. Geltenbort, K. Yamamura, M. Nagano, T. Sanuki, S. Kawasaki, M. Hino, and M. Kitaguchi, Observation of the spatial distribution of gravitation- ally bound quantum states of ultracold neutrons and its derivation using the wigner function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 071101 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Merlet, P

    S. Merlet, P. Gillot, B. Cheng, R. Karcher, A. Imanaliev, L. Timmen, and F. Pereira dos Santos, Calibration of a superconducting gravimeter with an absolute atom gravimeter, Journal of Geodesy95, 62 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Qvarfort, A

    S. Qvarfort, A. Serafini, P. F. Barker, and S. Bose, Gravimetry through non-linear optomechanics, Nature Communications9, 3690 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Guzm´ an Cervantes, L

    F. Guzm´ an Cervantes, L. Kumanchik, J. Pratt, and J. M. Taylor, High sensitivity optomechanical reference accelerometer over 10 khz, Applied Physics Letters104, 221111 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    T. L. Scientific, A gravitational wave observatory operat- ing beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nature Physics 7, 962 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. E. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, et al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broad- band quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Ciufolini, A

    I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, E. C. Pavlis, R. Koenig, J. Ries, V. Gurzadyan, R. Matzner, R. Penrose, G. Sindoni, C. Paris, H. Khachatryan, and S. Mirzoyan, A test of gen- eral relativity using the lares and lageos satellites and a grace earth gravity model, The European Physical Jour- nal C76, 120 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Testing general relativity with atom interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 111102 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, General relativistic effects in atom interferom- etry, Phys. Rev. D78, 042003 (2008)

    2008

  20. [20]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Towards singularity- and ghost-free theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 031101 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    R. P. Woodard, How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?, Reports on Progress in Physics72, 126002 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    Carlip, Is quantum gravity necessary?, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 154010 (2008)

    S. Carlip, Is quantum gravity necessary?, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 154010 (2008)

    2008

  23. [23]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Quantum-information meth- ods for quantum gravity laboratory-based tests, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015006 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    J. W. Crowley, J. X. Mitrovica, R. C. Bailey, M. E. Tamisiea, and J. L. Davis, Land water storage within the congo basin inferred from grace satellite gravity data, Geophysical Research Letters33(2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, and B. D. Tapley, Satellite grav- ity measurements confirm accelerated melting of green- land ice sheet, Science313, 1958 (2006)

    1958

  26. [26]

    Van Camp, O

    M. Van Camp, O. de Viron, A. Watlet, B. Meurers, O. Francis, and C. Caudron, Geophysics from terrestrial time-variable gravity measurements, Reviews of Geo- physics55, 938 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Vol. 1 (Journal of Statistical Physics, 1969) pp. 231– 252

    1969

  28. [28]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory(Edizioni della Normale Pisa, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  29. [30]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  30. [31]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, General- ized uncertainty relations: Theory, examples, and lorentz invariance, Annals of Physics247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  31. [32]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  32. [33]

    Jiang, Quantum fisher information for states in expo- nential form, Phys

    Z. Jiang, Quantum fisher information for states in expo- nential form, Phys. Rev. A89, 032128 (2014)

    2014

  33. [34]

    Pezz´ e and A

    L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dy- namics, and the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100401 (2009)

    2009

  34. [35]

    J. F. G. Santos, C. H. S. Vieira, and W. R. Cardoso, Im- proving parameter estimation in gaussian channels using quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A111, 052404 (2025)

    2025

  35. [36]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

  36. [37]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  37. [38]

    J. Jae, J. Lee, M. S. Kim, K.-G. Lee, and J. Lee, Contex- tual quantum metrology, npj Quantum Information10, 68 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  39. [40]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  40. [41]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports509, 89 (2011). 7

    2011

  41. [42]

    H. Zhou, J. Choi, S. Choi, R. Landig, A. M. Douglas, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, P. Cappel- laro, H. S. Knowles, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum metrology with strongly interacting spin systems, Phys. Rev. X10, 031003 (2020)

    2020

  42. [43]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  43. [44]

    A. G. J. MacFarlane, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences361, 1655 (2003)

    2003

  44. [45]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, and J. F. Valley, Observation of squeezed states generated by four-wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2409 (1985)

    1985

  45. [46]

    R. M. Shelby, M. D. Levenson, S. H. Perlmutter, R. G. DeVoe, and D. F. Walls, Broad-band parametric deam- plification of quantum noise in an optical fiber, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 691 (1986)

    1986

  46. [47]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astron- omy, Nature Communications1, 121 (2010)

    2010

  47. [48]

    Dodonov, E

    V. Dodonov, E. Kurmyshev, and V. Man’ko, General- ized uncertainty relation and correlated coherent states, Physics Letters A79, 150 (1980)

    1980

  48. [49]

    V. V. Dodonov, A. B. Klimov, and V. I. Man’ko, Physical significance of correlated and squeezed states, inGroup Theoretical Methods in Physics, edited by V. V. Dodonov and V. I. Man’ko (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991) pp. 450–456

    1991

  49. [50]

    V. V. Dodonov and A. V. Dodonov, Transmission of cor- related gaussian packets through a delta-potential, Jour- nal of Russian Laser Research35, 39 (2014)

    2014

  50. [51]

    V. V. Dodonov, ‘nonclassical’ states in quantum optics: a ‘squeezed’ review of the first 75 years, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics4, R1 (2002)

    2002

  51. [52]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]

  52. [53]

    O. R. de Araujo, L. S. Marinho, H. A. S. Costa, M. Sam- paio, and I. G. da Paz, Shannon entropy and interference in the double-slit experiment with matter waves, Modern Physics Letters A34, 1950017 (2019)

    2019

  53. [54]

    L. S. Marinho, I. G. da Paz, and M. Sampaio, Squeez- ing and slowed quantum decoherence in the double-slit experiment, Phys. Rev. A101, 062109 (2020)

    2020

  54. [55]

    F. R. Lustosa, P. R. Dieguez, and I. G. da Paz, Irrealism from fringe visibility in matter-wave double-slit interfer- ence with initial contractive states, Phys. Rev. A102, 052205 (2020)

    2020

  55. [56]

    P. P. da Silva, C. H. S. Vieira, L. S. Marinho, M. Sam- paio, and I. G. da Paz, The role of position-momentum correlations in coherence freezing and purity behavior of macromolecular gaussian states, The European Physical Journal Plus139, 1042 (2024)

    2024

  56. [57]

    L. S. Marinho, P. R. Dieguez, C. H. S. Vieira, and I. G. da Paz, Gouy phase and quantum interference with cross- wigner functions for matter-waves, Scientific Reports14, 12223 (2024)

    2024

  57. [58]

    Bohm,Quantum Theory, Dover Books on Physics Se- ries (Dover Publications, 1951)

    D. Bohm,Quantum Theory, Dover Books on Physics Se- ries (Dover Publications, 1951)

    1951

  58. [59]

    P. J. C. P, L. S. Marinho, P. R. Dieguez, I. G. da Paz, and C. H. S. Vieira, Enhancing gaussian quantum metrology with position-momentum correlations, Physica Scripta 100, 015111 (2024)

    2024

  59. [60]

    T. M. S. Oliveira, L. S. Marinho, F. C. Vieira de Brito, M. D. R. Sampaio, and I. G. da Paz, Matter-wave squeez- ing from gouy phase: toward a new tool for quantum technology, New Journal of Physics (2025)

    2025

  60. [61]

    P. J. C. P., C. H. S. Vieira, I. G. d. Paz, P. R. Dieguez, and L. S. Marinho, Temperature and non-markovian pa- rameter estimation in quantum brownian motion, Phys. Rev. A , (2025)

    2025

  61. [62]

    J. C. P. Porto, C. H. S. Vieira, P. R. Dieguez, I. G. da Paz, and L. S. Marinho, Multiparameter estima- tion with position-momentum correlated gaussian probes (2025), arXiv:2507.16742 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Upreti and U

    V. Upreti and U. Chabaud, Interplay of resources for uni- versal continuous-variable quantum computing (2025), arXiv:2502.07670 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Upreti and U

    V. Upreti and U. Chabaud, Symplectic coherence: a measure of position-momentum correlations in quantum states (2025), arXiv:2507.15738 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    Stucchi and M

    G. Stucchi and M. G. A. Paris, Enhanced quantum sensing of gravitational acceleration constant (2025), arXiv:2506.20352 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [66]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  66. [67]

    F. J. Headley, A. Belenchia, M. Paternostro, and D. Braun, Quantum metrology of newton’s constant with levitated mechanical systems (2025), arXiv:2503.16215 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    McMillen, M

    S. McMillen, M. Brunelli, M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, H. Ul- bricht, M. G. A. Paris, and M. Paternostro, Quantum- limited estimation of continuous spontaneous localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. A95, 012132 (2017)

    2017

  68. [69]

    Feynman, A

    R. Feynman, A. Hibbs, and D. Styer,Quantum Mechan- ics and Path Integrals, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2010)

    2010

  69. [70]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Series on Information and the Natural Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  70. [71]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Gold- stine Printed Materials (Princeton University Press, 1946)

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Gold- stine Printed Materials (Princeton University Press, 1946)

    1946

  71. [72]

    Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estima- tion of gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.3682 (2013)

    A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estima- tion of gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.3682 (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [73]

    Gerginov, G

    V. Gerginov, G. W. Hoth, T. P. Heavner, T. E. Parker, K. Gibble, and J. A. Sherman, Accuracy evaluation of primary frequency standard nist-f4, Metrologia62, 035002 (2025). 1 Supplemental Material: Towards gravimetry enhancement with squeezed states Oziel. R. de Ara´ ujo,1,2 Lucas S. Marinho, 1 Jonas F. G. Santos, 3 Carlos H. S. Vieira 4,5 1 Departamento d...

    2025

  73. [74]

    =N 0 exp − (z2 0 +z ′2 0 ) 4σ2 + iγ(z 2 0 −z ′2 0 ) 4σ2 ,(S1) that corresponds to a squeezed vacuum state in the coordinate representation. The parametersrandθrepresent the squeezing amplitude and phase, respectively,N 0 = 1/ √ 2πσdenotes the normalization constant,σ=σ 0[cosh(2r)− sinh(2r) cos(2θ)]1/2 is the position uncertainty at initial time,σ 0 the st...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.