Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 94 references

Spin Squeezing in Electron Microscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin squeezing of free electrons can reduce phase-measurement uncertainty in an electron Mach-Zehnder interferometer below the shot-noise limit, by more than a factor of two for a 40-electron batch.

desk verdict Genuinely new and carefully argued proposal for spin-squeezed free-electron interferometry, but the interaction-based squeezer's central screening assumption is deferred to a missing supplement and needs to be verified before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09243 v1 pith:7PQTBW3I submitted 2025-07-12 quant-ph

Shiran Even-Haim , Ethan Nussinson , Roni Ben-Maimon , Alexey Gorlach , Ron Ruimy , Ephraim Shahmoon , Osip Schwartz , Ido Kaminer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spinsqueezingquantummetrologyelectroninterferometryshot-noiselimitcryo-electronmicroscopyone-axistwistingnon-demolitionmeasurementMach-Zehnderinterferometer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that spin squeezing, a form of entanglement that reduces quantum noise in one collective observable at the cost of another, can be imported from atomic quantum metrology into electron microscopy. It proposes treating each electron's choice of interferometer arm as a pseudo-spin, so a batch of $N$ electrons becomes a collective spin $N/2$ whose phase measurement noise can be squeezed. Two devices are analyzed: a pair of capacitively coupled conductive channels that turn Coulomb repulsion into one-axis twisting, and a quantum non-demolition measurement of the electron number in an arm. At cryo-EM-relevant doses the predicted phase uncertainty drops below the standard quantum limit, for example from $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{SQL}}\approx 0.158$ to $\Delta\phi_W\approx 0.063$ for $N=40$ with a suboptimal interaction squeezer, and by more than an order of magnitude at $N=2000$. If correct, this gives a concrete route to higher-contrast imaging of dose-sensitive biological samples without increasing the electron dose.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the collective pseudo-spin of a batch of electrons, $\hat{S}_i = \frac{1}{2}\sum_n \hat{\sigma}_n^i$, built from which-path Pauli operators; the sample phase is a rotation $e^{i\phi \hat{S}_z}$ about the $z$-axis. The paper's two squeezer mechanisms are named transformations on this collective spin: one-axis twisting, $S_{\mathrm{int}}=e^{-i\chi_{\mathrm{int}}\hat{S}_z^2/2}$, generated by Coulomb interaction in a pair of conductive channels acting as a capacitor, and the Kraus operator $K_{\mathrm{meas}}(h)\propto e^{-\chi_{\mathrm{meas}}(N/2-\hat{S}_z-h)^2/2}$ for a quantum non-demolition number measurement. These create states whose squeezing is quantified by the Wineland parameter $\xi^2=(\Delta\phi_W)^2/(\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{SQL}})^2$ and by the quantum Fisher information $F=4\langle(\hat{S}_z-\langle\hat{S}_z\rangle)^2\rangle$, which together set what a conventional interferometric readout can achieve and what the ultimate quantum Cramér-Rao bound allows.

What would settle it

Measure the phase accumulated by a two-electron or few-electron wave packet passing through the proposed capacitive channels with controlled inter-electron separation; if the variance of the accumulated phase depends on the separation distribution rather than only on the number imbalance $(n_R-n_L)^2$, then the claimed one-axis-twisting Hamiltonian is not what the device implements. A simpler first check is to measure the mutual capacitance of the channel pair and compare it with $C=l\epsilon_0\pi/\mathrm{arccosh}(d/2r)$; if the observed $\chi_{\mathrm{int}}$ deviates by more than the screening correction, the quoted phase-uncertainty numbers do not apply to that geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that free-electron spin squeezing enables phase measurements in an electron Mach-Zehnder interferometer with uncertainty below the shot-noise limit, at electron doses and parameters compatible with cryo-EM. The which-path degree of freedom of each electron is treated as a spin-$1/2$ pseudo-spin; because the electron density is low enough that wavefunctions do not overlap, the $N$ electrons can be viewed as distinguishable and described by a collective spin $N/2$. Feeding this collective spin through either a capacitive two-channel Coulomb interaction (one-axis twisting, $S_{\mathrm{int}}=e^{-i\chi_{\mathrm{int}}\hat{S}_z^2/2}$) or a measurement-based quantum non-demolition squeeze ($K_{\mathrm{meas}}(h)\propto e^{-\chi_{\mathrm{meas}}(N/2-\hat{S}_z-h)^2/2}$) produces states with Wineland parameter $\xi^2<1$, so the interferometric phase error satisfies $\Delta\phi_W<N^{-1/2}$. Concretely, for $N=40$ the phase error falls from $0.158$ (SQL) to about $0.063$ with a suboptimal Coulomb squeezer and to about $0.04$ with an optimal measurement-based squeezer, and for $N=2000$ it falls from about $0.023$ to about $0.002$ or $0.001$ for the two squeezers. The paper therefore claims that the shot-noise barrier of transmission electron microscopy can be broken with existing or near-term components: a beamsplitter, a cold low-loss squeezer, and an electron-counting detector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a full batch of $N$ electrons can be inside the pair of conductive channels at the same time (requiring channel lengths of order a meter at 1 nA for $N=40$, and tens of meters for $N=2000$), while the channels fully suppress the stochastic, distance-dependent Coulomb phase so that only the collective capacitor term $U=e^2(n_R-n_L)^2/(8C)$ remains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed electron dose, an optimal interaction-based squeezer reduces phase uncertainty by more than a factor of two for $N=40$ and by more than an order of magnitude for $N=2000$, so dose-limited scans of biological samples could resolve weaker phase contrasts than shot noise allows.
  • The measurement-based squeezer reaches a factor-of-four improvement at $N=40$ ($\Delta\phi_W\approx 0.04$) and, at its optimal noise $\sigma\approx 1/2$, lets the quantum Fisher information approach Heisenberg scaling, meaning a suitable readout could in principle reach $\Delta\phi_F\propto N^{-1}$.
  • The one-axis-twisted states generated by the Coulomb squeezer give an optimal squeezing parameter $\xi^2\propto N^{-2/3}$, the known best for one-axis twisting, so the practical interferometric readout improves monotonically with batch size even though it does not reach the Heisenberg limit.
  • Because spin-squeezed states are relatively robust to electron loss, unlike GHZ states, even the 10-50 percent inelastic-scattering losses expected in thick cryo-ET lamellae should still leave a significant metrological gain.
  • Both squeezers can be inserted between the first beamsplitter and the sample in a scanning electron interferometer, so no new microscope platform is required; electron-counting detectors with quantum efficiency up to 0.98 already exist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same capacitive two-channel squeezer could first be tested on few-electron pairs in a non-imaging interferometer; a measurement of the accumulated phase against controlled inter-electron separation would directly validate the collective $U=e^2(n_R-n_L)^2/(8C)$ term before any microscope integration.
  • Beyond the paper, the measurement-based scheme could be combined with attosecond electron pulse trains, which the paper already notes provide the needed energy uncertainty; such pulse trains may in fact make the cavity-based QND squeezer easier to realize than the paper's conservative parameter estimates suggest.
  • Beyond the paper, if near-lossless amplitude-splitting beamsplitters become available, a bench-top squeezed phase-estimation demonstration in an electron interferometer could serve as the first milestone, since the pseudo-spin formalism is independent of the microscope platform.
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 proposes two methods to generate spin-squeezed electron states for improving the phase-measurement sensitivity of a scanning electron Mach-Zehnder interferometer, as a model relevant to cryo-EM. In the interaction-based scheme (Sec. 3.1), the two interferometer arms pass through narrow conductive channels, which are claimed to screen distance-dependent Coulomb interactions and leave only a collective capacitive phase, implementing one-axis twisting (Eq. 4). In the measurement-based scheme (Sec. 3.2), a quantum non-demolition measurement of the electron number in one arm (described by the Kraus operator, Eq. 5) produces a squeezed state. The authors compute the phase uncertainty using Wineland's spin-squeezing parameter (Eq. 2) and the quantum Fisher information (Eq. 3), showing sub-shot-noise performance: for N=40 electrons, Δφ can be reduced from 0.158 to about 0.063 (suboptimal interaction squeezer) or 0.04 (optimal measurement-based squeezer), and for N=2000 by an order of magnitude. Both schemes are claimed to be realizable with existing or emerging technology.

Significance. The paper is a theoretical proposal connecting spin squeezing, a mature tool in atomic quantum metrology, to electron microscopy, where shot noise and dose limits are central. If the proposed squeezer mechanisms work as claimed, the work would provide a concrete path toward sub-shot-noise electron phase contrast, a potentially significant advance for low-dose cryo-EM and cryo-ET. The interferometric analysis itself uses standard, well-established results (Kitagawa-Ueda, Wineland, quantum Fisher information) and the predictions are internally consistent with those formalisms. The originality lies in the two physical implementations proposed for free electrons. A particular strength is that the authors give specific numerical examples with concrete parameters (beam current, energy, geometry), making the claims falsifiable. However, the central physical derivation for the interaction-based squeezer (the screening of Coulomb interactions) is not presented, and the feasibility of the required channel lengths for the larger electron-batch sizes is not addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 (Eq. 4)] The central claim that the two conductive channels reduce the microscopic electron-electron interaction to the one-axis-twisting operator e^{-iχ S_z^2/2} rests entirely on the statement that "the pairwise distance-dependent Coulomb interactions of electrons in the same channel are suppressed by the screening effect (SM Section 1.1)" and that the only remaining contribution is the collective capacitive energy U = e^2(n_R-n_L)^2/(8C). This derivation is not included in the preprint. The concern is load-bearing: at the quoted beam parameters (1 nA, 100 keV, mean spacing 2.6 cm), a single unscreened same-arm pair at a typical separation contributes a stochastic phase of order (α/β)(l/s) ≈ 0.5 rad over a 1 m channel, which is several times larger than the controlled interaction strengths χ_int ≈ 0.12–0.18 used for the N=40 example. Unless the supplementary material demonstrates exponential suppression of both same-arm and cross-arm distance-dependent phases for all relevant separations (including rare close pairs), while retaining the collective capacitive term, the microscopic Hamiltonian does not reduce to Eq. (4). Please provide the derivation, either in the main text or in an appended supplement that is included with the manuscript.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4.1 (channel length)] The assumption that "the channel length l is large enough for all N electrons to be inside the channel simultaneously" becomes a severe feasibility problem for the larger batch sizes claimed in Sec. 4.1. At the stated 1 nA, 100 keV beam, the mean inter-electron spacing is 2.6 cm, so the required channel length scales as l ≈ N·2.6 cm — about 1 m for N=40 and about 50 m for N=2000. The paper states that "realistic squeezer parameters" can be achieved across the entire cryo-EM-relevant range (N≈20 to N≈2000), but a 50 m long interaction region is not compatible with any existing or plausibly near-term electron microscope geometry. Please either describe a practical scheme for producing a batch of 2000 electrons within a much shorter channel (e.g., high-current pulsed operation with appropriately reduced spacing), or qualify the quantitative claims to batch sizes for which the required channel length is realistic.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 (Δφ_F formula)] The analytical expression for the phase uncertainty of the measurement-based squeezer is deferred to SM Section 2.4, which is not included, and the formula as printed in the main text appears garbled: "ΔφF = 1/√N + (N^2−N)/2 (1 − e^{−χmeas})" cannot be correct dimensionally (it would not reduce to ΔφF = 1/√N at χmeas=0, and it grows with N rather than decreasing as the SQL). The correct expression presumably involves a square root of a sum, such as ΔφF = 1/√[N + (N^2−N)(1−e^{−χmeas})], but this needs to be stated precisely and proved. Since this formula is used to claim Heisenberg scaling, please provide the derivation and correct the displayed equation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence defining the measured spin component contains a typographical artifact: "S_z = (n_L − n_R)/2 N" should read "S_z = (n_L − n_R)/2" (the N belongs to the surrounding sentence).
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The reference to "Fig. 3c" when describing the uncertainty ellipse ("squeezed along the y axis and expanded in the z axis") is incorrect; the relevant figure is Fig. 3b (the Wigner-function panel) or Fig. 1c, not the phase-uncertainty plot in Fig. 3c.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] In the text "The squeezing is then created by а measurement of the amplitude α", the character "а" is a Cyrillic letter; replace with the Latin "a".
  4. [Eq. (5)] The normalization constant in the Kraus operator is written as "norm" but is not defined; specify the normalization (e.g., a constant ensuring trace preservation) or omit it if the operator is used only up to normalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-sensitivity gains follow from externally established spin-squeezing theory and are not back-fitted to the reported SNR improvement; the absent screening derivation is a completeness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is linear: it maps electron which-path states to pseudo-spins, then uses the standard Wineland phase-uncertainty formula (Eq. 2) and quantum Fisher information (Eq. 3) to evaluate two state-preparation models. The interaction-based model (Eq. 4) is an assumed one-axis-twisting operator with a physical parameter χ_int derived from channel capacitance and geometry; the measurement-based model (Eq. 5) is an assumed Gaussian QND Kraus operator with noise parameter χ_meas. The reported sub-shot-noise improvements follow from applying known spin-squeezing results (Kitagawa-Ueda, Wineland) to these state families, and the optimization of χ_int and χ_meas is a legitimate parameter optimization, not a fit to the target ΔφW values. The main caveat is that the reduction of the microscopic Coulomb interaction to the collective capacitor interaction is deferred to Supplementary Section 1.1, which is not included in the preprint: Sec. 3.1 states that 'the pairwise distance-dependent Coulomb interactions of electrons in the same channel are suppressed by the screening effect (SM Section 1.1)' and that the entanglement is described by 'the total electrostatic energy of the capacitor U = e²(n_R−n_L)²/(8C) (SM Section 1.1).' This is a genuine verifiability and correctness risk for the interaction-based squeezer, together with the simultaneous-confinement requirement (channel length sufficient for all N electrons, roughly a meter for N=40), but it is not circularity: the paper does not define its target SNR improvement in terms of this assumption, and the subsequent phase-uncertainty evaluation has independent content. Self-citations to prior free-electron quantum optics works are contextual and are not load-bearing for the phase-uncertainty derivation. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of physical assumptions about electron beams and engineered environments; no new particles or fundamental entities are introduced. The two tunable interaction strengths are the main free parameters, and the screening and batch-simultaneity assumptions are the least tested.

free parameters (2)
  • Interaction strength χ_int (channel geometry d/r and electron velocity β) = 0.122 for d=10r, E=100 keV; optimal ≈0.177 for N=40
    The claimed improvement depends on operating near the optimal χ_int, which requires precise control of channel spacing and electron energy. The example d=10r is chosen by hand.
  • Measurement strength χ_meas (QND noise σ) = optimal ≈2 (σ≈1/2)
    The improvement relies on tuning the QND measurement near its optimal strength; σ is a tunable experimental parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Electrons in the beam are quasi-distinguishable and the multi-electron state is symmetric, describable by a collective spin N/2.
    Sec. 2.1 justifies this by low density and non-overlapping wavefunctions; it is required for the spin-squeezing treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper Conductive channels screen pairwise distance-dependent Coulomb interactions while preserving a collective number-dependent capacitive phase U = e²(n_R−n_L)²/(8C).
    Sec. 3.1 proposes this; the screening is asserted and deferred to SM Section 1.1, with no independent evidence.
  • domain assumption A QND measurement of electron number can be implemented (e.g., microwave cavity) with Gaussian noise σ² and without revealing which-path information.
    Sec. 3.2 assumes such a measurement; the cavity implementation is sketched but not demonstrated, and coherence requires sufficient energy uncertainty in the electron bunching.
  • domain assumption Electron losses in the sample and interferometer are negligible for the central calculations.
    The main calculations in Sec. 3 ignore loss; Sec. 4.2 acknowledges losses but does not include them in the quantitative improvement factors.
  • domain assumption Thermal noise in the channels and cavity can be neglected.
    Stated in Secs. 3.1 and 3.2; requires low-temperature or superconducting operation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Squeezing in Electron Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PQTBW3I

@misc{pith2026250709243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Squeezing in Electron Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PQTBW3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09243}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology experiments in atomic physics and quantum optics have demonstrated measurement accuracy beyond the shot-noise limit via multi-particle entanglement. At the same time, electron microscopy, an essential tool for high-resolution imaging of biological systems, is severely constrained in its signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by shot noise, due to the dose limit imposed by electron beam-induced damage. Here, we show theoretically that spin squeezing, a form of quantum metrology based on entanglement, is a natural fit for improving the SNR in electron microscopy. We investigate the generation of the necessary entangled states through electron-electron Coulomb interactions and quantum non-demolition measurements. Our results connect the fields of quantum metrology and electron interferometry, paving the way toward electron microscopy with SNR beyond the shot-noise limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Squeezing in electron interferometry. (a) Scanning electron Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI): multi￾electron states are shown on the Bloch sphere, representing Wigner functions at different stages. An incoming 𝑁- electron state is rotated by 𝜋/2 about the 𝑦-axis by the first beamsplitter, initializing a superposition between the two arms. The electrons in the right arm interact with the sample, acquiring a phase 𝜙,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interaction-based squeezer. Free-electron analogue of one-axis twisting. (a) Squeezer schematic: After the beamsplitter, the electrons are passed through two conductive channels, inducing entanglement through capacitive coupling. (b) Wigner functions of the resulting squeezed states correspond to 𝜒int = 0, 0.1, 0.26 and 𝑁 = 20 electrons. A subsequent rotation (around the x-axis) is necessary to align the squeezed ax… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measurement-based squeezer. Free-electron analogue of quantum non-demolition measurement. (a) Squeezer schematic: After the beamsplitter, the right path passes through the measurement device, which counts the number of electrons. (b) Wigner functions of the resulting squeezed states correspond to 𝜎 = ∞, 3,1, (𝜒meas = 0, 0.06, 0.5) and 𝑁 = 20 electrons, with measurement result ℎ = 7. (c) Phase uncertainty 𝚫𝝓 as a fun… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. M. Glaeser and R. J. Hall, Reaching the Information Limit in Cryo -EM of Biological Macromolecules: Experimental Aspects, Biophysical Journal 100, 2331 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Cheng, Single-particle cryo-EM—How did it get here and where will it go, Science 361, 876 (2018)

    Y. Cheng, Single-particle cryo-EM—How did it get here and where will it go, Science 361, 876 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Milazzo et al., Active pixel sensor array as a detector for electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 104, 152 (2005)

    A.-C. Milazzo et al., Active pixel sensor array as a detector for electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 104, 152 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    McMullan, S

    G. McMullan, S. Chen, R. Henderson, and A. R. Faruqi, Detective quantum efficiency of electron area detectors in electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 109, 1126 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Danev, B

    R. Danev, B. Buijsse, M. Khoshouei, J. M. Plitzko, and W. Baumeister, Volta potential phase plate for in-focus phase contrast transmission electron microscopy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 15635 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Schwartz, J

    O. Schwartz, J. J. Axelrod, S. L. Campbell, C. Turnbaugh, R. M. Glaeser, and H. Müller, Laser phase plate for transmission electron microscopy, Nat Methods 16, 1016 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum -Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    W. P. Putnam and M. F. Yanik, Noninvasive electron microscopy with interaction-free quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 80, 040902 (2009)

    2009

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Okamoto, Possible use of a Cooper-pair box for low-dose electron microscopy, Phys

    H. Okamoto, Possible use of a Cooper-pair box for low-dose electron microscopy, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043810 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Kruit et al., Designs for a quantum electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 164, 31 (2016)

    P. Kruit et al., Designs for a quantum electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 164, 31 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Juffmann, S

    T. Juffmann, S. A. Koppell, B. B. Klopfer, C. Ophus, R. M. Glaeser, and M. A. Kasevich, Multi- pass transmission electron microscopy, Sci Rep 7, 1699 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    S. A. Koppell, M. Mankos, A. J. Bowman, Y. Israel, T. Juffmann, B. B. Klopfer, and M. A. Kasevich, Design for a 10 keV multi-pass transmission electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 207, 112834 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    A. E. Turner, C. W. Johnson, P. Kruit, and B. J. McMorran, Interaction -Free Measurement with Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110401 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Yurke, Interferometry with correlated fermions, Physica B+C 151, 286 (1988)

    B. Yurke, Interferometry with correlated fermions, Physica B+C 151, 286 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Nonlinear -interferometric generation of number -phase-correlated fermion states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1852 (1991)

    1991

  8. [16]

    S. A. Koppell, Y. Israel, A. J. Bowman, B. B. Klopfer, and M. A. Kasevich, Transmission electron microscopy at the quantum limit, Applied Physics Letters 120, 190502 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Okamoto and Y

    H. Okamoto and Y. Nagatani, Entanglement-assisted electron microscopy based on a flux qubit, Applied Physics Letters 104, 062604 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Okamoto, R

    H. Okamoto, R. Firouzmandi, R. Miyamura, V. Sazgari, S. Okumura, S. Uchita, and I. I. Kaya, TEM at millikelvin temperatures: Observing and utilizing superconducting qubits, Micron 161, 103330 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Aasi et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photon 7, 613 (2013)

    J. Aasi et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photon 7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers, Physics Reports 684, 1 (2017)

    R. Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers, Physics Reports 684, 1 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Tse et al., Quantum -Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of Gravitational -Wave Astronomy, Phys

    M. Tse et al., Quantum -Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of Gravitational -Wave Astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Michael, L

    Y. Michael, L. Bello, M. Rosenbluh, and A. Pe’er, Squeezing-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, Npj Quantum Inf 5, 1 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    C. A. Casacio, L. S. Madsen, A. Terrasson, M. Waleed, K. Barnscheidt, B. Hage, M. A. Taylor, and W. P. Bowen, Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy, Nature 594, 201 (2021). 1

    2021

  16. [24]

    Z. Xu, K. Oguchi, Y. Taguchi, S. Takahashi, Y. Sano, T. Mizuguchi, K. Katoh, and Y. Ozeki, Quantum-enhanced stimulated Raman scattering microscopy in a high-power regime, Opt. Lett., OL 47, 5829 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    K. M. Backes et al., A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions, Nature 590, 238 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  19. [27]

    Meyer, M

    V. Meyer, M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental Demonstration of Entanglement -Enhanced Rotation Angle Estimation Using Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5870 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Appel, P

    J. Appel, P. J. Windpassinger, D. Oblak, U. B. Hoff, N. Kjærgaard, and E. S. Polzik, Mesoscopic atomic entanglement for precision measurements beyond the standard quantum limit, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 10960 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier -Smith, and V. Vuletić, Implementation of Cavity Squeezing of a Collective Atomic Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    M. H. Schleier-Smith, I. D. Leroux, and V. Vuletić, States of an Ensemble of Two-Level Atoms with Reduced Quantum Uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073604 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    M. H. Schleier -Smith, I. D. Leroux, and V. Vuletić, Squeezing the collective spin of a dilute atomic ensemble by cavity feedback, Phys. Rev. A 81, 021804 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Estève, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, J. Otterbach, E. Demler, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Dissipative Preparation of Spin Squeezed Atomic Ensembles in a Steady State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 120402 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, 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

  28. [36]

    Leuthner, H

    Th. Leuthner, H. Lichte, and K. -H. Herrmann, STEM -holography using the electron biprism, Physica Status Solidi (a) 116, 113 (1989)

    1989

  29. [37]

    C. W. Johnson, A. E. Turner, and B. J. McMorran, Scanning two -grating free electron Mach - Zehnder interferometer, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043009 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  31. [39]

    J. P. Dowling, G. S. Agarwal, and W. P. Schleich, Wigner distribution of a general angular - momentum state: Applications to a collection of two-level atoms, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4101 (1994)

    1994

  32. [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. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

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

    1994

  36. [44]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inform. 07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Uhlemann, Thermal Magnetic Field Noise Limits Resolution in Transmission Electron Microscopy, Phys

    S. Uhlemann, Thermal Magnetic Field Noise Limits Resolution in Transmission Electron Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Generating quantum mechanical superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states via amplitude dispersion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986)

    1986

  40. [48]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A Quantum Rosetta Stone for Interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996). 20

    1996

  42. [50]

    Kitagawa, N

    M. Kitagawa, N. Imoto, and Y. Yamamoto, Realization of number -phase minimum-uncertainty states and number states by quantum nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. A 35, 5270 (1987)

    1987

  43. [51]

    Kuzmich, L

    A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, and N. P. Bigelow, Generation of Spin Squeezing via Continuous Quantum Nondemolition Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1594 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Annals of Physics 64, 311 (1971)

    K. Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Annals of Physics 64, 311 (1971)

    1971

  45. [53]

    Verhoeven, J

    W. Verhoeven, J. F. M. van Rens, E. R. Kieft, P. H. A. Mutsaers , and O. J. Luiten, High quality ultrafast transmission electron microscopy using resonant microwave cavities, Ultramicroscopy 188, 85 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Q. Yan, R. Ruimy, A. Niedermayr, and I. Kaminer, Single-Particle–Single-Photon Coupling Using a Circuital Metamaterial Cavity, in CLEO 2023 (2023), Paper FF3D.1 (Optica Publishing Group, 2023), p. FF3D.1

    2023

  47. [55]

    Dahan et al., Resonant phase-matching between a light wave and a free-electron wavefunction, Nat

    R. Dahan et al., Resonant phase-matching between a light wave and a free-electron wavefunction, Nat. Phys. 16, 11 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Huang, N

    G. Huang, N. J. Engelsen, O. Kfir, C. Ropers, and T. J. Kippenberg, Electron -Photon Quantum State Heralding Using Photonic Integrated Circuits, PRX Quantum 4, 020351 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Schächter, Beam-Wave Interaction in Periodic and Quasi -Periodic Structures (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    L. Schächter, Beam-Wave Interaction in Periodic and Quasi -Periodic Structures (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Kfir, Entanglements of Electrons and Cavity Photons in the Strong -Coupling Regime, Phys

    O. Kfir, Entanglements of Electrons and Cavity Photons in the Strong -Coupling Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 103602 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    V. D. Giulio, M. Kociak, and F. J. G. de Abajo, Probing quantum optical excitations with fast electrons, Optica, OPTICA 6, 1524 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Dahan, G

    R. Dahan, G. Baranes, A. Gorlach, R. Ruimy, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Creation of Optical Cat and GKP States Using Shaped Free Electrons, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031001 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Baranes, S

    G. Baranes, S. Even-Haim, R. Ruimy, A. Gorlach, R. Dahan, A. A. Diringer, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, and I. Kaminer, Free -electron interactions with photonic GKP states: Universal control and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 043271 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Z. Xie, Z. Chen, H. Li, Q. Yan, H. Chen, X. Lin, I. Kaminer, O. D. Miller, and Y. Yang, Maximal Quantum Interaction between Free Electrons and Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 043803 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Zhao, Upper Bound for the Quantum Coupling between Free Electrons and Photons, Phys

    Z. Zhao, Upper Bound for the Quantum Coupling between Free Electrons and Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 043804 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Ruimy, O

    R. Ruimy, O. Tziperman, A. Gorlach, K. Mølmer, and I. Kaminer, Many-body entanglement via ‘which-path’ information, Npj Quantum Inf 10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    J. L. Dickerson, K. Naydenova, M. J. Peet, H. Wilson, B. Nandy, G. McMullan, R. Morrison, and C. J. Russo, Reducing the effects of radiation damage in cryo -EM using liquid helium temperatures, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2421538122 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    M. J. Peet, R. Henderson, and C. J. Russo, The energy dependence of contrast and damage in electron cryomicroscopy of biological molecules, Ultramicroscopy 203, 125 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    L. N. Young and E. Villa, Bringing Structure to Cell Biology with Cryo -Electron Tomography, Annual Review of Biophysics 52, 573 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Caprez, R

    A. Caprez, R. Bach, S. McGregor, and H. Batelaan, A wide-angle electron grating bi-prism beam splitter, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 42, 165503 (2009)

    2009

  61. [69]

    F. S. Yasin, K. Harada, D. Shindo, H. Shinada, B. J. McMorran, and T. Tanigaki, A tunable path- separated electron interferometer with an amplitude -dividing grating beamsplitter, Applied Physics Letters 113, 233102 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    T. R. Harvey et al., Interpretable and Efficient Interferometric Contrast in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy with a Diffraction -Grating Beam Splitter, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 061001 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    C. W. Johnson, A. E. Turner, and B. J. McMorran, Scanning two -grating free electron Mach - Zehnder interferometer, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043009 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Yang, C.-S

    Y. Yang, C.-S. Kim, R. G. Hobbs, P. Kruit, and K. K. Berggren, Efficient two-port electron beam splitter via a quantum interaction-free measurement, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043621 (2018). 21

    2018

  65. [73]

    Hammer, S

    J. Hammer, S. Thomas, P. Weber, and P. Hommelhoff, Microwave Chip-Based Beam Splitter for Low-Energy Guided Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 254801 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Zimmermann, P

    R. Zimmermann, P. Weber, M. Seidling, and P. Hommelhoff, Beam splitting of low -energy guided electrons with a two-sided microwave chip, Applied Physics Letters 115, 104103 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Zimmermann, M

    R. Zimmermann, M. Seidling, and P. Hommelhoff, Charged particle guiding and beam splitting with auto-ponderomotive potentials on a chip, Nat Commun 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Seidling, R

    M. Seidling, R. Zimmermann, and P. Hommelhoff, Chip -based electrostatic beam splitting of guided kiloelectron volt electrons, Applied Physics Letters 118, 034101 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    M. W. Tate et al., High Dynamic Range Pixel Array Detector for Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy, Microscopy and Microanalysis 22, 237 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    McMullan et al., Structure determination by cryoEM at 100 keV, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2312905120 (2023)

    G. McMullan et al., Structure determination by cryoEM at 100 keV, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2312905120 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Henke et al., Integrated photonics enables continuous -beam electron phase modulation, Nature 600, 653 (2021)

    J.-W. Henke et al., Integrated photonics enables continuous -beam electron phase modulation, Nature 600, 653 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Varkentina et al., Cathodoluminescence excitation spectroscopy: Nanoscale imaging of excitation pathways, Science Advances 8, eabq4947 (2022)

    N. Varkentina et al., Cathodoluminescence excitation spectroscopy: Nanoscale imaging of excitation pathways, Science Advances 8, eabq4947 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Adiv et al., Observation of 2D Cherenkov Radiation, Phys

    Y. Adiv et al., Observation of 2D Cherenkov Radiation, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011002 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, M. Sivis, and C. Ropers, Observation of Quantum Entanglement between Free Electrons and Photons, arXiv:2504.13047

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Preimesberger, S

    A. Preimesberger, S. Bogdanov, I. C. Bicket, P. Rembold, and P. Haslinger, Experimental Verification of Electron-Photon Entanglement, arXiv:2504.13163

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V. Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Schäfer, and C. Ropers, Attosecond electron pulse trains and quantum state reconstruction in ultrafast transmission electron microscopy, Nature Photon 11, 12 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Morimoto and P

    Y. Morimoto and P. Baum, Diffraction and microscopy with attosecond electron pulse trains, Nature Phys 14, 252 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Kozák, N

    M. Kozák, N. Schönenberger, and P. Hommelhoff, Ponderomotive Generation and Detection of Attosecond Free-Electron Pulse Trains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 103203 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Ruimy, A

    R. Ruimy, A. Karnieli, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron quantum optics, Nat. Phys. 21, 193 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    F. J. G. de Abajo et al., Roadmap for Quantum Nanophotonics with Free Electrons , arXiv:2503.14678

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ghost Imaging

    E. Rotunno et al., One -Dimensional “Ghost Imaging” in Electron Microscopy of Inelastically Scattered Electrons, ACS Photonics 10, 1708 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. Lim, N. Rivera, W. Wong, Y. S. Ang, L. K. Ang, and L. J. Wong, Strongly correlated multielectron bunches from interaction with quantum light, Sci. Adv. 10, eadm9563 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Kazakevich, H

    E. Kazakevich, H. Aharon, and O. Kfir, Spatial electron-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043033 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, and C. Ropers, Probing electron -photon entanglement using a quantum eraser, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012610 (2025)

    2025

  85. [93]

    C. I. Velasco and F. J. G. de Abajo, Quantum Sensing and Metrology with Free Electrons , arXiv:2505.06124

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Karnieli, S

    A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, A. Arie, I. Kaminer, and S. Fan, Universal and Ultrafast Quantum Computation Based on Free -Electron-Polariton Blockade, PRX Quantum 5, 010339 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.