Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Estimating spacetime fluctuation strength in SU(1,1) and SU(2) interferometers

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Currently achievable SU(1,1) interferometers give no advantage over SU(2) interferometers for estimating the strength or correlation length of spacetime fluctuations; the advantage appears only for assumed future parameters with higher ligh

desk verdict Central QFI numbers rest on a Gaussian-state formula applied to a non-Gaussian averaged state; the advantage ratios are not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00907 v1 pith:EEOXM7U7 submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph gr-qc

B. Sharmila This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qc
keywords quantumFisherinformationSU(11)interferometrySU(2)spacetimefluctuationsstochasticphaseestimationGaussianstatessqueezingopticalloss
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 asks whether replacing the beamsplitter in a laser interferometer with optical parametric amplifiers—the SU(1,1) design—improves our ability to estimate the strength and correlation length of random spacetime fluctuations. By computing quantum and classical Fisher information for Gaussian states, with and without internal loss, the author finds that at current experimental parameters the SU(1,1) interferometer provides no advantage over the conventional SU(2) interferometer. The advantage appears only in an assumed future regime with much higher input light intensity and much lower loss, where the quantum Fisher information ratio reaches roughly 1.8 to 6.3. The calculation also shows that both interferometers reach the same universal information ceiling, so the practical winner is determined by loss and by which measurement is convenient.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian-state quantum Fisher information formula, Eq. (24), which reduces QFI to derivatives of the displacement vector and the covariance matrix. The paper feeds into it the ensemble-averaged covariance matrices $C^{(2)}$ (Eq. 14) and $C^{(11)}$ (Eq. 17), computed to leading order in the fluctuation strength $\Gamma$, and derives the closed-form scaled QFI Eq. (29), whose two branches set the universal ceiling $1/2$ and the loss-limited value $(1-\eta)\tilde{\sigma}$. This identity is what turns the comparison into a question of experimental parameters rather than of interferometer topology.

What would settle it

Numerically compute the exact quantum Fisher information of the ensemble-averaged output state—a continuous mixture of phase-rotated Gaussian states—without invoking Eq. (24), for the same parameters as Fig. 2(b). If the exact QFI disagrees with Eq. (29) or with the Table I ratios, the central comparison collapses; a laboratory check could compare the measured Wigner function of the output with the Gaussian covariance-matrix prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for estimating the variance (strength) and correlation length of a stationary Gaussian spacetime-fluctuation signal, the quantum Fisher information is identical in form for SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers: $Q_s=(1-\eta)\tilde{\sigma}$ in the low-squeezing limit and $Q_s=1/2$ once $e^{-2\beta}\ll(1-\eta)\tilde{\sigma}$. The difference is entirely in the attainable parameters: conventional interferometers operate near lossless with bright coherent light, while current SU(1,1) interferometers are lossy and intensity-limited, which erases their formal advantage. With hypothetical future parameters ($\alpha=10^{10}$, $\eta=5\times10^{-6}$), the SU(1,1) interferometer's

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on treating the ensemble-averaged output state as Gaussian, so that the quantum Fisher information is fixed by the mean and covariance; a mixture of Gaussian states rotated by different random phases is generally not Gaussian, and if that approximation fails the reported QFI and CFI numbers are unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For both interferometers, the scaled QFI for estimating the fluctuation strength $\Gamma$ takes the closed form $Q_s=(1-\eta)\tilde{\sigma}$ at low squeezing and saturates at $1/2$ once $e^{-2\beta}\ll(1-\eta)\tilde{\sigma}$.
  • The same two-branch formula holds for estimating the correlation length $\ell$, so conclusions about advantage carry over unchanged from $\Gamma$ to $\ell$.
  • At currently achievable parameters ($\alpha=10^{10}$, $\eta=5\times10^{-6}$ for SU(2); $\alpha=10^4$, $\eta=0.4$ for SU(1,1)), the SU(1,1) interferometer never beats the SU(2) interferometer in the metrics considered.
  • If future SU(1,1) interferometers match SU(2) brightness and loss ($\alpha=10^{10}$, $\eta=5\times10^{-6}$), the Fisher-information ratios are 1.79–1.93 at 6 dB and 4.28–6.33 at 10 dB squeezing.
  • Within the SU(2) design, photon counting at the dark port with $n=1$ is optimal and reaches half the QFI, whereas the SU(1,1) design lacks such a convenient optimal measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian-mixture approximation holds, the two-branch QFI formula suggests the practical ranking of interferometers is set by loss and input intensity, not by SU(2) versus SU(1,1) topology; a resource comparison that includes measurement time and the need for high-$n$ photon counting could weaken the future-advantage ratios.
  • One extension: compute the full $2\times2$ Fisher information matrix for joint estimation of $(\Gamma,\ell)$, since the equality of the single-parameter scaled QFIs does not guarantee that the two parameters are independently estimable.
  • A direct numerical check of the exact QFI for the phase-rotated Gaussian mixture, outside the Gaussian-state formula, would be a decisive test of the Table I ratios; the paper does not perform this check.
  • The universal saturation at $Q_s=1/2$ suggests that once the squeezing condition is met, further squeezing adds no information for this noise model; this could serve as a design target for detector optimization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for estimating the strength Γ and correlation length ℓ of random spacetime phase fluctuations in an SU(2) Mach–Zehnder interferometer and an SU(1,1) interferometer with two OPAs. For Gaussian input states and a stationary Gaussian model of the fluctuations, the author computes the output displacement vector and covariance matrix in the presence of loss, then applies the Gaussian-state QFI formula (Eq. (24)) and corresponding classical Fisher information for homodyne and photon-counting measurements. The central findings are that, under current experimental parameters, the SU(1,1) interferometer offers no advantage over the SU(2) interferometer, whereas under assumed future parameters (α = 10^10, η = 5×10^-6) it offers a QFI/CFI advantage with ratios between 1.8 and 6.3 (Table I). The paper also derives a saturation condition e^{-2β} << (1−η)σ̃ for reaching the maximum scaled QFI of 1/2.

Significance. If the results were correct, they would provide useful quantitative guidance for ongoing and proposed interferometric searches for spacetime fluctuations, in particular identifying the parameter regimes in which SU(1,1) interferometry could be competitive. The paper is transparent about the hypothetical nature of the future-advantage parameters and about the fact that current parameters yield no advantage; this is a genuine strength. However, the central calculation rests on an unjustified application of the Gaussian QFI formula to a non-Gaussian phase-averaged state; the reported values and advantage ratios are therefore not established. The manuscript is clearly written and cites relevant experimental programs, but the main quantitative claim is not supported by the derivation as presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (24); Section II, Eqs. (13)–(17)] The output state after averaging over the random phases Φ_c, Φ_d is a convex mixture of Gaussian states, not a Gaussian state. Equations (13)–(17) determine only the first and second moments of that mixture. The QFI formula (24) from [30] applies only to Gaussian states, and the QFI of a Gaussian with the same moments is not generally equal to the QFI of the mixture. The discrepancy is not a higher-order correction: for a single-mode coherent state with a random phase of variance ε = Γσ, the exact QFI for Γ has leading coefficient α²σ, whereas applying Eq. (24) to the Gaussian with the same mean and covariance gives α²σ/2. Since Eqs. (29), (30), (32), (35), and Table I are all derived from Eq. (24), the reported QFI values and the SU(1,1)-vs-SU(2) comparison are not established by the manuscript as written.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (26)–(28)] The photon-number CFI is computed from the Wigner function W(Z) in Eq. (27) of a Gaussian state with averaged covariance. For the actual ensemble, W(Z) is the average of the individual Gaussian Wigner functions over Φ_c, Φ_d; this ensemble Wigner function is not of the Gaussian form (27). Hence the p_j used in Eq. (26) are not the true photon-number probabilities for the phase-averaged state, and the statement that photon counting at the dark port is optimal (after Eq. (31)) is likewise unsupported. This is the same underlying issue as the first comment, but it invalidates the CFI results independently of the QFI formula.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (25)] The text says C_ii is the variance of the Gaussian probability distribution, but with the quadrature normalization in Eq. (5) the variance is C_ii/2. The formula is consistent with treating C_ii as twice the variance; the wording should be adjusted to avoid confusion.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'dispacement' (Eq. 21 caption), 'dispalcement' (line after Eq. 21), 'dicrete' (Section III), 'experimenets' (Section III), 'undepeleted' (Section III), 'possiblilty' (Introduction), 'interfeometer' (Appendix A). A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Eqs. (4a)–(4b)] The definitions of σ and ξ should state explicitly that they are dimensionless and should define the domain of ρ consistently; the current alignment and notation make the correlation integrals hard to parse.
  4. [Eq. (24)] The vectorisation convention for ⃗C is not stated. Please define how the 4×4 covariance matrix is vectorised so that the expression (C ⊗ C − M ⊗ M)^{-1} is unambiguous.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (26)] The description of n as 'the maximum number of photons up to which the photons are being counted discretely' is unclear. Please specify how n is chosen, how Q is evaluated, and whether the results in Fig. 2 depend strongly on the truncation n.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: results are derived from the stated model and explicit parameter scenarios; the self-citation [31] is a non-fitted premise, and the Gaussianity concern is a validity risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained given its stated physical model. Eq. (1) for the accumulated phase is imported from [31] (which includes the present author), but it is an explicit modeling premise rather than a conclusion derived from the paper's targets; the QFI/CFI computations proceed by direct Gaussian averaging of quadrature moments (Appendix A) and application of the standard Gaussian-state QFI formula Eq. (24) from Monras [30]. The asymptotic expressions (Eqs. (29), (30), (32), (33), (35)) and Table I follow algebraically from the stated covariance matrices in the limits β→0 and e^{-2β}≪(1−η)σ̃, using explicitly listed parameter scenarios; no parameter is fitted to the Fisher-information values, and the future-advantage ratios are conditional on the hypothetical identical-parameter scenario (α=10^{10}, η=5×10^{-6}), not on measured data. The comparison to [19] in Section III is a consistency check, not an input. I flag one non-circular validity risk: Section III asserts 'As the states of interest are Gaussian, I use the procedure prescribed in [30]' immediately before using Eq. (24), but the ensemble-averaged output state after averaging over Gaussian phase fluctuations is a mixture of phase-rotated Gaussian states and is not generally Gaussian; this is an unsupported technical assumption that affects correctness, but it is not a reduction of the conclusions to their own inputs. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fit to data. Numerical inputs are experimental or hypothetical choices; the 'future' scenario is an assumption, not a fit. The main assumptions are the Gaussian random model for spacetime fluctuations, the leading-order expansion in Gamma, and the crucial but unjustified assumption that the ensemble-averaged output state is Gaussian.

free parameters (3)
  • future SU(1,1) input amplitude alpha = 10^10
    Assumed future capability; the SU(1,1) advantage in Table I depends on this chosen value.
  • future SU(1,1) loss eta = 5e-6
    Assumed equal to current SU(2) loss; not currently demonstrated for SU(1,1).
  • current SU(1,1) parameters alpha, eta = 10^4, 0.4
    Taken from Refs. [24,33]; the no-advantage conclusion depends on these.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spacetime fluctuations are a stationary Gaussian random process with zero mean and two-point correlation Gamma rho (Eqs. 2-3).
    Imported from Ref. [31]; not derived. The phase-noise model (Eq. 1) also assumes the long-wavelength, diffraction-free limit.
  • ad hoc to paper The output state after ensemble averaging over random phases is Gaussian, so QFI is computable from D and C via Eq. (24).
    This is the paper's central technical assumption; it is not justified and is generally false for phase-averaged Gaussian states.
  • domain assumption Only leading order in Gamma is retained, with alpha^2 >> (sinh beta)^2, alpha^2 Gamma sigma << 1, sigma >> xi.
    These approximations define the regime of the results; their validity for actual spacetime fluctuations is assumed.
  • standard math The Gaussian-state QFI formula of Ref. [30] applies (Eq. 24).
    Correct for Gaussian states, but only applicable if the state is Gaussian.
  • domain assumption The correlation function rho = exp(-||r||/ell) Theta(||r|| - c|Delta t|) and Eq. (34) give sigma and xi in the L >> ell limit.
    A particular noise spectrum is chosen; the correlation-length estimation result depends on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating spacetime fluctuation strength in SU(1,1) and SU(2) interferometers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEOXM7U7

@misc{pith2026260800907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating spacetime fluctuation strength in SU(1,1) and SU(2) interferometers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEOXM7U7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00907}
}
abstract

High-precision laser interferometers are commonly used to search for signatures of random spacetime fluctuations, in an attempt to understand the fundamental nature of gravity. Conventionally, $SU(2)$ interferometers have been used in such experimental investigations. Motivated by [K. Zheng \textit{et al.}, Photon. Res. \textbf{8}, 1653 (2020)], I assess if there is any advantage to be gained by using an $SU(1,1)$ interferometer instead of the $SU(2)$ interferometer. To this end, I compute the quantum Fisher information for estimating the strength and the correlation length of the spacetime fluctuations, and the corresponding classical Fisher information considering different experimentally relevant measurement schemes, in both types of interferometers. I compare the information metrics corresponding to different parameter regimes that are relevant to both current and possible future experimental setups. This helps me assess if and when the $SU(1,1)$ interferometer offers any advantage over the $SU(2)$ interferometer for estimating either the fluctuation strength or correlation length of the spacetime fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic diagram of an (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Scaled QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Scaled QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaled QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaled QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Ruo Berchera, I

    I. Ruo Berchera, I. P. Degiovanni, S. Oli- vares, and M. Genovese, Quantum light in cou- pled interferometers for quantum gravity tests, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 213601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [30]

    Patra, L

    A. Patra, L. Aiello, A. Ejlli, W. L. Griffiths, A. L. James, N. Kuntimaddi, O. Kwon, E. Schwartz, H. Vahlbruch, S. M. Vermeulen, K. Kokeyama, K. L. Dooley, and H. Grote, Broadband limits on stochastic length fluc- tuations from a pair of table-top interferometers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 101402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    I assume θ =π/4 and φ =π/2 for analytical tractability

    SU (2) interferometer The annihilation operators of the light at the output ports are written in terms of the corresponding operators at the input ports, as [ ˆa3 ˆa4 ] = [ t r −r∗ t ] [ eiΦc 0 0 eiΦd ] [ t r −r∗ t ] † [ ˆa1 ˆa2 ] , (8) where |t|2 +|r|2 = 1 with t = cosθ,r = sinθeiφ. I assume θ =π/4 and φ =π/2 for analytical tractability. Simplifying Eq. (

    work page

  4. [2]

    The correspond- ing operators at the two output ports are (ˆ a3, ˆa†

    respectively, with [ˆai, ˆa† i ] = 1 ( i = 1, 2) and [ˆa1, ˆa† 2] = 0. The correspond- ing operators at the two output ports are (ˆ a3, ˆa†

    work page

  5. [3]

    and 3 ˆa1 ˆa3 ˆa4 ˆa2 BSA B D C z x y (a) ˆa1 ˆa3 ˆa4 ˆa2 Pump π-shifted Pump OPAA B D C z x y (b) BS/OPA √η (c) FIG. 1. A schematic diagram of an (a) SU (2) and (b) SU (1, 1) interferometer. (c) Modelling internal loss in an interf erometer with a beam splitter of reflectance √η. (ˆa4, ˆa†

    work page

  6. [4]

    I denote the vector of quadrature operators of the optical modes at the output ports by m =x3,p 3,x 4,p 4 with xj = ˆaj + ˆa† j √ 2 , p j = ˆaj − ˆa† j i √ 2 , (j = 3, 4)

    respectively. I denote the vector of quadrature operators of the optical modes at the output ports by m =x3,p 3,x 4,p 4 with xj = ˆaj + ˆa† j √ 2 , p j = ˆaj − ˆa† j i √ 2 , (j = 3, 4). (5) The dispacement vector D and the covariance matrix C are given by Di = ⟨ψ|mi |ψ⟩, (6) Cij = ⟨ψ|mimj |ψ⟩ + ⟨ψ|mjmi |ψ⟩ − 2⟨ψ|mi |ψ⟩ ⟨ψ|mj |ψ⟩. (7) Here |ψ⟩ is the bipar...

    work page

  7. [5]

    Y. Ma, H. Miao, B. H. Pang, M. Evans, C. Zhao, J. Harms, R. Schnabel, and Y. Chen, Proposal for gravitational-wave detection beyond the stan- dard quantum limit through EPR entanglement, Nat. Phys. 13, 776 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    Therefore, without loss of generality, I also set Φ 0 = 0

    can effectively be seen as a change in the arguments arg(α) and arg(ξ). Therefore, without loss of generality, I also set Φ 0 = 0. Using Eqs. ( 1)-(7) and ( 9)-(12), I obtain the dis- placement vector and the covariance matrix in this case (see Appendix A for details). Empirically, it is seen that the fluctuation strength is small enough to assume α2 ≫ (sin...

    work page

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    (15) Here |µ|2 − |ν|2 = 1 and I assume µ = coshβ,ν = sinhβ (β ∈ R) for analytical tractability

    SU (1, 1) interferometer For an SU (1, 1) interferometer, [ ˆa3 ˆa† 4 ] = [ µ ν ν∗ µ∗ ] [ eiΦc 0 0 e−iΦd ] [ µ ν ν∗ µ∗ ] −1 [ ˆa1 ˆa† 2 ] . (15) Here |µ|2 − |ν|2 = 1 and I assume µ = coshβ,ν = sinhβ (β ∈ R) for analytical tractability. Simplifying Eq. (

  2. [8]

    yields [ ˆa3 ˆa4 ] = [ eiΦc +eiΦd 2 −i (eiΦc −eiΦd ) 2 i (eiΦc −eiΦd ) 2 eiΦc +eiΦd 2 ] [ ˆa1 ˆa2 ] . (9) I consider the state of light at the input ports to be |ψ⟩ = |α⟩1 ⊗ |β⟩2 where |α⟩1 denotes mode 1 being in the standard coherent state (assuming α ∈ R for sim- plicity) a...

  3. [9]

    SU (2) interferometer The dispalcement vector Dl and the covariance matrix C(2) l in the presence of internal losses are Dl = √ (1 −η)D, (21) C(2) l =η I4 + (1 −η)C(2), (22) where I4 is a 4 × 4 identity matrix

  4. [10]

    (23) III

    SU (1, 1) interferometer The covariance matrix with loss C(11) l =η    cosh 2β 0 sinh 2 β 0 0 cosh 2 β 0 − sinh 2β sinh 2β 0 cosh 2 β 0 0 − sinh 2β 0 cosh 2 β    + (1 −η)C(11). (23) III. RESULTS In this section, I find the classical and quantum Fisher information metrics ...

  5. [11]

    Here ℓ is the correlation length, L is the interferometer arm length, and λ is the wavelength of the light travers- ing in the interferometers

    For numerical com- putation, I consider σ = (2π λ ) 2 2ℓ(L −ℓ), (34a) ξ = (2π λ ) 2 πℓ2, (34b) corresponding to a correlation function ρ(r1 − r2) = e− ∥ ⃗ r1−⃗ r2∥ ℓ Θ(∥⃗ r1 −⃗ r2∥ − c|t1 −t2|) in the limit L ≫ ℓ. Here ℓ is the correlation length, L is the interferometer arm l...

    2024

  6. [12]

    ( 16)) for an SU (2) (resp., SU (1, 1)) inter- ferometer

    (resp., Eq. ( 16)) for an SU (2) (resp., SU (1, 1)) inter- ferometer. I obtain ⟨ψ|f (ˆa3, ˆa† 3, ˆa4, ˆa†

  7. [13]

    |ψ⟩ = ∑ k ck(Φc, Φd) ⟨ψ| ˜fk(ˆa1, ˆa† 1, ˆa2, ˆa†

  8. [14]

    Considering that the noise is Gaussian, I find closed form expressions when computing ck(Φc, Φd) and I retain only upto first-order in fluctuation strength Γ

    |ψ⟩, (A1) where |ψ⟩ is the bipartite state of the light at the input port. Considering that the noise is Gaussian, I find closed form expressions when computing ck(Φc, Φd) and I retain only upto first-order in fluctuation strength Γ. Appendix B: Fisher information metrics for est...

  9. [15]

    (16) The state at the input ports is |ψ⟩ = |α⟩1 ⊗ |0⟩2 where |0⟩2 denotes mode 2 being in the vacuum state

    yields 4 [ ˆa3 ˆa† 4 ] = [ (coshβ)2eiΦc − (sinhβ)2e−iΦd (e−iΦd −eiΦc ) sinh 2 β 2 (eiΦc −e−iΦd ) sinh 2 β 2 −(sinhβ)2eiΦc + (coshβ)2e−iΦd ] [ ˆa1 ˆa† 2 ] . (16) The state at the input ports is |ψ⟩ = |α⟩1 ⊗ |0⟩2 where |0⟩2 denotes mode 2 being in the vacuum state. As the state ...

  10. [16]

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

    1981

  11. [17]

    C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. i. quadrature phases and squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3068 (1985)

    1985

  12. [18]

    B. L. Schumaker and C. M. Caves, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. ii. mathematical foundation and compact notation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3093 (1985)

    1985

  13. [19]

    R. X. Adhikari, Gravitational radiation detection with laser interferometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 121 (2014)

    2014

  14. [20]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  15. [21]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  16. [22]

    Jarzyna and R

    M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Quantum in- terferometry with and without an external phase refer- ence, Phys. Rev. A 85, 011801 (2012)

    2012

  17. [23]

    D. B. Horoshko and F. Jelezko, Quantum limit of preci- sion for phase estimation in squeezing-enhanced inter- ferometry with a single-mode readout, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07556 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Pezz´ e and A

    L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Mach-zehnder interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  19. [25]

    M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Optimal quantum- enhanced interferometry using a laser power source, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 173601 (2013)

    2013

  20. [26]

    Amelino-Camelia, Gravity-wave interferometers as quantum-gravity detectors, Nature 398, 216 (1999)

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Gravity-wave interferometers as quantum-gravity detectors, Nature 398, 216 (1999)

    1999

  21. [27]

    Amelino-Camelia, Gravity-wave interferometers as probes of a low-energy effective quantum gravity, Phys

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Gravity-wave interferometers as probes of a low-energy effective quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 62, 024015 (2000)

    2000

  22. [28]

    A. Chou, H. Glass, H. R. Gustafson, C. J. Hogan, B. L. Kamai, O. Kwon, R. Lanza, L. McCuller, S. S. Meyer, J. W. Richardson, C. Stoughton, R. Tomlin, and R. Weiss (Holometer Collaboration), Interferometric con- straints on quantum geometrical shear noise correlations, Classica...

    2017

  23. [29]

    J. W. Richardson, O. Kwon, H. R. Gustafson, C. Hogan, B. L. Kamai, L. P. McCuller, S. S. Meyer, C. Stoughton, R. E. Tomlin, and R. Weiss, Interferometric con- straints on spacelike coherent rotational fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 241301 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ruo-Berchera, I

    I. Ruo-Berchera, I. P. Degiovanni, S. Olivares, N. Saman- taray, P. Traina, and M. Genovese, One- and two- mode squeezed light in correlated interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053821 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, J. Preskill, Y. Chen, and L. McCuller, Stochastic wave- form estimation at the fundamental quantum limit, PRX Quantum 6, 030311 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  27. [35]

    C. M. Caves, Reframing SU(1,1) interferometry, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900138 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    J. Jing, C. Liu, Z. Zhou, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Re- alization of a nonlinear interferometer with parametric amplifiers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 011110 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Hudelist, J

    F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Ou, and W. Zhang, Quantum metrology with paramet- ric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers, Nat. Commun. 5, 3049 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    G. J. Machado, G. Frascella, J. P. Torres, and M. V. Chekhova, Optical coherence tomography with a nonlin- ear interferometer in the high parametric gain regime, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 094002 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Manceau, G

    M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, and M. Chekhova, Detection loss tolerant supersensitive phase measurement with an SU(1,1) interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223604 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Zheng, M

    K. Zheng, M. Mi, B. Wang, L. Xu, L. Hu, S. Liu, Y. Lou, J. Jing, and L. Zhang, Quantum-enhanced stochastic phase estimation with the SU(1,1) interferom- eter, Photon. Res. 8, 1653 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Korobko, L

    M. Korobko, L. Kleybolte, S. Ast, H. Miao, Y. Chen, and R. Schnabel, Beating the standard sensitivity-bandwidth limit of cavity-enhanced inter- ferometers with internal squeezed-light generation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 143601 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    J. W. Gardner, M. J. Yap, V. Adya, S. Chua, B. J. J. Slagmolen, and D. E. McClelland, Nondegen- erate internal squeezing: An all-optical, loss-resistant quantum technique for gravitational-wave detection, Phys. Rev. D 106, L041101 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    S. M. Vermeulen, U. S. Koca, and L. McCuller, Bidirec- tional internal squeezing for gravitational-wave detectors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.16512 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

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

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sharmila, S

    B. Sharmila, S. M. Vermeulen, and A. Datta, Signatures of correlation of spacetime fluctuations in laser interfer- ometers, Nat. Commun. 17, 701 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    S. M. Vermeulen, T. Cullen, D. Grass, I. A. O. MacMillan, A. J. Ramirez, J. Wack, B. Korzh, V. S. H. Lee, K. M. Zurek, C. Stoughton, and L. McCuller, Photon-counting interferometry to de- tect geontropic space-time fluctuations with GQuEST, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011034 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    S. Hong, M. A. Feldman, C. E. Marvinney, D. Lee, C. Lee, M. T. Febbraro, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum-enhanced distributed phase sensing with a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023231 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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