Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Sample-half-inserted quantum interferometer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Half-inserting a sample turns a quantum-interference artifact into a nanometer-precision ruler.

desk verdict The SHOM idea is real and the Fisher-info enhancement holds up, but the headline accuracy number is a self-consistency check, not an external calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03622 v1 pith:GKZCK2WB submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Wei Li , Tao Xie , Yu-Hang Luo , Kang Zheng , Meiyu Peng , Hui Yang , Chunling Ding , Chen-Zhi Yuan
show 6 more authors
Omar S. Magana-Loaiza Keyu Xia Ryosuke Shimizu Hui Jing Chenglong You Rui-Bo Jin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Hong-Ou-MandelinterferometryquantummetrologyFisherinformationopticalpathdifferencetwo-photoninterferencedip-bump-dipstructurespontaneousparametricdown-conversiontransparentmaterialcharacterization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes and demonstrates a modified Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interferometer in which the sample is inserted into only one half of the signal photon beam, so half the signal photons pass through the sample and half travel through air. This asymmetry generates a dip-bump-dip coincidence pattern whose central feature oscillates rapidly with the sample-induced optical delay, replacing the nearly flat response of a fully inserted sample. The authors show that this converts what quantum-optical-coherence-tomography studies called the central 'artifact' into the measurement signal, raising the Fisher information per event by about five orders of magnitude. With roughly 10^7 photons, they measure optical path differences with an average precision of 4.09 nm (13.63 as) and average accuracy of 1.22 nm (4.07 as), a large reduction in photon budget compared with an earlier HOM result that needed about 10^11 photons. If this holds, sample-half-inserted operation is a phase-insensitive route to fast nanometric thickness or surface characterization of transparent materials.

What carries the argument

The machine is the sample-half-inserted configuration itself, summarized by the SHOM coincidence probability P_SHOM(τ,T) in Eq. (2). The key term is the cosine factor cos(ω_p T/2), with ω_p the pump angular frequency, inside a Gaussian envelope; it appears because the two-photon amplitude has two components—one pair where the signal photon traversed the sample and one where it did not—so the half-inserted beam splitter creates a which-path superposition. Scanning the sample temperature T at fixed τ converts this cosine into a steep, nearly full-contrast oscillation of the coincidence counts, which is what the Fisher-information formula F=(∂_T P)^2/[P(1-P)] turns into the five-order enhanceme

What would settle it

Measure an optical-path increment created by an independent, calibrated mechanism—for example a piezo-actuated mirror or a reference etalon with known thickness—and compare the SHOM estimate against that value without using the same sinusoidal fit to define ground truth. Also test whether the central dip/bump position tracks τ = T/2 as Eq. (2) predicts and whether the measured period is exactly 2λ_p.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a half-inserted sample—letting only half of the signal photons pass through the material while the other half propagates in air—creates a coherent superposition of the two paths and produces the SHOM coincidence probability of Eq. (2), with the extra term cos(ω_p T/2) exp[-(σ_+^2+σ_-^2)T^2/8] modulating the usual two HOM dips. When scanned in sample temperature T at fixed delay τ, this term makes the central coincidence probability swing between 0 and 1 with a period corresponding to the pump wavelength (405 nm in optical path), instead of the nearly flat response of a fully inserted sample. The steep slope of this central dip/bump raises the classical Fisher inform

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claim rests on the assumption that the 'true' optical-path increment is known independently; in practice it is derived by fitting the same sinusoidal center-coincidence data with the same model that converts counts into path difference, so if that model or the assumed linearity of optical path with temperature is imperfect, the reported accuracy is a self-consistency check rather than an external validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical path differences in transparent materials can be estimated to about 4 nm with roughly 10^7 photons, about four orders of magnitude fewer than the 10^11-photon HOM benchmark, making fast quantum thickness or surface metrology practical.
  • The central dip/bump previously treated as an artifact in quantum optical coherence tomography becomes the information carrier, so artifact-suppression strategies such as frequency dithering, broadband pumps, or machine-learning post-processing are unnecessary for this measurement mode.
  • Because the working observable is the coincidence rate at a fixed delay, the method is phase-insensitive: no stabilization of the interferometric phase is needed, only control of the sample temperature that tunes T.
  • Within the Cramér-Rao bound, precision scales as 1/√N in the number of trials, so better temperature control, lower detector jitter, and longer integration directly push the demonstrated 4.09 nm toward sub-nanometer values.
  • The half-inserted operation can be generalized to other two-photon interferometers, including N00N-state or Franson interferometers, transferring the Fisher-information gain beyond HOM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the method measures differential changes in optical path (here driven by temperature), a direct thickness measurement of a static sample requires separate knowledge of the thermo-optic and thermal-expansion coefficients; the paper notes this but does not demonstrate it.
  • The same half-inserted mechanism could be sharpened by spectral engineering—narrower pump bandwidth or frequency-resolved detection would steepen the central feature and likely lower the photon budget below 10^7; this is a testable extension not explored here.
  • The Fisher-information gain is computed for the ideal lossless case; under realistic loss and multi-pair emission the practical advantage remains large but likely smaller than the ideal 10^5.
  • Porting the half-inserted idea to N00N-state or Franson interferometers could transfer the gain to phase-sensitive measurements, though the paper only suggests this possibility.
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 proposes and experimentally implements a modified Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer in which the sample is inserted into only half of the signal-photon spatial mode (SHOM). The coincidence probability is modeled by Eq. (2), which predicts a dip-bump-dip structure with a sharp central feature whose phase depends on the sample-induced delay T. The authors calculate the classical Fisher information and find ~5×10^6 ps^-2 for SHOM versus ~30 ps^-2 for standard HOM, and they report an experimental maximum FI of 3.40(6)×10^6 ps^-2. Using 200 one-second trials (O(10^7) photons) at 38°C and 40°C, they estimate an optical-path increment and report an average precision of 4.09 nm and an average accuracy of 1.22 nm, comparing favorably with Ref. [24]. The paper also frames the previously reported QOCT 'artifact' as a metrological resource.

Significance. If the headline claims hold, the SHOM configuration is a simple, elegant way to increase per-photon Fisher information in HOM-type interferometry by orders of magnitude, and it could be useful for thickness and optical-path metrology. The theoretical model is explicit and falsifiable, the experimental data are presented in detail, and the authors honestly acknowledge that the dip-bump-dip structure was previously known in QOCT. The large FI enhancement is theoretically convincing and the measured SHOM FI is high even with imperfect visibility. However, the reported accuracy is not independently validated, and the empirical enhancement factor lacks a same-setup HOM baseline. These issues affect the central quantitative claims in the abstract and Table I, though they are in principle addressable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Fig. 3 and Table I] The accuracy claim is self-calibrated. The 'true' optical-path increment of 33.7(3) nm per 2°C is obtained by fitting the center-coincidence sinusoid of Fig. 2(c) with the model of Eq. (2). The same fitted sinusoid is then used to convert the 38°C/40°C count difference into the estimated optical-path increment (33.89±3.06 nm). Any systematic error in the model (e.g., imperfect visibility, temperature-to-path nonlinearity, or deviation from the τ=T/2 condition) enters both the calibration and the estimate. The difference of 1.22 nm therefore measures self-consistency, not agreement with an external reference. Please recalibrate the temperature-to-optical-path conversion with an independent method (e.g., a calibrated delay stage or a separate interferometric measurement), or clearly relabel the reported quantity as a consistency check and remove the accuracy claim from the abstract, Fig. 3
  2. [Fig. 2(a), Fig. 2(f)] The claim of five-orders-of-magnitude FI enhancement is supported experimentally only for SHOM; the HOM baseline of ~30 ps^-2 is taken from the theoretical curve in Fig. 1(f), not from a measurement under identical conditions. To make the 'demonstrate' claim self-contained, compute the HOM FI from the measured HOM dip of Fig. 2(a) using the same fitting and FI-calculation pipeline as for the SHOM data in Fig. 2(f), or perform a direct same-setup measurement of HOM center counts as a function of sample temperature. This would rule out baseline-model dependence and quantify the enhancement under the actual experimental visibility and counting conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The axis labels in Fig. 3 read 'Measured thickness changed nm' and 'Set thickness changed nm', but the paper measures optical-path increments, not thickness. Please correct the labels to 'Measured optical-path increment' and 'Set optical-path increment' to match the text.
  2. [Abstract and conclusion] The phrase 'improvement in measurement precision by approximately two orders of magnitude' is ambiguous. The achieved absolute precision in Table I is comparable to Ref. [24] (4.09 nm vs 4.8 nm). Clarify that the two-order improvement is for a fixed number of photons or fixed number of trials, not the absolute precision reported here.
  3. [Experimental results] There are several typographical errors: 'the the optical path' in the paragraph beginning 'Next, we present'; 'Tempeture changed ℃' in the Fig. 3 axis; 'Set up' instead of 'Setup' in Table I; and 'detials' in Ref. [25]. Please proofread.
  4. [Fisher information] The definition of 'single interference event' is not explicit. A trial is a one-second coincidence-count integration containing many photon pairs. The FI in Eq. (4) is per trial in a binomial model; please state clearly that the reported experimental precision of 4.09 nm is obtained from 200 trials, each with ~10^4 coincidence counts, so that the reader does not conflate single-pair FI with the total accumulated statistics.
  5. [Introduction] The sentence 'the relatively low Fisher information per trial in ordinary HOM measurements typically necessitates tens of thousands of repetitions' should be reconciled with the actual number of trials used here (200). The improvement in trial count is 175-fold, but the photon-number reduction is four orders of magnitude; the distinction is important and should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported 1.22 nm accuracy compares the SHOM estimate to a 'true' value obtained from the same fitted sinusoid, making the accuracy check a self-consistency test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Page 4, experimental results and Fig. 2(c)-(e)]
    "Furthermore, by fitting the interference patterns in Fig. 2(c) with temperature as the horizontal axis, we obtain a period of 24.03(2) °C. This indicates that an optical path increment of 405.0(1) nm occurs over this temperature range. Consequently, an increase of 2 °C corresponds to an optical-path increase of 33.7(3) nm, which we use as the “true” value for later comparison. ... From these data, we can now estimate the transmission time difference ∆T = |T1 −T2|, which in turn yields the corresponding optical path change of c × ∆T = 33.89 ± 3.06 nm ... We now compare this newly estimated opti"

    The 'true' optical-path increment (33.7 nm for 2 °C) is obtained by fitting the same sinusoidal center-coincidence curve (Fig. 2(c)) with the same model (Eq. 2, cos(π cT/λp)) that is then used to convert the 38 °C/40 °C coincidence-count difference into the SHOM estimate (33.89 nm). The systematic error in that model — imperfect visibility, τ=T/2 not exactly maintained, nonlinearity of optical path with temperature — enters both the reference value and the estimate identically. Subtracting them cancels the systematic error, so the reported 1.22 nm 'accuracy' is a measure of self-consistency between two outputs of the same calibration, not agreement with an independent reference. The precision and Fisher-information claims do not share this defect.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of the SHOM coincidence probability and Fisher information is self-contained and largely non-circular: Eq. (2) provides a model, Eq. (4) defines the Fisher information, and the FI enhancement and precision figures are computed from that well-defined model plus measured count statistics. The one significant circular step is the accuracy validation. The paper explicitly derives the 'true' optical-path increment for a 2 °C temperature change by fitting the sinusoid in Fig. 2(c), then estimates the same increment from coincidence counts at 38 °C and 40 °C using that same fitted sinusoidal model, and finally quotes the difference as accuracy. This is a fitted input called a prediction: the reference value is not independent of the estimation model. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the cited QOCT 'artifact' literature is contextual rather than evidential. The score of 6 reflects that a headline metrological claim (1.22 nm average accuracy) reduces by construction to a self-consistency check, while the central Fisher-information and precision content remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted spectral widths, visibility corrections, and a temperature-to-path calibration derived from the same data used for the SHOM estimate. There are no new physical entities, but the experimental characterization depends on several parameters that are fitted rather than independently benchmarked.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_minus, biphoton difference-frequency bandwidth = from HOM dip FWHM of 0.87(2) ps
    Determines the widths of the dips in Eqs. (1) and (2); extracted via Gaussian fits to measured HOM data in Fig. 2(a).
  • sigma_plus, biphoton sum-frequency bandwidth = set by the 405 nm pump bandwidth, not explicitly quoted in main text
    Controls the visibility envelope of the central fringes in Eq. (2); needed to compute the Fisher information.
  • visibility correction factor(s) = not given in main text, referenced to SM Section VIII
    The experimental Fisher information in Fig. 2(f) is corrected for imperfect visibility, so the measured FI claim depends on this post hoc fit.
  • temperature-to-optical-path calibration constant = 33.7(3) nm per 2 C
    Obtained by fitting the period of Fig. 2(c) to 24.03 C for a 405 nm path change; used as the 'true' value for accuracy validation. This is a fitted conversion, not an independent reference.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Biphoton spectral amplitude is Gaussian in both the difference and sum frequency directions.
    Eqs. (1) and (2) use Gaussian widths sigma_minus and sigma_plus; the paper states the derivation is in SM Section II. Non-Gaussian spectra would change the exact Fisher-information values.
  • domain assumption A half-inserted sample creates an equal-amplitude coherent superposition of delayed and undelayed signal paths.
    The model treats each signal photon as split into two transverse components with delays T and 0. Diffraction, edge effects, and mode mismatch are neglected in the ideal PSHOM formula.
  • domain assumption The optical path of the glass sample increases linearly with temperature.
    Used to convert temperature increments into 'true' optical-path increments; supported by reference [29] and SM Section XII, but not independently measured in this work.
  • domain assumption Ideal 50:50 beam splitting and unit visibility in the ideal Fisher-information derivation.
    The ideal FI of about 5 x 10^6 ps^-2 assumes perfect interference; the experimental FI is 3.40(6) x 10^6 ps^-2 after visibility corrections.
  • standard math The Cramer-Rao bound applies with the classical Fisher information of the coincidence probability.
    Eqs. (3) and (4) use standard estimation theory for an unbiased estimator of T from repeated coincidence trials.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sample-half-inserted quantum interferometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKZCK2WB

@misc{pith2026260803622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sample-half-inserted quantum interferometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKZCK2WB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03622}
}
abstract

Quantum technologies have been widely recognized as unprecedented opportunities for ultra-high precision metrology. As a celebrated example in modern quantum optics, the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interferometer is well-known for enabling temporal resolutions on the attosecond scale. However, the relatively low Fisher information per trial in ordinary HOM measurements typically necessitates tens of thousands of repetitions to achieve such precision. Here, we propose and demonstrate a sample-half-inserted HOM (SHOM) interferometer, which enhances the Fisher information by five orders of magnitude in a single interference event. By introducing an asymmetric photon-sample interaction, the SHOM configuration produces a distinctive dip-bump-dip interference structure, converting what was previously viewed as an artifact into a helpful metrological resource. Experimentally, we measured the optical path difference with an average precision of 4.09 nm (13.63 as) and an average accuracy of 1.22 nm (4.07 as) using $O(10^7)$ photons. Our results establish SHOM interferometry as an efficient phase-insensitive approach, not only paving the way toward practical quantum-enhanced thickness measurement for transparent materials, but also serving as an elegant strategy to improve the performance of various quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The horizontal axis represents the sample tem￾perature increment, which corresponds to increment in optical path (the “true” value), while the vertical axis shows the optical path increment estimated from the coincidence-count measurements. The close agreement between the two sets of values validates the accuracy and precision of our SHOM-based metrology technique. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Lyons, G

    A. Lyons, G. C. Knee, E. Bolduc, T. Roger, J. Leach, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Attosecond-resolution Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry, Sci. Adv.4, eaap9416 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987)

  3. [2]

    Lopes, A

    R. Lopes, A. Imanaliev, A. Aspect, M. Cheneau, D. Bo- iron, and C. I. Westbrook, Atomic Hong–Ou–Mandel ex- periment, Nature 520, 66 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Bocquillon, V

    E. Bocquillon, V. Freulon, J.-M. Berroir, P. Degiovanni, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and G. Fève, Coherence 6 and Indistinguishability of Single Electrons Emitted by Independent Sources, Science339, 1054 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    J. S. Fakonas, H. Lee, Y. A. Kelaita, and H. A. Atwa- ter, Two-plasmon quantum interference, Nat. Photonics 8, 317 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    Toyoda, R

    K. Toyoda, R. Hiji, A. Noguchi, and S. Urabe, Hong–Ou–Mandel interference of two phonons in trapped ions, Nature 527, 74 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    K. Su, Y. Zhong, S. Zhang, J. Li, C.-L. Zou, Y. Wang, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, Quantum Interference between Nonidentical Single Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 093604 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Jin, Z.-Q

    R.-B. Jin, Z.-Q. Zeng, C. You, and C. Yuan, Quantum interferometers: Principles and applications, Prog Quant Electron 96, 100519 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    K. M. Jordan, R. A. Abrahao, and J. S. Lundeen, Quan- tum metrology timing limits of the Hong-Ou-Mandel in- terferometer and of general two-photon measurements, Phys. Rev. A106, 063715 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    A. F. Abouraddy, M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Quantum-optical coherence tomography with dispersion cancellation, Phys. Rev. A 65, 053817 (2002)

    2002

  3. [10]

    M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Demonstration of dispersion-canceled quantum- optical coherence tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 083601 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    Triggiani, G

    D. Triggiani, G. Psaroudis, and V. Tamma, Ultimate quantum sensitivity in the estimation of the delay between two interfering photons through frequency- resolving sampling, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044068 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Triggiani and V

    D. Triggiani and V. Tamma, Estimation with ultimate quantum precision of the transverse displacement be- tween two photons via two-photon interference sampling measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 180802 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Branning, A

    D. Branning, A. L. Migdall, and A. V. Sergienko, Simul- taneous measurement of group and phase delay between two photons, Phys. Rev. A62, 063808 (2000)

    2000

  7. [14]

    Meskine, E

    O. Meskine, E. Descamps, A. Keller, A. Lemaître, F. Baboux, S. Ducci, and P. Milman, Approaching maximal precision of Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry with nonperfect visibility, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 193603 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Ndagano, H

    B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, D. Branford, Y. D. Shah, A. Lyons, N. Westerberg, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Quantum microscopy based on Hong–Ou–Mandel inter- ference, Nat. Photonics16, 384 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    M. B. Nasr, O. Minaeva, G. N. Goltsman, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Submicron axial resolution in an ultrabroadband two-photon interferom- eter using superconducting single-photon detectors, Opt. Express 16, 15104 (2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Hayama, B

    K. Hayama, B. Cao, R. Okamoto, S. Suezawa, M. Okano, and S. Takeuchi, High-depth-resolution imaging of dis- persive samples using quantum optical coherence tomog- raphy, Opt. Lett.47, 4949 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    P. Y. Graciano, A. M. A. Martínez, D. Lopez-Mago, G. Castro-Olvera, M. Rosete-Aguilar, J. Garduño-Mejía, R. R. Alarcón, H. C. Ramírez, and A. B. U’Ren, In- terference effects in quantum-optical coherence tomogra- phy using spectrally engineered photon pairs, Sci. Rep. 9, 8954 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    A. M. Dąbrowska, S. M. Kolenderska, J. Szlachetka, K. Słowik, and P. Kolenderski, Quantum-inspired optical coherence tomography using classical light in a single- photon counting regime, Opt. Lett.49, 363 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Lavoie, R

    J. Lavoie, R. Kaltenbaek, and K. J. Resch, Quantum- optical coherence tomography with classical light, Opt. Express 17, 3818 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Carrasco, J

    S. Carrasco, J. P. Torres, L. Torner, A. Sergienko, B. E. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Enhancing the axial resolution of quantum optical coherence tomography by chirped quasi- phase matching, Opt. Lett.29, 2429 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, andS.-Y.Lee,OptimalGaussianmeasurementsforphase estimation in single-mode gaussian metrology, npj Quan- tum Inf. 5, 10 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, Y. Kim, S.-W. Lee, R. C. Pooser, K. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Dis- tributed quantum sensing of multiple phases with fewer photons, Nat. Commun15, 266 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    See supplemental material [url] for more detials, which includes refs. [42-45]

  18. [26]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Cramér,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-9) (Princeton University Press, 1999)

    H. Cramér,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-9) (Princeton University Press, 1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński, Chapter four - quantum limits in optical interferometry, Prog. Opt.60, 345 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    See Supplemental Material Section XII for detailed discussion

    By analyzing the thermo-optical effect and thermal ex- pansion effect in the glass sample, it can be theoretically proven that the optical path increases linearly with the rise in temperature. See Supplemental Material Section XII for detailed discussion

  22. [30]

    Allan, Statistics of atomic frequency standards, Pro- ceedings of the IEEE54, 221 (1966)

    D. Allan, Statistics of atomic frequency standards, Pro- ceedings of the IEEE54, 221 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    W. J. Riley and D. A. Howe,Handbook of Frequency Sta- bility Analysis, NIST Special Publication, Vol. 1065 (Na- tional Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers- burg, MD, 2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    X. Guo, B. Hou, B. Liu, F. Yang, W. Kong, T. Liu, R. Dong, and S. Zhang, Time transfer in a 1839-km telecommunication fiber link demonstrating a picosecond-scale stability, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 064202 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, A. V. Sergienko, and M. H. Rubin, Experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities based on space-time and spin variables, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3495 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov, A. Migdall, M. H. Rubin, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. H. Shih, Can two-photon inter- ference be considered the interference of two photons?, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1917 (1996)

    1917

  27. [35]

    B. Li, B. Yuan, C. Chen, X. Xiang, R. Quan, R. Dong, S. Zhang, and R.-B. Jin, Spectrally resolved two-photon interference in a modified Hong–Ou–Mandel interferom- eter, Opt Laser Technol159, 109039 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Dispersion-cancelled and dispersion- sensitive quantum optical coherence tomography, Opt. Express 12, 1353 (2004). 7

    2004

  29. [37]

    S. M. Kolenderska and M. Szkulmowski, Artefact- removal algorithms for fourier domain quantum optical coherence tomography, Sci. Rep.11, 18585 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Maliszewski and S

    K. Maliszewski and S. M. Kolenderska, Artefact removal for quantum optical coherence tomography using ma- chinelearning,in Optical Coherence Tomography and Co- herence Domain Optical Methods in Biomedicine XXV, edited by J. A. Izatt and J. G. Fujimoto (SPIE) p. 34

  31. [39]

    D. J. Whitehouse,Handbook of surface metrology(CRC Press, 2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Piegari and F

    A. Piegari and F. Flory,Optical thin films and coatings: From materials to applications (Woodhead Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    C. P. Lualdi, S. J. Johnson, M. Vayninger, K. A. Meier, S. Sahoo, S. I. Bogdanov, and P. G. Kwiat, Fast quan- tum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons, Science Advances 11, eadw4938 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    R.-B. Jin, R. Shimizu, K. Wakui, H. Benichi, and M. Sasaki, Widely tunable single photon source with high purity at telecom wavelength, Opt. Express 21, 10659 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Ghosh, Dispersion of thermooptic coefficients of soda–lime–silica glasses, J

    G. Ghosh, Dispersion of thermooptic coefficients of soda–lime–silica glasses, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 78, 218 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    J. M. Jewell, Thermooptic coefficients of soda–lime–silica glasses, J. Am. Ceram. Soc.76, 1855 (1993)

    1993

  37. [45]

    Non-Cryst

    G.Ghosh,Modelforthethermo-opticcoefficientsofsome standard optical glasses, J. Non-Cryst. Solids189, 191 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.