Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Approaching Quantum Limited Super-Resolution Imaging without Prior Knowledge of the Object Location

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage adaptive receiver—direct detection to find the object, then a binary mode sorter aligned to it—estimates sub-Rayleigh separations and lengths without prior knowledge of the centroid, approaching the quantum Cramér–Rao bound.

desk verdict A sensible adaptive two-stage receiver idea whose reported gains rest on a misspecified likelihood in Eq. 13; worth refereeing but not ready as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01996 v1 pith:OCXBV7UX submitted 2019-08-06 quant-ph eess.IVphysics.optics

Michael R Grace , Zachary Dutton , Amit Ashok , Saikat Guha This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-pheess.IVphysics.optics
keywords superresolutionimagingspatial-modedemultiplexingBSPADEreceiverquantumCramér–Raoboundadaptivemeasurementsnuisanceparameterspointsourceseparationestimationextendedlength
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 asks whether mode-sorting receivers—optical measurements that project light onto spatial modes before detection—can beat ordinary imaging when the object's location is unknown. It proposes a two-stage receiver: spend part of the integration time on standard direct detection, use those photons to estimate the object's centroid, align a binary spatial-mode-demultiplexing (BSPADE) measurement to that estimate, and use the remaining time on the BSPADE measurement. Monte Carlo simulations show that this scheme estimates the separation of two point sources and the length of an extended source with one to two orders of magnitude lower mean squared error than idealized direct detection alone, with no prior knowledge of the centroid. When the time split is adapted online, the receiver comes within about a factor of two of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound across most of the sub-Rayleigh regime. The central mechanism is the conversion of an unknown nuisance parameter—the centroid location—into a random misalignment with a known prior built from the first-stage data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adaptive two-stage receiver: first-stage direct detection produces photon arrival positions whose sample mean estimates the centroid, and the second stage is a 0-BSPADE measurement—a binary spatial-mode demultiplexer whose target mode matches the point spread function—aligned to that estimate. The argument is carried by the joint likelihood in Eq. (13), which multiplies the first-stage direct-detection likelihood by the binomial BSPADE likelihood and marginalizes over the residual misalignment $\xi$ using a Gaussian prior whose variance comes from the centroid estimator, $\sigma_P^2 = (\sigma^2/n_1)(1+\theta^2/4\sigma^2)$ for two point sources. The adaptive loop then compares the elapsed-time fraction $\alpha_t$ with the optimal fraction $\alpha^*(\hat{\theta}_{D,t})$ computed from a coarse direct-detection estimate of the separation, switching to BSPADE only when the comparison says the mode sorter has become worthwhile. This machinery converts an unknown centroid into a known statistical misalignment model, which is what lets the mode sorter approach the quantum limit.

What would settle it

Run the two-stage receiver in simulation or experiment with the BSPADE axis set exactly to the sample mean of the first-stage photons, and estimate the separation with a likelihood that accounts for this selection rule instead of the paper's Eq. (13). If the mean squared error no longer beats idealized direct detection by one to two orders of magnitude in the sub-Rayleigh regime, the reported gains are an artifact of the assumed conditional independence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the known sensitivity of spatial-mode-sorting receivers to centroid misalignment can be overcome by a sequential passive measurement: a direct-detection stage estimates the centroid, and a 0-BSPADE stage, aligned to that estimate, provides near-quantum-optimal information about object scale. In simulations at $N=100{,}000$ photons, the two-stage receiver outperforms idealized direct detection by one to two orders of magnitude in mean squared error for sub-Rayleigh separation and extended-source length estimation, even with no prior on the centroid or the object scale. Adaptive choice of the allocation fraction $\alpha$ improves on a fixed 50/50 split by up to a factor of two and automatically reverts to direct detection in the super-Rayleigh regime, where BSPADE becomes the inferior measurement. The same design works for both estimation tasks, supporting the claim that the strategy generalizes to more complex scenes with multiple nuisance parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The main assumption is that the first-stage photons, after being re-centered on the estimated object position, can be treated as independent samples from an intensity pattern whose center is the residual alignment error, with that error drawn from a Gaussian prior; in reality those same photons were used to pick the center, so they are not independent of the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sub-Rayleigh separation estimation with no centroid prior, the two-stage receiver beats idealized direct detection by one to two orders of magnitude in mean squared error at $N=100{,}000$ photons.
  • Adaptive allocation of integration time brings the receiver within about a factor of two of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound for most of the sub-Rayleigh regime, and it improves on a fixed 50/50 split by up to a factor of two.
  • In the super-Rayleigh regime, the adaptive receiver automatically spends the full integration time on direct detection, avoiding the degradation that a fixed two-stage receiver suffers when BSPADE becomes ineffective.
  • The same receiver design performs comparably for estimating the length of a uniform extended source, indicating the method is not specific to two-point-source separation.
  • The framework extends to additional nuisance parameters and multiple parameters of interest by using preliminary measurements to prepare one or more mode-sorting measurements adaptively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a selection-aware likelihood that treats the first-stage centroid estimate as a deterministic function of the photon positions would likely raise the estimator variance, so the reported gains should be rechecked in a model that respects that selection rule.
  • Editorial inference: the same adaptive alignment principle could be applied to other nuisance parameters such as axial defocus, object rotation, or brightness imbalance, with preliminary measurements estimating each parameter before the mode-sorting stage; the paper sketches this extension but does not simulate it.
  • Editorial inference: as the total photon number $N$ decreases, the first-stage centroid estimate worsens, so the optimal first-stage time fraction should grow; a curve of optimal $\alpha$ versus $N$ would be a direct, testable prediction of the framework.
  • Editorial inference: a Bayesian updating version, which forms a posterior over both centroid and separation from the direct-detection data before switching, could outperform the maximum-likelihood stopping rule, especially when partial prior information is available.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage adaptive receiver for estimating the separation of two incoherent point sources or the length of an extended object in the sub-Rayleigh regime when the object centroid is unknown. The first stage uses direct detection to estimate the centroid; the second stage performs a 0-BSPADE measurement aligned to that estimate. The authors construct a marginal likelihood (Eq. 13), define an ML estimator (Eq. 14), propose an adaptive rule for allocating the integration-time ratio alpha, and report Monte Carlo MSEs showing up to two orders of magnitude improvement over direct detection and near-QCRB performance. The central claims are that mode-sorting receivers can be made viable without prior centroid knowledge and that dynamic time allocation adds further benefit.

Significance. If the statistical construction were valid, this would be a practically important step for SPADE-type super-resolution imaging: it directly addresses the known sensitivity of mode sorters to centroid misalignment and gives a concrete feed-forward protocol with no fitted parameters, benchmarked against the external QCRB and direct-detection CRB. The centroid-error variance formulas (Eqs. 6, 16, 22) and the BSPADE target-mode probabilities (Eqs. 18, 23) are clean and useful. However, the validity of the likelihood in Eq. 13 is the load-bearing element, and it is currently not justified; the quantitative claims therefore need to be re-established with a coherent statistical model.

major comments (2)
  1. [III B, Eq. 13 (with Eqs. 7 and 16)] Equation 13 is not a valid likelihood for the realized two-stage experiment, and this invalidates the Monte Carlo MSEs in Figs. 3 and 4. The prior p(xi) in Eq. 7 uses sigma_P^2 = (sigma^2/n1)(1 + theta^2/4sigma^2) from Eq. 16, so it depends on the unknown separation theta that Eq. 14 is supposed to estimate; evaluating Eq. 14 therefore requires oracle knowledge of theta or an unstated estimate of theta. In addition, xi = phi - phi_hat + xi_S is a function of the first-stage data through phi_hat = (1/n1) sum x_i, so the same data D1 determine xi and also appear in P_D({x'_i}|xi,theta) in Eq. 9; marginalizing xi over its across-trial sampling distribution N(0,sigma_P^2+sigma_S^2) without conditioning on D1 double-counts the first-stage data. A coherent likelihood would integrate over the unknown phi with an explicit prior, or condition on the observed phi_hat and integrate only over the systematic misalignment xi_S. The abstract's central quantitative claims therefore rest on a misspecified estimator.
  2. [III C and Appendix A, Eq. A15] The variance formula used to optimize alpha, <Delta theta^2_2-Stage> = (<Delta theta^2_D>^{-1} + <Delta theta^2_B>^{-1})^{-1}, treats the direct-detection and BSPADE estimates as independent contributors to a combined estimator. This is not justified: the BSPADE stage is aligned using the first-stage centroid estimate, so the two data sets are statistically dependent, and the BSPADE variance <Delta theta^2_B> in Eq. A15 is itself computed by averaging over p(xi), inheriting the same theta-dependent-prior problem as Eq. 13. Consequently the 'optimal' allocation ratio alpha*(theta) in Fig. 2 and the adaptive switching rule in Fig. 2C are built on an unproven approximation. The final MSEs are simulated, so the adaptive gains are not automatically invalid, but the paper should either derive the combined variance from the actual joint likelihood or present the allocation rule as a heuristic rather than as variance-minimizing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II, Eq. 17] The exponentials in Eq. 17 are missing the square and the minus sign; they should read exp[-(x_i - xi +/- theta/2)^2/(2sigma^2)].
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. A4 and A7] The notation <Delta phi> should be <Delta phi^2> or should be explicitly defined as the variance, since the mean centroid error is zero.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. A9] The integral over x is written with both limits as infinity rather than -infinity to infinity; this appears to be a typographical error.
  4. [III D, paragraph following Fig. 3] The text contains the typo '0-BPSADE'; it should read '0-BSPADE'.
  5. [III D and Appendix A] The paper should state explicitly which estimator is used to produce the final Monte Carlo MSEs: the numerical ML estimator of Eq. 14 or the approximate closed-form estimator theta_B of Eq. A12. The current text describes both without specifying which one is evaluated in Figs. 3 and 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-stage receiver's simulated gains are benchmarked against external CRBs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction—that a two-stage direct-detection-plus-BSPADE receiver outperforms idealized direct detection and approaches the QCRB for sub-Rayleigh separation and length estimation—is not equivalent to any of its inputs. The performance comparisons are against the quantum CRB and the direct-detection CRB, which are external benchmarks (Helstrom [3]; Van Trees [44]; Tsang et al. [17]; Dutton et al. [33]) and are not fitted in the paper. The adaptive allocation uses a plug-in estimate theta-hat_D,t from first-stage direct detection to select the design parameter alpha, and its performance is then evaluated by Monte Carlo against the true theta; it is therefore a genuine simulation claim rather than a parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [33,45] supply published, parameter-free results about aligned BSPADE saturating the QCRB; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem that forces the paper's conclusion. The theta-dependence of sigma_P^2 in Eq. 16, entering p(xi) in Eq. 7, makes the integrated likelihood a self-consistent (empirical-Bayes-like) construction, but it does not by itself make Eq. 14 a tautology: for each candidate theta the likelihood is evaluated with that candidate's sigma_P^2, and the maximizer is a well-defined function of the data. The separate concern that Eq. 13 does not condition on the first-stage centroid estimate phi-hat, even though xi is determined through phi-hat by Eq. A3, is a statistical validity issue rather than a circularity of the kind defined here. Hence no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only new item in the paper is the adaptive receiver procedure itself, which is not a postulated physical object. The analysis introduces no new forces, particles, or conserved quantities. All physical inputs are standard quantum optics and estimation theory.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha, the two-stage time allocation ratio = 0.5 (fixed) or adaptively selected via alpha*
    The total photon budget is split between direct detection and BSPADE according to alpha. The paper shows the optimal alpha depends on the unknown separation theta, so the adaptive version estimates theta from first-stage data. This is a design parameter chosen by the receiver, not a physical constant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-photon i.i.d. detection model: image-plane intensity is the convolution of object radiant exitance with the PSF, and detection events obey Poisson statistics.
    Invoked at the start of Section II.A as the standard semiclassical model for weak incoherent sources.
  • domain assumption Ideal direct detection: unity quantum efficiency, no dark current or read noise, infinite spatial extent and bandwidth.
    Section II.A; the claims are specifically about idealized direct detection, not practical detector noise.
  • domain assumption Gaussian apodized aperture PSF, with an assertion that results would not change dramatically for a circular aperture.
    Section III.B after Eq. 14; the Gaussian PSF enables closed forms but is an idealization.
  • domain assumption Centroid estimator error xi_P is zero-mean Gaussian with variance sigma_P^2 by the Central Limit Theorem, and systematic misalignment xi_S is zero-mean Gaussian.
    Section II.B and Section III.B, Eqs. 6-7; the Gaussian misalignment model is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption 0-BSPADE is the quantum-optimal measurement for sub-Rayleigh separation and length estimation when perfectly aligned.
    External result cited from Refs. 17, 33, 43, 45, and 46; used as the benchmark and as the basis for the second measurement stage.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-stage estimator variance is the harmonic sum of the direct-detection CRB and the BSPADE estimator variance, and the BSPADE estimator can be approximated by a third-order Taylor expansion.
    Used to choose alpha in Appendix A; the paper states existing Cramér-Rao bounds with nuisance parameters are too loose, so it relies on this unproven approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approaching Quantum Limited Super-Resolution Imaging without Prior Knowledge of the Object Location." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCXBV7UX

@misc{pith2026190801996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approaching Quantum Limited Super-Resolution Imaging without Prior Knowledge of the Object Location},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCXBV7UX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01996}
}
read the original abstract

A recently identified class of receivers which demultiplex an optical field into a set of orthogonal spatial modes prior to detection can surpass canonical diffraction limits on spatial resolution for simple incoherent imaging tasks. However, these mode-sorting receivers tend to exhibit high sensitivity to contextual nuisance parameters (e.g., the centroid of a clustered or extended object), raising questions on their viability in realistic imaging scenarios where little or no prior information about the scene is available. We propose a multi-stage passive imaging strategy which segments the total recording time between different physical measurements to build up the required prior information for near quantum-optimal imaging performance at sub-Rayleigh length scales. We show via Monte Carlo simulations that an adaptive two-stage scheme which dynamically allocates the total recording time between a traditional direct detection measurement and a binary mode-sorting receiver outperforms idealized direct detection alone for simple estimation tasks when no prior knowledge of the object centroid is available, achieving one to two orders of magnitude improvement in mean squared error. Our scheme can be generalized for more sophisticated imaging tasks with multiple parameters and minimal prior information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A. Image plane intensity distribution from a two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A. Variance of approximated ML estimator for two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A. Monte Carlo simulation results for estimation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Monte Carlo simulation results for estimation of ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Investigations in optics, with special ref- erence to the spectroscope

    Lord Rayleigh. Investigations in optics, with special ref- erence to the spectroscope. Philos. Magazine , 5(8):261– 274, 1879

    work page

  2. [2]

    R. M. Gagliardi and S. Karp. Optical Communications. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc., Malabar, Florida, reprint edition, 1976

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    C. W. Helstrom. Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory. Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1976

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    S. W. Hell and J. Wichmann. Breaking the Diffraction Resolution Limit By Stimulated-Emission-Depletion Flu- orescence Microscopy. Optics Letters, 19(11), 1994

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    H. P. Kao and A. S. Verkman. Tracking of Single Fluo- rescent Particles. Biophysical Journal, 67, 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    M. F. Juette, T. J. Gould, M. D. Lessard, M. J. Mlodzianoski, B. S. Nagpure, B. T. Bennett, S. T. Hess, and J. Bewersdorf. Three-dimensional sub-100 nm reso- lution fluorescence microscopy of thick samples. Nature Methods, 5(6):527–529, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    S. R. P. Pavani, M. A. Thompson, J. S. Biteen, S. J. Lord, N. Liu, R. J. Twieg, R. Piestun, and W. E. Moerner. Three-dimensional, single-molecule fluorescence imaging beyond the diffraction limit by using a double-helix point spread function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(9):2995–2999, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    J. E. Oti, M. P. Cagigal, and V. F. Canales. The optical differentiation coronagraph. Proceedings of the Interna- tional Astronomical Union, pages 373–378, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Pa´ ur, B

    M. Pa´ ur, B. Stoklasa, J. Grover, A. Krzic, L. L. S´ anchez- Soto, Z. Hradil, and J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek. Tempering Rayleigh’s curse with PSF shaping. Optica, 5(10):1177–1180, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Pa´ ur, B

    M. Pa´ ur, B. Stoklasa, D. Koutn´ y, J.ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. Hradil, J. Grover, A. Krzic, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto. Reading out Fisher information from the zeros of the point spread function. Optics Letters, 44(12):3114–3117, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    S. W. Hell, S. Lindek, C. Cremer, and E. H. K. Stelzer. Confocal microscopy with an increased detection aper- ture: type-B 4Pi confocal microscopy. Optics Letters , 19(3):222–224, 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    M. G. L. Gustafsson, D. A. Agard, and J. W. Sedat. I5M: 3D widefield light microscopy with better than 100 nm axial resolution. Journal of Microscopy, 195(1), 1999

    1999

  5. [13]

    M. P. Backlund, Y. Shechtman, and R. L. Walsworth. Fundamental precision bounds for three-dimensional op- tical localization microscopy with Poisson statistics. Physical Review Letters, 121(2), 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    J. D. Monnier. Optical interferometry in astronomy. Re- ports on Progress in Physics , 66:789–857, 2003

    2003

  7. [15]

    Nair and M

    R. Nair and M. Tsang. Interferometric superlocalization of two incoherent optical point sources. Optics Express, 24(4):3684–3701, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Parniak, S

    M. Parniak, S. Bor´ owka, K. Boroszko, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski. Superreso- lution imaging via two-photon interference. Physical Re- view Letters, 121(25), 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X. M. Lu. Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources. Physical Review X, 6(3), 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A. F. Abouraddy, T. M. Yarnall, and B. E. A. Saleh. An- gular and radial mode analyzer for optical beams. Optics letters, 36(23):4683–5, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Y. Zhou, M. Mirhosseini, D. Fu, J. Zhao, S. M. H. Rafsan- jani, A. E. Willner, and R. W. Boyd. Sorting Photons by Radial Quantum Number. Physical Review Letters , 119(26):1–5, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    X. Gu, M. Krenn, M. Erhard, and A. Zeilinger. Gouy Phase Radial Mode Sorter for Light: Concepts and Ex- periments. Physical Review Letters, 120(10), 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Malhotra, W.E

    T. Malhotra, W.E. Farriss, J. Hassett, A. F. Abouraddy, J.R. Fineup, and A.N. Vamivakas. Interferometric spatial mode analyzer with a bucket detector. Optics Express, 26(7), 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    G. C.G. Berkhout, M. P.J. Lavery, J. Courtial, M. W. Beijersbergen, and M. J. Padgett. Efficient sorting of or- bital angular momentum states of light. Physical Review Letters, 105(15):8–11, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Mirhosseini, M

    M. Mirhosseini, M. Malik, Z. Shi, and R. W. Boyd. Effi- cient separation of the orbital angular momentum eigen- states of light. Nature Communications, 4:1–6, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Mirhosseini, M. P J Lavery, J. Leach, M. J. Padgett, and R. W. Boyd. Direct measurement of a 27- dimensional orbital-angular-momentum state vector. Na- ture Communications, 5:1–7, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Trichili, C

    A. Trichili, C. Rosales-Guzm´ an, A. Dudley, B. Ndagano, A. Ben Salem, M. Zghal, and A. Forbes. Optical com- munication beyond orbital angular momentum.Scientific Reports, 6:2–7, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    J. F. Morizur, L. Nicholls, P. Jian, S. Armstrong, N. Treps, B. Hage, M. Hsu, W. Bowen, J. Janousek, and 12 H. A. Bachor. Programmable unitary spatial mode ma- nipulation. Journal of the Optical Society of America A , 27(11):2524–2531, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Fontaine, Roland Ryf, Haoshuo Chen, David T

    Nicolas K. Fontaine, Roland Ryf, Haoshuo Chen, David T. Neilson, Kwangwoong Kim, and Joel Carpen- ter. Laguerre-Gaussian mode sorter. Nature Communi- cations, 10(1):1–7, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Y. Zhou, J. Yang, J. D. Hassett, S. M. H. Rafsanjani, M. Mirhosseini, A. N. Vamivakas, A. N. Jordan, Z. Shi, and R. W. Boyd. Quantum-limited estimation of the axial separation of two incoherent point sources. Optica, 6(5), 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    D. Fu, Y. Zhou, R. Qi, S. Oliver, Y. Wang, S. M. H. Raf- sanjani, J. Zhao, M. Mirhosseini, Z. Shi, P. Zhang, and R. W. Boyd. Realization of a scalable Laguerre-Gaussian mode sorter based on a robust radial mode sorter. Optics Express, 26(25):15–21, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Pa´ ur, B

    M. Pa´ ur, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek. Achieving the ultimate optical resolution. Optica, 3(10):1144, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    W. K. Tham, H. Ferretti, and A. M. Steinberg. Beating Rayleigh’s Curse by Imaging Using Phase Information. Physical Review Letters, 118(7), 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hassett, T

    J. Hassett, T. Malhorta, M. A. Alonso, R. W. Boyd, S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, and A. N. Vamivakas. Sub-Rayleigh Limit Localization with a Spatial Mode Analyzer. Fron- tiers in Optics/Laser Science , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Dutton, R

    Z. Dutton, R. Kerviche, A. Ashok, and S. Guha. At- taining the quantum limit of superresolution in imaging an object’s length via predetection spatial-mode sorting. Physical Review A, 99(3), 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    M. Tsang. Quantum Limit to Subdiffraction Incoherent Optical Imaging. Physical Review A, 99(1), 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    center of mass

    tasks, simplified versions of SPADE measurements that use only two intensity resolving detectors surpass di- rect detection and approach the ultimate limits imposed by quantum mechanics [3]. Unfortunately, mode sorting measurements can suffer from increased sensitivity to variat...

    1908 arXiv

  28. [36]

    X. M. Lu, H. Krovi, R. Nair, S. Guha, and J. H. Shapiro. Quantum-optimal detection of one-versus-two incoherent optical sources with arbitrary separation. npj Quantum Information, 64(November), 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Chrostowski, R

    A. Chrostowski, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, M. Jarzyna, and K. Banaszek. On superresolution imaging as a mul- tiparameter estimation problem. International Journal of Quantum Information , 15(8):1–10, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z

    J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. Hradil, J. Koutn´ y, D.Grover, A. Krzic, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto. Optimal measurements for quan- tum spatial superresolution. Physical Review A , 98(1), 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang. A modern description of Rayleigh’s criterion. Physical Review A, 99(1), 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Prasad and Z

    S. Prasad and Z. Yu. Quantum limited super-localization and super-resolution of a source pair in three dimensions. Physical Review A, 022116(2), 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    J. W. Goodman. Introduction to Fourier Optics. Roberts and Company, Englewood, CO, USA, 3rd edition, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    L. Mandel. Fluctuations of Photon Beams: The Distribu- tion of the Photo-Electrons. Proceedings of the Physical Society, 74(233), 1959

    1959

  35. [43]

    Basano, P

    L. Basano, P. Ottonello, and B. Torre. Bunching, an- tibunching, and the Poisson limit of Bose-Einstein pro- cesses at low-degeneracy parameters. Journal of the Op- tical Society of America, 22(6):1314–1320, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    M. Tsang. Subdiffraction incoherent optical imaging via spatial-mode demultiplexing: Semiclassical treatment. Physical Review A, 97(2), 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    H. L. Van Trees and K. Bell. Detection Estimation and Modulation Theory, Part I: Detection, Estimation, and Filtering Theory . John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2nd edition, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    Kerviche, S

    R. Kerviche, S. Guha, and A. Ashok. Fundamental limit of resolving two point sources limited by an arbitrary point spread function. arXiv 1701.04913, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    ˇReh´ aˇ cek, M

    J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, M. Pa´ ur, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto. Optimal measurements for resolution be- yond the Rayleigh limit. Optics Letters, 42(2):231, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    J. O. Berger, B. Liseo, and R. L. Wolpert. Integrated Likelihood Methods for Eliminating Nuisance Parame- ters. Statistical Science, 14(1):1–28, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    B. Z. Bobrovsky, E. Mayer-Wolf, and M. Zakai. Some Classes of Global Cramer-Rao Bounds. The Annals of Statistics, 15(4):1421–1438, 1987

    1987

  42. [50]

    R. W. Miller and C. B. Chang. A Modified Cramer- Rao Bound and its Applications. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 24(3):398–400, 1978

    1978

  43. [51]

    A. N. D’Andrea, U. Mengali, and R. Reggiannini. The Modified Cramer-Rao Bound and its Application to Syn- chronization Problems. IEEE Transactions on Commu- nications, 42(234):1391–1399, 1994

    1994

  44. [52]

    Noam and H

    Y. Noam and H. Messer. Notes on the Tightness of the Hybrid Cramer-Rao Lower Bound. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 57(6):2074–2084, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    Mandic, O

    M. Mandic, O. S. Alvarez-Salazar, and A. Kiessling. HabEx: A high-precision pointing architecture using mi- crothrusters and a fine steering mirror. Proceedings of SPIE, page 29, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Sacks, K

    L.W. Sacks, K. C. Liu, K. Tajdaran, K. Q. Ha, R. M. Bell, C. Blaurock, M. R. Bolcar, J. A. Crooke, J. E. Hylan, C. Collins, and G. J. West. Preliminary jitter stability results for the large UV/optical/infrared (LU- VOIR) surveyor concept using a non-contact vibration isolatio...

    2018

  47. [55]

    P-733.3 XYZ Piezo Nanoposi- tioner, https://www.pi-usa.us/en/products/microscope- stages-bio-imaging-life-sciences/p-7333-xyz-piezo- nanopositioner-20125/#specification

    Physik Instrumente. P-733.3 XYZ Piezo Nanoposi- tioner, https://www.pi-usa.us/en/products/microscope- stages-bio-imaging-life-sciences/p-7333-xyz-piezo- nanopositioner-20125/#specification

  48. [56]

    Yu and S

    Z. Yu and S. Prasad. Quantum Limited Superresolution of an Incoherent Source Pair in Three Dimensions. Phys- ical Review Letters, 121(18), 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Napoli, S

    C. Napoli, S. Piano, R. Leach, G. Adesso, and T. Tu- farelli. Towards Superresolution Surface Metrology: Quantum Estimation of Angular and Axial Separations. Physical Review Letters, 122(14), 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    J ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z Hradil, B Stoklasa, M Pa´ ur, J Grover, A Krzic, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto. Multiparameter quan- tum metrology of incoherent point sources : Towards re- alistic superresolution. Physical Review A, 96(6), 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    S. J. Dolinar. An Optimum Receiver For The Binary Co- herent State Quantum Channel. Quarterly Progress Re- port (Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT), 111:115– 120, 1973

    1973

  52. [60]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro. Opti- mum mixed-state discrimination for noisy entanglement- enhanced sensing. Physical Review Letters, 118(4), 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    F. Yang, R. Nair, M. Tsang, C. Simon, and A. I. Lvovsky. Fisher information for far-field linear optical superresolu- tion via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher- order local oscillator mode. Physical Review A , 96(6), 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.