Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Relative phase and dynamical phase sensing in a Hamiltonian model of the optical SU(1,1) interferometer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a Hamiltonian model of the SU(1,1) interferometer in which the relative phase is optimally sensed at $\phi=\pi$ with quantum Fisher information $E^2$, while the dynamical phase at $\theta=0$ reaches $(E/\ln E)^2$.

desk verdict A genuinely new Hamiltonian treatment of the SU(1,1) interferometer that finds different optimal operating points and a shift-operator readout; the central limitation is the perfect-alignment assumption, which is explicit but unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15635 v1 pith:OXAVANJV submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

T. J. Volkoff This is my paper
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords SU(11)interferometerHamiltonianquantummetrologyFisherinformationHeisenbergscalingtwo-modesqueezingrelativephasesensingdynamicalGaussianstates
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 re-derives the SU(1,1) interferometer from the Hamiltonian of two optical downconversion processes driven by opposite pump phases, rather than from a sequence of unitary circuit operations. Under exact mode indistinguishability, the four-mode dynamics reduces to a two-mode quadratic Hamiltonian in sp(2,R), whose state is labeled by nonlinearity $g$, relative phase $\phi$, and dynamical phase $\theta$. The central result is that the best precision for estimating the relative phase $\phi$ occurs at $\phi=\pi$, where the quantum Fisher information grows as $E^2$ in total energy; for the dynamical phase $\theta$, the optimum is $\theta=0$ with scaling $(E/\ln E)^2$. Unlike in the circuit-based model, the optimal operating points involve a non-vacuum state inside the interferometer, and total photon-number readout does not saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, while a weighted shift observable becomes asymptotically optimal. If correct, this provides a first-principles route to designing quantum optical sensors containing multiple downconversion processes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-mode quadratic Hamiltonian $H = \theta(a_1^\dagger a_1+a_2^\dagger a_2) + 2g\sin(\phi/2)\,(i e^{-i\phi/2} a_1^\dagger a_2^\dagger + \mathrm{h.c.})$, an element of sp(2,R) obtained by setting the mode-distinguishability parameters to $|z_1|=|z_2|=1$. Expressed in the $K_1,K_2,K_3$ generators of su(1,1), this Hamiltonian generates the probe state $e^{-iH}|0\rangle|0\rangle$. The argument is carried by exact covariance-matrix calculations for Gaussian states, by the symmetric logarithmic derivative at $\phi=\pi$ which motivates the weighted shift observable $O=\sum_{n=0}^\infty n(|n+1\rangle|n+1\rangle\langle n|\langle n|+\mathrm{h.c.})$, and by the state-duality lemma showing that in the domain $\lambda^2>\theta^2$ the evolved vacuum converges to a two-mode squeezed state with squeezing phase $\pi+\cos^{-1}(\theta/\lambda)$. The covariance-matrix formula $\mathrm{QFI}(\theta)=\tfrac14\mathrm{tr}[(\Sigma^{-1}\partial_\theta\Sigma)^2]$ produces the claimed scalings.

What would settle it

Measure the sensitivity of a vacuum-seeded two-crystal downconversion interferometer at $\phi=\pi$ as the pump strength grows. The paper predicts that the weighted shift observable gives Fisher information scaling as $E^2$ while total photon number does not saturate the bound; if total photon-number readout already saturates the bound, or the weighted-shift Fisher information grows slower than $E^2$, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when the SU(1,1) interferometer is treated as actual Hamiltonian dynamics of two four-wave-mixing processes rather than as a product of SU(1,1) gates, the parameters $\phi$ and $\theta$ are physically distinct and have different optimal sensing points and scalings. At $\phi=\pi$, the relative-phase quantum Fisher information is $E^2$, Heisenberg scaling; at $\theta=0$, the dynamical-phase quantum Fisher information is $4(E/\ln 2E)^2$, a logarithmically modified Heisenberg scaling. The paper further claims that at these operating points the total photon-number operator is not optimal; instead, an observable built from weighted two-photon shift operators saturates the quantum Fisher information in the large-$g$ limit. This contrasts with the circuit-based model, where the optimal point $\theta=0$ is the identity circuit and total photon number saturates the bound. The paper also shows, via symplectic covariance matrices, that the Hamiltonian-evolved vacuum is a two-mode squeezed state in the relevant parameter domain, and it establishes a duality between relative phase and dynamical phase in the large-energy limit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation depends on perfect overlap of the two downconversion outputs: the modes pair up so completely that only one relative phase remains. If the interferometer is misaligned, the two-mode Hamiltonian and every precision claim in the paper no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Relative-phase estimation at $\phi=\pi$ achieves Heisenberg scaling $E^2$, so a vacuum-seeded device reaches the same precision class as nonclassical-input schemes at equal energy.
  • Dynamical-phase estimation at $\theta=0$ is not trivial in this model: the state is still entangled and the precision is $(E/\ln E)^2$, only logarithmically below Heisenberg scaling.
  • Total photon-number readout, which is optimal in the circuit-based model, is suboptimal in the Hamiltonian model, so experiments should measure the weighted shift observable $O$ instead.
  • Because the optimal operating points are non-vacuum states inside the interferometer, intensity and precision measurements at these points can discriminate between Hamiltonian and circuit-based dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit is that the same mode-indistinguishability reduction should apply to any network of downconverters, so the $E^2$ scaling may generalize to multi-crystal sensors beyond the two-process case.
  • The predicted near-cancellation in the noise of $O^2$ between total intensity and two-photon coherence is a measurable signature that could be tested with photon-number-resolving detection.
  • If the model is correct, proposed decompositions of this interferometer into quadratic-Hamiltonian circuit elements need to be recompiled, since generic parameter regimes do not correspond to any $\mathrm{sp}(2,\mathbb{R})$ Hamiltonian.
  • Relaxing the distinguishability parameters below $|z_i|=1$ would introduce auxiliary modes and loss; a natural testable prediction is that the Heisenberg scaling degrades smoothly as alignment worsens.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates the SU(1,1) interferometer of Yurke, McCall, and Klauder starting from a four-mode Hamiltonian describing two optical downconversion processes with opposite pump phases. Under the assumption of perfect mode alignment (mode indistinguishability up to a phase), the model reduces to a two-mode Hamiltonian parametrized by the nonlinearity g, the relative phase phi, and the dynamical phase theta. The paper computes the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for phi and theta, identifies optimal operating points (phi = pi and theta = 0, respectively), derives Heisenberg and logarithmically modified Heisenberg scalings for the QFI, constructs an observable O based on weighted shift operators that is claimed to be asymptotically optimal, and compares these results with the standard circuit-based model. The main positive results are the explicit covariance matrix derivation, Lemma V.1 establishing a duality between the relative and dynamical phases, and the analytical QFI formulas.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a first-principles Hamiltonian treatment of the SU(1,1) interferometer with predictions that differ from the circuit-based model: the optimal operating points occur for non-vacuum states inside the interferometer, and the total photon number readout does not saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound while the weighted-shift observable O is asymptotically optimal. The derivation is largely analytic and internally consistent; in particular, Appendix A supplies a detailed covariance matrix calculation and Lemma V.1 gives an explicit state-duality proof. The paper also makes falsifiable experimental predictions, which is a strength. The main weakness is that all results are derived under an exact mode-alignment assumption with no analysis of robustness to partial distinguishability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The two-mode Hamiltonian (6) is obtained by setting the distinguishability parameters to |z1|=|z2|=1 (specifically z1=e^{-iφ} and z2=1). All subsequent claims—the QFI scalings in Eqs. (14) and (28), the optimal operating points φ=π and θ=0, and the asymptotic optimality of the observable O in Eq. (17)—are properties of this perfectly aligned model. The paper notes that |zi|<1 requires auxiliary environment modes, but it gives no argument that the central scalings are continuous in |zi| near 1 and no bound on how small misalignment modifies the QFI and optimal readout. Since the abstract and Discussion present these predictions as "experimental targets for falsification," this missing robustness analysis is load-bearing for the physical claims. Please either extend the analysis to partial distinguishability (e.g., a perturbative calculation in 1-|zi| or a numerical study for representative misalignment) or explicitly restrict the claims to the ideal alignment limit and discuss the experimental relevance of that restriction.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (28) and Fig. 2] The abstract states that θ=0 is the optimal operating point for sensing the dynamical phase, but the manuscript does not provide an analytic proof that QFI(θ=0) is the global maximum over θ for fixed g. Fig. 2 shows numerical evidence for the values of g considered, and the text says "we will only note the observation that although Fig. 2 suggests..." without establishing optimality. This is insufficient to support the unqualified claim in the abstract. Please supply an analytic argument (e.g., monotonicity or concavity properties of QFI(θ) in Domain 1 and Domain 2) or change the claim to a numerically observed optimal operating point.
  3. [Section V, paragraph after Eq. (23)] The claim that the total photon number readout O=a†1a1+a†2a2 does not saturate the QCRB at θ→0 in the Hamiltonian model is stated without showing the explicit expression for lim_{θ→0} S_NO(θ). This non-saturation is one of the two main claimed differences from the circuit model, so it should be backed by a concrete calculation (even an asymptotic formula). Please include the computed signal-to-noise ratio at θ=0 or an analytic bound showing it is strictly below QFI(θ=0).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "we find in that in the Hamiltonian model" contains a typo; it should read "we find that in the Hamiltonian model."
  2. [Section V, paragraph after Eq. (23)] The sentence beginning "Because Therefore," is a fragment and appears to be a typographical error; the sentence should be completed or split into two coherent sentences.
  3. [Section VI, first paragraph] The sentence "Recent proposals for embedded passive interferometers [44,45]" is incomplete and lacks a verb or continuation; it should be finished or merged with the following sentence.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (14)] The claim that the global maximum of QFI(φ) occurs at φ=π is asserted rather than derived; a brief proof or even a sentence noting that Eq. (14) as a function of sin^2(φ/2) is unimodal with endpoints compared at φ=0 and φ=π would remove any ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivation is self-contained and the QFI/readout claims are verified by explicit calculation rather than by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The two-mode Hamiltonian (6) is obtained from the four-mode Hamiltonian (4) by an explicitly stated physical assumption of mode indistinguishability (|z1|=|z2|=1), not by fitting or by importing a result equivalent to the target. The QFI formulas in (14), (22), (27), and (28) are computed from the parameterized state's overlap or covariance matrix using standard Gaussian-state identities; the asymptotic scaling is a mathematical consequence of the state's squeezing, not an assumed input. The observable O in (17) is motivated by the SLD structure, but its optimality is verified by a direct signal-to-noise calculation (19)-(21) showing SNO/QFI -> 1; this is a constructive proof, not a definitional equivalence. Lemma V.1 is proved from the covariance matrices and does not presuppose the sensing results. Self-citations ([24], [38], [46]) appear only as background or future-work remarks and are not load-bearing for the QFI scalings or the optimality claims. The main limitation—the exact-alignment assumption |z1|=|z2|=1—is an explicitly declared modeling assumption; the paper does not claim to derive it, so it is a scope limitation, not a circular step. The asymptotic scaling (28) is stated without a full derivation, but that is a completeness/correctness concern, not circularity.

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

The model has no parameters fitted to data; g, phi, and theta are physical parameters in the Hamiltonian. The central claim rests on the undepleted pump approximation, the exact alignment of two mode pairs, neglect of the global pump phase, and vacuum input. These assumptions are standard or explicitly stated, but the alignment assumption is the most fragile.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Undepleted pump approximation: the downconversion processes are described by a Hamiltonian quadratic in boson operators (Eq. 4).
    Standard in quantum optics for coherently pumped downconversion; stated in Section III before Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption Exact mode indistinguishability: the four modes reduce to two modes with z1=e^{-i phi} and z2=1 (Eq. 5).
    Central modeling assumption in Section III after Eq. (5); if alignment is imperfect, the two-mode model does not follow.
  • domain assumption Neglect of the global pump phase.
    Stated in Section III: 'we neglect in the present analysis; this was also neglected by Yurke, McCall, Klauder.'
  • domain assumption Vacuum input state |0>|0> for the probe.
    Section III: 'The probe state is given by e^{-iH}|0>_1|0>_2.' Used for both Hamiltonian and circuit comparisons.
  • standard math Standard mathematical tools: metaplectic representation, Nelson's theorem for self-adjointness of generators.
    Appendix A references [22,48] for the metaplectic representation and well-definedness of e^{-iH} on l^2(C)^{otimes 2}.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative phase and dynamical phase sensing in a Hamiltonian model of the optical SU(1,1) interferometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXAVANJV

@misc{pith2026250515635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative phase and dynamical phase sensing in a Hamiltonian model of the optical SU(1,1) interferometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXAVANJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15635}
}
abstract

The SU(1,1) interferometer introduced by Yurke, McCall, Klauder is reformulated starting from the Hamiltonian of two identical optical downconversion processes with opposite pump phases. From the four optical modes, two are singled out up to a relative phase by the assumption of exact alignment of the interferometer (i.e., mode indistinguishability). The state of the two resulting modes is parametrized by the nonlinearity $g$, the relative phase $\phi$, and a dynamical phase $\theta$ resulting from the interaction time. The optimal operating point for sensing the relative phase (dynamical phase) is found to be $\phi = \pi$ ($\theta=0$) with quantum Fisher information exhibiting Heisenberg scaling $E^{2}$ (logarithmically modified Heisenberg scaling $\left({E\over \ln E}\right)^{2}$). Compared to the predictions of the circuit-based model, we find in that in the Hamiltonian model: 1. the optimal operating points occur for a non-vacuum state inside the interferometer, and 2. measurement of the total photon number operator does not provide an estimate of the relative or dynamical phase with precision that saturates the quantum Cramer-Rao bound, whereas an observable based on weighted shift operators becomes optimal as $g$ increases. The results indicate a first-principles approach for describing general optical quantum sensors containing multiple optical downconversion processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15635 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. QFI( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical coherence and quantum optics(Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    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)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Giese, S

    E. Giese, S. Lemieux, M. Manceau, R. Fickler, and R. W. Boyd, Phase sensitivity of gain-unbalanced nonlinear interfer- ometers, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053863 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Yao, L.-A

    W. Yao, L.-A. Zheng, X. Zhang, L. Tian, H. Shen, and Y. Zheng, Experimental implementation of time reversal in an optical domain, Applied Physics Letters 125, 164005 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    L. Tian, W. Yao, Y. Wu, Q. Wang, H. Shen, Y. Zheng, and K. Peng, Loss-tolerant and quantum-enhanced interferometer by reversed squeezing processes, Opt. Lett. 48, 3909 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Corgier, N

    R. Corgier, N. Gaaloul, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Delta-kick squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 183401 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    T.-W. Mao, Q. Liu, X.-W. Li, J.-H. Cao, F. Chen, W.-X. Xu, M. K. Tey, Y.-X. Huang, and L. You, Quantum-enhanced sensing by echoing spin-nematic squeezing in atomic Bose-Einstein condensate, Nature Physics 19, 1585 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Davis, G

    E. Davis, G. Bentsen, and M. Schleier-Smith, Approaching the Heisenberg Limit without Single-Particle Detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 053601 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kobrin, T

    B. Kobrin, T. Schuster, M. Block, W. Wu, B. Mitchell, E. Davis, and N. Y. Yao, A universal protocol for quantum-enhanced sensing via information scrambling (2024), arXiv:2411.12794 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chen and J

    P. Chen and J. Jing, Qubit-assisted quantum metrology under a time-reversal strategy, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062425 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Kreˇ si´ c and T

    I. Kreˇ si´ c and T. Ackemann, Quantum enhancedSU (1, 1) matter-wave interferometry in a ring cavity, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043302 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, J. J. Bollinger, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, D. H. Slichter, and D. T. C. Allcock, Quantum amplification of mechanical oscillator motion, Science 364, 1163 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Quantum algorithms revisited, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 454, 339 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    C. M. Caves, Reframing SU(1,1) Interferometry, Advanced Quantum Technologies 3, 1900138 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    C. F. McCormick, A. M. Marino, V. Boyer, and P. D. Lett, Strong low-frequency quantum correlations from a four-wave- mixing amplifier, Phys. Rev. A 78, 043816 (2008). 9

    2008

  11. [19]

    Z. Y. Ou, Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit by a nonlinear interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. A 85, 023815 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    A. M. Marino, N. V. Corzo Trejo, and P. D. Lett, Effect of losses on the performance of an SU (1, 1) interferometer, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023844 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    A. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  14. [22]

    Folland, Harmonic analysis in phase space(Princeton University Press, 1989)

    G. Folland, Harmonic analysis in phase space(Princeton University Press, 1989)

    1989

  15. [23]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Central charge in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042011 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    T. J. Volkoff and D. A. R. Dalvit, Nonperturbative Zou-Wang-Mandel effect, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023704 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Induced coherence without induced emission, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4614 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    Z. Y. Ou, L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Coherence in two-photon down-conversion induced by a laser, Phys. Rev. A 41, 1597 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    The global relationship between the real symplectic groups and the pseudounitary group can be stated by the following strict containments as Lie subgroups: Sp(2n, R) ⊂ U (n, n) ⊂ Sp(4n, R)

  20. [28]

    C. A. Holmes, G. J. Milburn, and D. F. Walls, Photon-number-state preparation in nondegenerate parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2493 (1989)

    1989

  21. [29]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, 2nd Ed.(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    W. N. Plick, J. P. Dowling, and G. S. Agarwal, Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferometry, New Journal of Physics 12, 083014 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    J. Jing, C. Liu, Z. Zhou, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Realization of a nonlinear interferometer with parametric amplifiers, Applied Physics Letters 99, 011110 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Hudelist, J

    F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers, Nature Communications 5, 3049 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Zheng, M

    K. Zheng, M. M., 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) interferometer, Photonics Research 8, 1653 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Q.-K. Gong, D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, Z.-Y. Ou, and W.-P. Zhang, Phase estimation of phase shifts in two arms for an SU(1,1) interferometer with coherent and squeezed vacuum states, Chinese Physics B 26, 094205 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    C. You, S. Adhikari, X. Ma, M. Sasaki, M. Takeoka, and J. P. Dowling, Conclusive precision bounds for SU(1,1) interfer- ometers, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042122 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Applications of the group SU (1, 1) for quantum computation and tomog- raphy, Laser Physics 16, 1572 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Torre, The Group of 1D First-Order Optical Systems, in Linear Ray and Wave Optics in Phase Space, edited by A

    A. Torre, The Group of 1D First-Order Optical Systems, in Linear Ray and Wave Optics in Phase Space, edited by A. Torre (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2005) pp. 111–166

    2005

  30. [38]

    Volkoff, Z

    T. Volkoff, Z. Holmes, and A. Sornborger, Universal compiling and (no-)free-lunch theorems for continuous-variable quan- tum learning, PRX Quantum 2, 040327 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Becker, N

    S. Becker, N. Datta, L. Lami, and C. Rouz´ e, Energy-Constrained Discrimination of Unitaries, Quantum Speed Limits, and a Gaussian Solovay-Kitaev Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 190504 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    A. W. Knapp, Lie Groups Beyond and Introduction(Birkhauser, 1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    M. Liu, L. Zhang, and H. Miao, Adaptive protocols for SU(1,1) interferometers to achieve ab initio phase estimation at the Heisenberg limit, New Journal of Physics 25, 103051 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

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

    1994

  35. [43]

    Pinel, J

    O. Pinel, J. Fade, D. Braun, P. Jian, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, Ultimate sensitivity of precision measurements with intense Gaussian quantum light: A multimodal approach, Phys. Rev. A 85, 010101 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    W. Du, J. Kong, G. Bao, P. Yang, J. Jia, S. Ming, C.-H. Yuan, J. F. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, M. W. Mitchell, and W. Zhang, SU (2)-in-SU (1, 1) Nested Interferometer for High Sensitivity, Loss-Tolerant Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 033601 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    G. S. Agarwal, Saturation of Quantum Cramer-Rao Bounds for Distributed Sensing via Error Sensitivity inSU (1, 1)-SU (m) Interferometry (2025), arXiv:2504.20228 [quant-ph]

    2025

  38. [46]

    Omanakuttan, J

    S. Omanakuttan, J. A. Gross, and T. J. Volkoff, Quantum error correction-inspired multiparameter quantum metrology (2024), arXiv:2409.16515 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. Du, S. Liu, F. E. S. Steinhoff, and G. Vitagliano, Characterizing resources for multiparameter estimation of SU (2) and SU (1, 1) unitaries (2025), arXiv:2412.19119 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, 2017)

    A. Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, 2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    K. P. Seshadreesan, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde, R´ enyi relative entropies of quantum Gaussian states, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 59, 072204 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Marian and T

    P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Uhlmann fidelity between two-mode Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 86, 022340 (2012). 10 Appendix A: Phase space properties of the Hamiltonian model In this Appendix, we derive the covariance matrix for the full state |ψ(g, θ, ϕ)⟩ := e−iH |0⟩ |0⟩ and i...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.