Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

For n≥6, evenly spaced SU(1,1) coherent states on the Poincaré disk produce circular sub-Planck features with extension ~1/k in all directions, giving an isotropic √k enhancement in displacement sensitivity over the coherent-state (standard

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:05 UTC pith:TIBGO5LI

load-bearing objection New family of SU(1,1) circular states, but the isotropic sub-Planck claim rests on a suspicious un-derived overlap formula and thin contour evidence. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14752 v2 pith:TIBGO5LI submitted 2026-02-16 quant-ph

Finer sub-Planck structures and displacement sensitivity of SU(1,1) circular states

Naeem Akhtar , Jia-Xin Peng , Tariq Aziz , Xiaosen Yang , Dong Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords SU(1,1) coherent statessub-Planck structuresisotropic sensitivitycompass statesphase-space displacementquantum metrologyPoincaré diskstandard quantum limit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes a family of SU(1,1) 'circular' states formed by superposing n (even, n≥6) SU(1,1) coherent states placed symmetrically at equal angles and equal radii on the Poincaré disk. The central claim is that for n≥6 the central interference feature in the SU(1,1) Wigner function becomes circular — isotropic sub-Planck structure — with a size that shrinks as 1/k in all directions, compared with 1/√k for a single coherent state. As a result, a tiny phase-space displacement of order 1/k is enough to make the state orthogonal to its displaced copy, a √k improvement over the standard quantum limit, and this enhanced sensitivity is uniform in all directions. The authors verify the behavior for n=6,8,10,12,16 and argue the trend persists for larger n, positioning these states as resources for quantum metrology with two-mode squeezed (SU(1,1)) platforms.

Core claim

For an even number n≥6 of Perelomov SU(1,1) coherent states |e^{2πij/n} tanh(τ/2)⟩ superposed on the Poincaré disk, the paper finds that the central lobe of the SU(1,1) Wigner function is a nearly perfectly circular zero-amplitude region whose diameter scales as 1/k in every direction (k being the Bargmann index). This isotropic sub-Planck feature contrasts with the n=2 cat and n=4 compass states, whose central features are elongated along one or more axes. The associated overlap S(δ)=|⟨⃝n|D(δ)|⃝n⟩|^2 reaches orthogonality for displacement |δ| ~ 1/k uniformly, whereas a coherent state requires |δ| ~ 1/√k; the sensitivity gain is therefore direction-independent and grows as √k. The paper argu

What carries the argument

The central object is the n-component SU(1,1) circular (compass) state |⃝n⟩ = Σ_{j=0}^{n-1} |e^{2πij/n} tanh(τ/2)⟩, an equal-weight superposition of n Perelomov coherent states lying on a circle of fixed radius in the Poincaré disk. The analysis runs through the SU(1,1) Wigner function (Eq. 22) and the displacement-overlap formula (Eqs. 23–24), with the coherent-state overlap exp(-k|δ|^2) serving as the standard-quantum-limit reference. The n-fold rotational symmetry of the superposition cancels the directional dependence of the interference ridges and produces the circular central feature whose zero contours define the 1/k extension.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the visual judgment that the Wigner-function zero contours are circular across all phase-space directions — a judgment made at a single radius τ=1.5 and two k values — and on an overlap formula (Eq. 24) whose printed denominator appears inconsistent with the standard SU(1,1) inner-product kernel; if either the isotropy is only approximate at other parameters or the formula is wrong, the uniform √k sensitivity gain does not follow as stated.

What would settle it

A reader could compute the zero-amplitude contour of the central Wigner feature for n=6 at several τ (say 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0) and several k (say 4, 8, 12, 16) and measure the ratio of the contour's extent along the x-axis to its extent along the p-axis; any ratio clearly outside, say, 0.9–1.1 would falsify the isotropy claim. Independently, evaluating S(δ)=|⟨⃝n|D(δ)|⃝n⟩|^2 by direct number-state-basis multiplication and comparing with Eq. (24) would settle whether the 1/k displacement thresholds in Figs. 3–4 are correct.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central feature is truly isotropic with extension ~1/k, then the minimum displacement that can be resolved by these states is ~1/k, an improvement by a factor of √k over a coherent state in every phase-space direction.
  • Because the sensitivity gain is uniform, these states avoid the direction-dependent resolution of cat and compass states and may improve phase-space displacement measurements in SU(1,1) interferometry and two-mode squeezing setups.
  • The reported monotonic improvement with n means that, in principle, arbitrarily fine isotropic sub-Planck features can be designed by increasing the number of components (n→∞) — subject to the practical cost of superposing more coherent states.
  • For large k, the states approximate superpositions of two-mode squeezed number states with large photon-number asymmetry, suggesting a concrete physical route to generating them in bosonic systems with Kerr-type interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The isotropy claim is currently supported by visual inspection of zero-contour plots at a single radius τ=1.5 for k=12 and 16; a quantitative anisotropy metric (e.g., axis-ratio of the central zero contour) scanned across τ and k would turn the claim into a sharp, testable prediction. (This is our suggestion, not the paper's.)
  • If the overlap formula (Eq. 24) is corrected to the standard (1−ζ_i^* ζ_j')^{2k} kernel, the numerical sensitivity curves may shift; the qualitative 1/k law might survive, but the exact displacement thresholds should be re-verified. We raise this as a caution; the paper does not discuss it.
  • The same geometric construction — equal-weight, equally spaced coherent states on a circle — could be transplanted to other Lie groups (e.g., SU(2) or the Heisenberg-Weyl group) to look for a threshold number of components beyond which sub-Planck features become isotropic; the n=6 threshold may be a general feature of symmetric superpositions.
  • For n→∞ the discrete sum tends to a continuous ring of coherent states; one might predict the central feature to converge to a Bessel-type isotropic pattern, offering an analytic handle on the 1/k scaling beyond numerical checks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs n-component SU(1,1) circular states by superposing n evenly spaced Perelomov coherent states on a circle in the Poincaré disk, with n even and n≥6. It claims that these states develop isotropic sub-Planck structures whose phase-space extension scales as 1/k in all directions, in contrast to the 1/√k extension of SU(1,1) coherent states, and that they therefore provide an isotropic enhancement in displacement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit. The abstract also promises an analysis of thermal decoherence in a Lindblad framework and generation via Kerr-type interactions. The body presents Wigner-function plots, zero-contour plots, and overlap plots for n=2,4,6,8,10,12,16, all at τ=1.5 and for k=12 and 16, and extrapolates the trend to arbitrarily large n.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this would be a useful new resource: the first isotropic sub-Planck structure within the SU(1,1) group, with a simple construction and a clear connection to two-mode squeezed states. The paper builds on established SU(1,1) Wigner-function formalism and does not appear to fit the result into existence by tuning parameters; the isotropy is an emergent numerical observation. However, the evidence is almost entirely visual, the central overlap formula is stated without derivation and appears inconsistent with standard SU(1,1) coherent-state calculus, and the abstract promises a decoherence analysis that is absent from the body. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these load-bearing issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (24), Sec. IV C] The overlap formula Eq. (24) is the basis for all sensitivity results in Figs. 3 and 4, but it is asserted without derivation or reference and appears structurally wrong. Setting δ=0 gives ζ'=ζ_j and the expression reduces to [(1−|ζ_i|^2)(1−|ζ_j|^2)/((1−ζ_i^*)ζ_j)]^k, whereas the known SU(1,1) coherent-state overlap is [(1−|ζ_i|^2)(1−|ζ_j|^2)/(1−ζ_i^*ζ_j)^2]^k. The printed denominator lacks the ζ_i^*ζ_j term, lacks the expected 2k power, and is singular for ζ_j=0. Since Eq. (23) and all orthogonality thresholds are computed from this quantity, the displacement-sensitivity claim is unsupported unless the formula is re-derived, corrected, and verified against a known limit.
  2. [Secs. IV B and V, Figs. 2 and 4] The isotropy claim is supported only by visual inspection of zero-amplitude contours at a single radius τ=1.5 and two Bargmann indices k=12,16. No quantitative anisotropy metric is defined or computed (e.g., angular variation of the zero-crossing radius, principal-axis ratio, or circular-fit residual), no scan over τ is presented, and no n>16 is computed. The text in Sec. V explicitly says 'we did not find it necessary' to go further, yet the abstract asserts the results 'remain valid for arbitrarily large n'. The claimed 1/k scaling is inferred from two points. A quantitative analysis over at least several n and k values, and over τ, is needed to support the headline conclusion.
  3. [Abstract and Secs. I, VI] The abstract states: 'We also investigate the effects of thermal decoherence on these multicomponent compass states within a frequency-resolved Lindblad framework, demonstrating the evolution and degradation of their nonclassical signatures.' The introduction similarly motivates Kerr-type interactions and generation of the states at specific times. However, the body contains no decoherence model, no Lindblad master equation, no thermal-state analysis, and no Kerr-evolution calculation. This promised content is absent. Either add the decoherence and generation analysis or remove these claims from the abstract and introduction.
  4. [Eq. (21), state normalization] The state |⃝_n⟩ is defined as a bare sum of coherent states with no normalization factor. Zero contours of the Wigner function and of the overlap are insensitive to an overall constant, but the numerical values of S(δ) in Fig. 3 and any quantitative comparison with the coherent-state SQL depend on the normalization convention. Please specify whether the component states are normalized and provide the normalization constant for |⃝_n⟩.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Premelov' should be 'Perelomov' (Sec. III); the denominator in Eq. (24) is hard to parse because of broken-line typesetting; and the same symbol D is used for both the SU(1,1) displacement operator and the displacement used in the overlap formula. Defining the latter explicitly would improve clarity.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Sec. IV B] The text says the n=8 central feature has 'a perfect circular shape' while n=6 is 'nearly isotropic', but no numerical measure is provided. A circle fit with residuals, or a radial profile at several angles, would make the claim testable.
  3. [References] Reference [17] on circular states is cited but not discussed in relation to the present construction. Given the title of the paper, a brief comparison with that work would help position the novelty.
  4. [Sec. V] The brief discussion relating large k to large photon-number asymmetry ∆ in two-mode squeezed number states is interesting, but it is not developed. It would be useful to state explicitly whether the isotropy and the 1/k scaling persist in the physical two-mode realization with finite ∆.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction in the central derivation; isotropy is an emergent numerical observation, not a fit. Minor self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that n≥6 equal-angular-spacing SU(1,1) coherent-state superpositions show isotropic sub-Planck features with displacement sensitivity δ∼1/k—is computed, not fitted. The states are defined in Eq. (21) purely by geometric arrangement; no parameter is tuned to force the circularity of the central Wigner-function zero contour. The Wigner function uses Eq. (19), built on the externally established SU(1,1) Wigner/overlap formalism (refs [31,32,45]), and the overlap in Eq. (23) is evaluated from a stated matrix element, Eq. (24). Even though Eq. (24) is presented without derivation and appears structurally suspect (the denominator lacks the expected ζ_i^*ζ_j coupling; a correctness/verifiability risk), it is not an input that is renamed as an output. Equal angular spacing imposes discrete rotational symmetry, but the 'isotropic' zero contours for n=6,8,10,12,16 are observed numerically and are not built into the definition. The self-citations (refs [16,20,21,35]) provide context and prior compass-state results; the new n≥6 results are computed here and do not reduce to those citations. Section V's statement that 'we did not find it necessary' to go beyond n=16, while the abstract asserts validity for arbitrary n, is an unsupported extrapolation, not a circular step. No specific reduction of a predicted quantity to an input can be exhibited, so per hard rule 1 no circular step is listed; the score 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SU(1,1) representation theory, the inherited SU(1,1) Wigner/overlap formulas of refs [31,32,45], and the assumption that the central Wigner patch is the operative sub-Planck feature. Hand-chosen parameters: τ = 1.5 (all figures, no scan) and k = 12, 16 (the two values backing the 1/k law). The even-n restriction and the n→∞ extrapolation are introduced ad hoc. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • τ (ring radius parameter) = 1.5 (all figures; no scan)
    Chosen by hand for every Wigner and overlap plot. The isotropy claim is demonstrated only at this value; no τ-dependence analysis is given, so generalizing the claim to all τ is unsupported.
  • k (Bargmann index) sample values = k = 12 and 16
    The zero-contour curves for the central feature are shown only at these two values; the claimed 1/k scaling law and 'isotropic in all directions' statement are inferred from these two points.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Standard SU(1,1) representation theory, including Casimir operator, commutation relations, Perelomov coherent states D̂(ζ)|k,0⟩, and the single- and two-mode bosonic realizations.
    Sec. III; unproved background used throughout the construction of states and Wigner functions.
  • domain assumption The SU(1,1) displaced-parity Wigner function formula (Eq. 19) and its coherent-state limit (Eq. 20), inherited from refs [31,32].
    Sec. IV; every Wigner plot in Figs. 2 and 4 depends on these formulas, which are not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The overlap formula (Eq. 24) including the Möbius displacement action δ → (δ+ζ_j)/(1+δ^*ζ_j).
    Sec. IV.C; all sensitivity figures (Figs. 3–4) rest on it. As typeset it appears garbled (denominator (1−ζ_i^*)ζ_j' instead of a standard (1−ζ_i^*ζ_j')^{2k} kernel), though this may be an extraction artifact; it is inherited without verification.
  • domain assumption The criterion that vanishing of the overlap S(δ) measures displacement sensitivity, calibrated against the coherent-state overlap e^{−k|δ|²} as the standard quantum limit.
    Sec. IV.C; follows the Toscano–Zurek framework (ref [9]). The identification of the 'vanishing region' of a Gaussian-like overlap with a black circle is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The central patch at the origin of the Wigner function is the operative sub-Planck feature whose zero contours bound its scale.
    Secs. IV.A–IV.B; the selection of the central tile as the feature of interest is motivated by analogy with HW group results, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Even-n restriction and the n→∞ extrapolation.
    Abstract and Sec. V: only even n are considered (no justification for excluding odd n), and validity for arbitrarily large n is asserted in the abstract while the body computes up to n = 16 and explicitly declines to go further ('we did not find it necessary').

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12834 in / 23726 out tokens · 248020 ms · 2026-08-02T23:05:39.683171+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum states with sub-Planck features exhibit sensitivity to phase-space displacements beyond the standard quantum limit, making them useful for quantum metrology. In the context of the SU(1,1) group, sub-Planck features have been constructed through the superposition of four Perelomov coherent states on the hyperbolic plane (the SU(1,1) compass state). However, these structures differ in scale along different phase-space directions (anisotropic features), resulting in nonuniform sensitivity enhancement to phase-space displacements. Here, we construct $N$-component compass states, which are obtained by superposing $N \geq 6$ SU(1,1) coherent states with an even total number, evenly arranged along a circular path on the hyperbolic plane; that is, all components lie at the same distance from the origin and have equal angular spacing of $\frac{2\pi}{N}$. We observe that these generalized SU(1,1) compass states exhibit isotropic sub-Planck structures, leading to an isotropic enhancement in sensitivity to phase-space displacements that progressively increases with larger $N$. These states are directly relevant to quantum platforms supporting Kerr-type interactions between two bosonic modes, where the underlying SU(1,1) dynamical symmetry enables the generation of multicomponent SU(1,1) compass states. Specifically, the compact evolution of SU(1,1) coherent states under the considered dynamics enables the generation of multicomponent SU(1,1) compass states at specific times. We also investigate the effects of thermal decoherence on these multicomponent compass states within a frequency-resolved Lindblad framework, demonstrating the evolution and degradation of their nonclassical signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14752 by Dong Wang, Jia-Xin Peng, Naeem Akhtar, Tariq Aziz, Xiaosen Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. SU(1,1) circular states are composed of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The SU(1,1) Wigner distributions of our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The left panels show the overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The SU(1,1) Wigner distribution and their associated overlaps for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  2. [2]

    be the annihilation (creation) operators for modes 1 and 2, respectively, and|n 1⟩and |n2⟩denote the number state of these modes. The com- plete number-state basis for the two-mode field is denoted as|n 1, n2⟩=|n 1⟩ ⊗ |n2⟩, and the corresponding genera- tors get the following form: ˆK+ = ˆa† 1ˆa† 2, ˆK− = ˆa1ˆa2, ˆK0 = 1 2 (ˆa† 1ˆa1 + ˆa† 2ˆa2 + 1).(11) T...

  3. [3]

    J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek,Quantum Theory and Measurement(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    W. P. Schleich,Quantum Optics in Phase Space(Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, 2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    W. H. Zurek, Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence, Nature412, 712 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Praxmeyer, P

    L. Praxmeyer, P. Wasylczyk, C. Radzewicz, and K. W´ odkiewicz, Time-frequency domain analogues of phase space sub-Planck structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 063901 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    L. A. Howard, T. J. Weinhold, F. Shahandeh, J. Combes, M. R. Vanner, A. G. White, and M. Ringbauer, Quantum hypercube states, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 020402 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Jacquod, I

    P. Jacquod, I. Adagideli, and C. W. J. Beenakker, De- cay of the Loschmidt echo for quantum states with sub- Planck-scale structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 154103 (2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

    Toscano, D

    F. Toscano, D. A. R. Dalvit, L. Davidovich, and W. H. Zurek, Sub-Planck phase-space structures and Heisenberg-limited measurements, Phys. Rev. A73, 023803 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    D. A. R. Dalvit, R. L. de Matos Filho, and F. Toscano, Quantum metrology at the Heisenberg limit with ion trap motional compass states, New J. Phys.8, 276 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    Zheng, Y

    P. Zheng, Y. Cai, B. Xu, S. Wen, L. Zhang, Z. Ni, J. Mai, Y. Zeng, L. Lin, L. Hu, X. Deng, S. Liu, J. Shu, Y. Xu, and D. Yu, Quantum-enhanced dark matter detection using Schr¨ odinger cat states (2025), arXiv:2507.23538 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou, and et al., Quantum-enhanced metrology with large Fock states, Nat. Phys.20, 1874–1880 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Praxmeyer, C.-C

    L. Praxmeyer, C.-C. Chen, P. Yang, S.-D. Yang, and R.- K. Lee, Direct measurement of time-frequency analogs of sub-planck structures, Phys. Rev. A93, 053835 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Arman and P. K. Panigrahi, Generating overlap between compass states and squeezed, displaced, or Fock states, Phys. Rev. A109, 033724 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Arman and P. K. Panigrahi, Enhancing the size of phase-space states containing sub-Planck-scale structures via non-Gaussian operations (2026), arXiv:2601.15654 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Hailin, N

    T. Hailin, N. Akhtar, and G. Xianlong, Multicomponent cat states with sub-Planckian structures and their op- tomechanical analogues, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024053 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    S. Tang, S. Luo, and Y. Zhang, Sub-Planck structures and phase-space sensitivity of circular states, Phys. Rev. A112, 023712 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Akhtar, J

    N. Akhtar, J. Wu, J.-X. Peng, W.-M. Liu, and G. Xi- anlong, Sub-Planck structures and sensitivity of the su- perposed photon-added or photon-subtracted squeezed- vacuum states, Phys. Rev. A107, 052614 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    D. W. Moore, V. ˇSvarc, K. Singh, A. Kovalenko, M. T. Pham, O. ˇC ´ ıp, L. Slodiˇ cka, and R. Filip, Sub-Planck structure quantification in non-Gaussian probability den- sities (2026), arXiv:2601.05898 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Akhtar, B

    N. Akhtar, B. C. Sanders, and C. Navarrete- Benlloch, Sub-planck structures: Analogies between the Heisenberg-Weyl and SU(2) groups, Phys. Rev. A103, 053711 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Akhtar, B

    N. Akhtar, B. C. Sanders, and G. Xianlong, Sub-planck phase-space structure and sensitivity for SU(1,1) com- pass states, Phys. Rev. A106, 043704 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    W. Du, J. F. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Quantum dense metrology by an SU(2)-in-SU(1,1) nested interfer- ometer, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 024003 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    M. Liu, H. Miao, and L. Zhang, Realizing the optimal measurement scheme for an SU(1,1) interferometer in ab initio phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A111, 063711 (2025). 10

    2025

  25. [25]

    Hudelist, J

    F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Ou, and W. Zhang, Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers, Nat. Commun.5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Berrada, Quantum metrology with SU(1,1) coherent states in the presence of nonlinear phase shifts, Phys

    K. Berrada, Quantum metrology with SU(1,1) coherent states in the presence of nonlinear phase shifts, Phys. Rev. A88, 013817 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    S. S. Szigeti, R. J. Lewis-Swan, and S. A. Haine, Pumped- up SU(1,1) interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150401 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Liang, Y

    H. Liang, Y. Su, X. Xiao, Y. Che, B. C. Sanders, and X. Wang, Criticality in two-mode interferometers, Phys. Rev. A102, 013722 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Linnemann, J

    D. Linnemann, J. Schulz, W. Muessel, P. Kunkel, M. Pr¨ ufer, A. Fr¨ olian, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Active SU(1,1) atom interferometry, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol.2, 044009 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    G. S. Agarwal, Saturation of the quantum Cram´ er-Rao bound for distributed sensing via error sensitivity in SU(1,1)-SU(m) interferometry, Phys. Rev. A112, 032439 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    P. G. Morrison, Matrix Wigner function and SU(1,1) (2023), arXiv:2306.01238 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    A. B. Klimov, U. Seyfarth, H. de Guise, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, SU(1, 1) covariant s-parametrized maps, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54, 065301 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Seyfarth, A

    U. Seyfarth, A. B. Klimov, H. d. Guise, G. Leuchs, and L. L. Sanchez-Soto, Wigner function for SU(1,1), Quan- tum4, 317 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    C. C. Gerry, Correlated two-mode SU(1,1) coherent states: nonclassical properties, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B8, 685 (1991)

    1991

  35. [35]

    C. C. Gerry and R. Grobe, Two-mode intelligent SU(1,1) states, Phys. Rev. A51, 4123 (1995)

    1995

  36. [36]

    Akhtar, X

    N. Akhtar, X. Yang, J.-X. Peng, I. Ul Haq, Y. Xie, and Y. Chen, Sub-shot-noise sensitivity via superpositions of two deformed kitten states, Phys. Rev. A111, 032407 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Shukla and B

    A. Shukla and B. C. Sanders, Superposing compass states for asymptotic isotropic sub-Planck phase-space sensitiv- ity, Phys. Rev. A108, 043719 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Sinatra, Spin-squeezed states for metrology, Appl

    A. Sinatra, Spin-squeezed states for metrology, Appl. Phys. Lett.120, 120501 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Czartowski, K

    J. Czartowski, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and D. Braun, Minimal- noise estimation of noncommuting rotations of a spin, Quantum8, 1341 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Martin, S

    J. Martin, S. Weigert, and O. Giraud, Optimal detec- tion of rotations about unknown axes by coherent and anticoherent states, Quantum4, 285 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    Xu, Y.-R

    K. Xu, Y.-R. Zhang, Z.-H. Sun, H. Li, P. Song, Z. Xi- ang, K. Huang, H. Li, Y.-H. Shi, C.-T. Chen, X. Song, D. Zheng, F. Nori, H. Wang, and H. Fan, Metrologi- cal characterization of non-gaussian entangled states of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150501 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    P. T. Grochowski and R. Filip, Optimal phase-insensitive force sensing with non-Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 230802 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, Comparisons between quantum state distinguishability measures, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 31 (2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    Alonso, S

    D. Alonso, S. Brouard, J. P. Palao, and R. S. Mayato, Action scales for quantum decoherence and their relation to structures in phase space, Phys. Rev. A69, 052111 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Perelomov,Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986)

    A. Perelomov,Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986)

    1986

  47. [47]

    Berrada, Quantum metrology with SU (1, 1) coherent states in the presence of nonlinear phase shifts, Phys

    K. Berrada, Quantum metrology with SU (1, 1) coherent states in the presence of nonlinear phase shifts, Phys. Rev. A88, 013817 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

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

    2011

  49. [49]

    Shaterzadeh-Yazdi, P

    Z. Shaterzadeh-Yazdi, P. S. Turner, and B. C. Sanders, SU(1,1) symmetry of multimode squeezed states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.41, 055309 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    C. C. Gerry, Remarks on the use of group theory in quan- tum optics, Opt. Express8, 76 (2001)

    2001

  51. [51]

    C. F. Lo, Normal ordering of the SU(1,1) and SU(2) squeeze operators, Phys. Rev. A51, 1706 (1995)

    1995