Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

A Quantum-Enhanced Feedback Oscillator

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Squeezed light, injected into an opto-electronic oscillator, suppresses its phase noise by about 1.0 dB—the first demonstration of quantum enhancement in a feedback oscillator.

desk verdict Genuine first demonstration of a quantum-enhanced feedback oscillator, but the headline 1.0 dB suppression is roughly twice what the paper's own eq. (57) predicts from its quoted parameters — the magnitude needs close scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07753 v1 pith:UDCBLPUW submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph physics.optics

Hudson A. Loughlin , Daniel M. DeSantis , Nergis Mavalvala , Vivishek Sudhir This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords opto-electronicoscillatorsqueezedlightphasenoisestandardquantumlimitquantum-enhancedmetrologyfeedbackSchawlow-Townesstability
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

Feedback oscillators — lasers, masers, and opto-electronic oscillators — ultimately have their phase stability capped by quantum fluctuations, a standard quantum limit. The paper tries to show that this cap is not fixed: by injecting squeezed light into the optical field that an opto-electronic oscillator (OEO) measures, the oscillator's phase noise can be pushed below its un-enhanced level. It reports an OEO whose measured phase noise matches a parameter-free model, sits within 3.5 dB of its standard quantum limit, and is reduced by about 1.0 dB between 6 kHz and 100 kHz offset when squeezed light is injected, with anti-squeezed light raising it by 2.8 dB. If the demonstration holds, the same quantum-state engineering could be applied to other feedback oscillators, including lasers, to quiet their phase noise beyond the Schawlow-Townes limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the opto-electronic oscillator loop: a laser field is amplitude-modulated by an electro-optic modulator, delayed by a fiber, detected by a photodetector, filtered, and fed back to the modulator, so the detected amplitude quadrature noise is converted into RF phase noise through square-law detection. The central identity is Eq. (2)/(57): the output phase-noise spectral density factorizes into the closed-loop response times an in-loop noise term proportional to the optical amplitude-quadrature spectrum incident on the photodetector plus detector dark noise. Because the quadrature spectrum is what the photodetector sees, replacing the vacuum on a loss port by squeezed vacuum—with the squeezed quadrature aligned to the amplitude quadrature—directly lowers that term. The paper also defines the standard quantum limit as the phase noise at unit quantum efficiency with vacuum input, Eq. (4), which makes the gap to the SQL a measure of how much room remains for quantum enhancement.

What would settle it

Re-measure the phase-noise spectrum while stepping a calibrated attenuator on the squeezed-light path; the suppression at 6-100 kHz should follow the model's prediction $10\log_{10}\left[(1-\eta_{\rm sqz}^2)(J_0^2+J_1^2)+2\eta_{\rm sqz}^2(J_0^2\bar S^{\rm sqz}_{qq}[\omega_0]+J_1^2\bar S^{\rm sqz}_{qq}[2\omega_0])\right]$ relative to vacuum, where $\eta_{\rm sqz}^2$ and the injected squeezing are measured independently by tomography. A systematic mismatch, or a suppression that does not grow when dark-noise clearance is raised by increasing optical power, would indicate unmodeled technical noise rather than a quantum effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a feedback oscillator's phase stability can be quantum-enhanced, and that the authors have built the first such oscillator. Concretely, the authors operate an opto-electronic oscillator at 9.51 MHz whose phase-noise power spectral density is accounted for by an ab-initio model with no free parameters, with photodetector dark noise and optical amplitude-quadrature quantum noise as the only significant sources. Injecting squeezed light through the OEO's loss port, with its squeezing axis aligned to the measured amplitude quadrature, suppresses the output phase-noise spectrum by 1.0 dB over 6-100 kHz; rotating the squeezing axis to anti-squeezing amplifies it by 2.8 dB, and interspersed vacuum measurements rule out drift. The paper takes this as the first experimental demonstration of quantum-enhanced phase stability in a feedback oscillator, and argues it establishes the principle for evading the standard quantum limit in masers and lasers.

Load-bearing premise

The phase noise is dominated by the modeled optical quantum noise plus photodetector dark noise, with laser intensity noise, fiber length fluctuations, electronics-chain noise, and backscatter from the squeezing path all far below them; quantum noise exceeds electronics noise by only about 0.8 dB, so any significant unmodeled technical noise would weaken the case that the 1.0 dB suppression is quantum in origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With lower losses along the squeezed-light path and a larger dark-noise clearance, the same OEO should reach and then pass its standard quantum limit.
  • Any quantum-noise-limited feedback oscillator should be improvable by injecting squeezed light into its sensing port, giving a general path beyond the Schawlow-Townes limit for lasers and masers.
  • The need for more than 60 dB of optical isolation between the squeezing source and the OEO means practical quantum-enhanced oscillators must manage backscatter and parasitic etalons.
  • Quantum enhancement is only available after classical and technical noise have been pushed below the quantum floor, so certifying quantum-noise-limited operation is the prerequisite for any such oscillator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows from the paper's own loss numbers: with the reported ~45% loss and ~5 dB generated squeezing, the observed 1.0 dB suppression and 2.8 dB penalty are mutually consistent, so the same model predicts that cutting the loss in half should roughly double the suppression.
  • The paper does not claim that the squeezing benefit extends below 1 kHz offset, where its data show environmental drift dominating; a natural next experiment would isolate the loop further and test whether quantum enhancement persists in the low-offset band most relevant for timing.
  • Because the SQL expression scales as $\hbar\omega_\ell/(P_0\Omega^2\tau_g^2)$, the same injection technique should transfer to oscillators with longer delay lines or higher circulating power, where the un-enhanced floor is lower and the relative quantum gain could be larger.
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 reports an opto-electronic oscillator (OEO) whose measured phase noise is described by an ab initio model with independently calibrated parameters. The oscillator is reported to operate within 3.5 dB of a standard quantum limit (SQL) defined by the authors. When squeezed vacuum is injected into the OEO loop, the phase noise is reported to fall by about 1.0 dB between 6 and 100 kHz offset; injecting anti-squeezed light increases it by about 2.8 dB. The authors claim this is the first experimental demonstration of a feedback oscillator whose phase stability is enhanced by quantum engineering.

Significance. If the claims hold, the result is a milestone: it would experimentally establish that engineering the quantum fluctuations of the field inside a feedback oscillator can improve its timing stability, going beyond the usual SQL discussion for lasers and masers. The paper's strengths are its explicit analytic model (Eqs. (2) and (57)), the independent calibration of the loop transfer function, detector responsivity, v_pi, and dark noise, and the use of coherent-control phase locking to set the squeezing angle. The anti-squeezing run is a valuable control because it demonstrates a quadrature-dependent effect on the output phase noise. The main weaknesses are statistical: the headline numbers are point estimates from a selected dataset, and the predicted model curves are not shown, making it difficult to verify the quantitative consistency between the model and the claimed 1.0 dB and 2.8 dB effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Quantum-enhanced phase stability; Fig. 4; Fig. 9] The central quantitative claim lacks confidence intervals and rests on a dataset that is explicitly selected. The text states in the Measurement Procedure section that the dataset in Fig. 4 corresponds to the index highlighted in Fig. 9 and was 'verified to have exhibited both a stable average LO power ... and a very stable vacuum phase noise reference.' Because the effect is only 1.0 dB, the reader needs to know the run-to-run scatter of the suppression and the pre-defined selection criteria. Please report the suppression (and anti-squeezing increase) with standard errors for all datasets that used the narrow-bandwidth protocol, or justify the selection as pre-registered.
  2. [Quantum-enhanced phase stability; Eq. (57); Fig. 4] The model prediction is not shown on Fig. 4. The text states that 'the predicted amount of squeezing and anti-squeezing in the RF phase noise ... agrees well with the measurement data,' but the reader cannot verify this without the model curves and without the exact tomographic values V±, η_sqz^2, and α_SQZ used. Please add the model curves computed from Eq. (57) to Fig. 4, using the tomographic parameters with their uncertainties, and state the residual between model and data at the suppression band.
  3. [Setup Calibration; Eqs. (64)-(65)] The quoted 'roughly 45%' loss and 'roughly 5 dB' generated squeezing are not sufficient to verify that the same parameter set reproduces both the 1.0 dB suppression and the 2.8 dB anti-squeezing increase. Using Eq. (57) with the paper's vacuum normalization (S_vac = 1/2), η_sqz^2 = 0.55 and 5 dB squeezing (S_sqz = 0.158) predicts roughly 1.0 dB suppression and roughly 2.2 dB anti-squeezing increase; the reported 2.8 dB would require a slightly larger squeezing level or a different η_sqz^2. Please report the measured V± and the extracted η_sqz^2 and α_SQZ with uncertainties, and show that a single parameter set accounts for both observations within the stated errors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction; Fig. 2] There are typographical errors in the text, including 'the its open-loop response' and 'transimedance' in the Principle section; please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation ¯S^opt_qq is not explicitly defined in the main text; please define the symmetrized PSD and clarify the factor of 2 in the dark-noise term so that it is consistent with the Supplementary derivation in Eq. (53).
  3. [Fig. 2(a) caption] The caption says 'blue dashed in a model'; this should read 'blue dashed curve is a model.' The figure would also benefit from error bars or a statement of the measurement uncertainty in the gain and phase data.
  4. [Setup Calibration] The text states that the laser's free-running intensity noise is 'at the quantum noise level at 9.5 MHz offset,' but no measurement of the laser RIN is shown; a reference to a supplementary figure or a brief calibration trace would help substantiate this assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-noise model is built from independent calibrations and the squeezing enhancement is predicted from independent tomography; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is an ab-initio phase-noise model (eqs. 2 and 54-58) whose inputs—open-loop transfer function, EOAM half-wave voltage, photodetector quantum efficiency, dark-noise spectrum, and optical power—are all independently calibrated, with no free parameters. The vacuum phase-noise comparison in Fig. 3 is therefore a genuine test of the model, not a fit. The squeezed-light enhancement in Fig. 4 is likewise predicted from independent state tomography: eqs. (64)-(65) infer the squeezing-path efficiency and generated squeezing from measured variances V+ and V- at the in-loop photodetector, and those values, together with a frequency-dependent squeezing model from ref. [51], are used in eq. (57) to compute the expected phase noise. The phase-noise spectra used for the suppression/amplification claim are measured separately from the tomography, so the comparison is not circular. The self-citations [38,39] appear only as theoretical background for the existence of an SQL and for proposals to evade it; the OEO-specific SQL and noise model are derived in the present paper and cross-checked against the independent ref. [40]. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input. Any quantitative discrepancy between the reported 1.0 dB suppression and the quoted dark-noise clearance, loss, and squeezing level would be a correctness or calibration concern, not a circularity, and no circular step can be identified from the manuscript text.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The noise model is parameter-free in the sense that all constants are calibrated by independent measurements (responsivity, half-wave voltage, squeezing tomography, dark noise, open-loop transfer function). The central comparison still relies on those calibrations and on the completeness of the assumed noise budget, as highlighted by the 0.8 dB quantum-over-electronic margin.

free parameters (4)
  • Photodetector responsivity R = 0.72 A/W
    Fitted from a linear power calibration (Fig. 6a). Used to set quantum efficiency eta_qe = 0.83 and to convert photocurrent to optical power. Independently calibrated, not fit to the phase noise result.
  • EOAM half-wave voltage v_pi = 1.5 V
    Fitted from DC photocurrent vs drive voltage (Fig. 7) using the model of ref. 50. Appears in the noise model and in the SQL expression; independently calibrated.
  • Squeezed-light path transmission eta_sqz^2 = about 0.55 (45% loss)
    Inferred from initial state tomography using eq. (64). Used to predict the phase noise suppression; not adjusted to match the phase noise measurement.
  • Generated squeezing level alpha_SQZ = about 5 dB at 9.5 MHz
    Inferred from the same tomography using eq. (65). Used to predict the expected phase noise suppression and anti-squeezing amplification.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quadrature operators obey the canonical commutation relation [q(t), p(t')] = i delta(t - t').
    Standard quantum optics input used throughout the derivation (eq. 5).
  • domain assumption The EOAM behaves as a variable beam splitter with amplitude transmissivity cos(pi v/(2 v_pi) + phi_bias).
    Device model for a Mach-Zehnder amplitude modulator; standard but specific to the device and the mid-fringe bias setting (eq. 16).
  • domain assumption The photodetector current is proportional to field intensity, with broadband transimpedance gain and no significant nonlinearity in the operating regime.
    Used in eqs. (20)-(22). The paper later accounts for saturation via measured open-loop response, but the fluctuation model assumes linearized transduction.
  • domain assumption The RF filter rejects harmonics n*omega_0 for n != 1, and the oscillator operates in a single-mode steady state.
    Needed for the mean-field ansatz v_mod(t) = v0 cos(omega0 t) and for dropping higher-order Bessel and harmonic terms (around eq. 25).
  • domain assumption The squeezed state is phase-locked to the local oscillator with negligible residual phase noise, and the tomography model neglects LO phase noise.
    Explicitly stated in the tomography section (before eq. 64). Residual phase noise would degrade the effective squeezing and could alter the predicted suppression.
  • domain assumption All non-quantum, non-dark noise sources are sufficiently suppressed to be negligible.
    Central premise of eq. (2) and the quantum-noise-limited claim; the paper argues for it via design choices and model agreement, but the margin is only 0.8 dB.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum-Enhanced Feedback Oscillator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDCBLPUW

@misc{pith2026260807753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum-Enhanced Feedback Oscillator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDCBLPUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07753}
}
read the original abstract

Feedback oscillators, such as lasers and masers, serve as time references in modern computing, communication, and measurement. Quantum fluctuations ultimately limit their phase stability and ability to keep time precisely; in the absence of quantum engineering, their phase stability is bounded by a standard quantum limit (SQL). Techniques to improve the frequency stability of feedback oscillators beyond the SQL have been theorized, but have not yet been demonstrated. We demonstrate an opto-electronic oscillator (OEO), a type of feedback oscillator, with phase stability approaching the SQL. We then engineer the OEO's quantum state to improve its phase stability, thereby demonstrating the essential principle quantum-enhancement of feedback oscillators. Similar techniques may be employed to evade the SQL in other feedback oscillators such as masers and lasers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experimental schematic of the quantum-enhanced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. OEO characterization. (a) Saturation effects in the OEO’s open loop transfer function at a frequency of 9.5 MHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Opto-electronic oscillator phase noise. Comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Quantum-enhanced opto-electronic oscillator phase noise. By injecting squeezed light, we suppress the OEO’s phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A schematic of the full optics and electronics paths in the experiment. As in fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Characterization of the in-loop RF photodetector. (a) Power calibration of the in-loop photodetector’s responsivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Characterization of the EOAM half-wave voltage using DC measurements outlined in ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Characterizations of the OEO throughout the measurement procedure. (a) Initial tomography of the squeezed-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Plot of the mean value and standard deviation of (a) the average LO power on the in-loop photodetector and (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 637 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Wiens, A

    E. Wiens, A. Y. Nevsky, and S. Schiller, Physical Review Letters117, 271102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    I. M. Reid, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science2, 33 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Abichet al., Physical Review Letters123, 031101 (2019)

    K. Abichet al., Physical Review Letters123, 031101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Wilken, G

    T. Wilken, G. L. Curto, R. A. Probst, T. Steinmetz, A. Manescau, L. Pasquini, J. I. Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, R. Rebolo, T. W. H¨ ansch, T. Udem, and R. Holzwarth, Nature485, 611 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Clivati, R

    C. Clivati, R. Ambrosini, T. Artz, A. Bertarini, C. Bor- tolotti, M. Frittelli, F. Levi, A. Mura, G. Maccaferri, M. Nanni, M. Negusini, F. Perini, M. Roma, M. Stagni, M. Zucco, and D. Calonico, Scientific Reports7, 40992 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Cahillane, G

    C. Cahillane, G. L. Mansell, and D. Sigg, Optics Express 29, 42144 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    E. D. Caldwell, L. C. Sinclair, N. R. Newbury, and J.-D. Deschenes, Nature610, 667 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Br¨ uning, H

    O. Br¨ uning, H. Gray, K. Klein, M. Lamont, M. Narain, R. Polifka, and L. Rossi, Reports on Progress in Physics 85(2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    W. C. Lindsey,Synchronization systems in communica- tion and control(Prentice-Hall, 1972)

    1972

  3. [11]

    Xanthopoulos, ed.,Clocking in Modern VLSI Systems (Springer, 2009)

    T. Xanthopoulos, ed.,Clocking in Modern VLSI Systems (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Murmann, IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine7, 58 (2015)

    B. Murmann, IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine7, 58 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology103, 259 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    H. Ball, W. D. Oliver, and M. J. Biercuk, npj Quantum Information2, 16033 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. J. Viterbi,Principles of Coherent Communication (McGraw-Hill, 1966)

    1966

  8. [16]

    Meyr and G

    H. Meyr and G. Ascheid,Synchronization in digital com- munication(John Wiley, 1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Kroupa,Phase Lock Loops and Frequency Synthesis (Wiley, 2003)

    V. Kroupa,Phase Lock Loops and Frequency Synthesis (Wiley, 2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Huygens,Horologium Oscillatorium: Sive de Motu Pendulorum ad Horologia Aptato Demonstrationes Ge- ometricae(F

    C. Huygens,Horologium Oscillatorium: Sive de Motu Pendulorum ad Horologia Aptato Demonstrationes Ge- ometricae(F. Muguet, Parisiis, 1673)

  11. [19]

    W. G. Cady, Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engi- neers10, 83 (1922)

    1922

  12. [20]

    R. H. Varian and S. F. Varian, Journal of Applied Physics 10, 321 (1939)

    1939

  13. [21]

    Boot and J

    H. Boot and J. Randall, Journal of the Institution of Elec- trical Engineers - Part IIIA: Radiolocation93(1946)

    1946

  14. [22]

    Essen and J

    L. Essen and J. V. L. Parry, Nature176, 280 (1955)

    1955

  15. [23]

    H. M. Goldenberg, D. Kleppner, and N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. Lett.5, 361 (1960)

    1960

  16. [24]

    E. H. Armstrong, Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers24, 689 (1936)

    1936

  17. [25]

    T. Udem, R. Holzwarth, and T. W. Hansch, Nature416, 233 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, W. R. Milner, W. Zhang, T. Legero, D. G. Matei, F. Riehle, U. Sterr, and J. Ye, Optica6, 240 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    A. E. Siegman and R. Arrathoon, Physical Review Let- ters20, 901 (1968)

    1968

  20. [28]

    Fritschel, A

    P. Fritschel, A. Jeffries, and T. J. Kane, Opt. Lett.14, 993 (1989)

    1989

  21. [29]

    Benmessai, D

    K. Benmessai, D. L. Creedon, M. E. Tobar, P.-Y. Bour- geois, Y. Kersal´ e, and V. Giordano, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 233901 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    J. D. Breeze, E. Salvadori, J. Sathian, N. M. Alford, and C. W. M. Kay, Nature555, 493 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    H. C. Rawlings,The Science of Clocks and Watches (British Horological Institute, 1948)

    1948

  24. [32]

    Hajimiri and T

    A. Hajimiri and T. H. Lee,The Design of Low Noise Oscillators(Kluwer, 2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    A. L. Schawlow and C. H. Townes, Physical Review112, 1940 (1958)

    1958

  26. [34]

    T. H. Maiman, Nature187, 493 (1960)

    1960

  27. [35]

    R. E. Slusher, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S471 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    X. S. Yao and L. Maleki, IEEE Journal of Quantum Elec- tronics32, 1141 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Maleki, Nature Photonics5, 728 (2011)

    L. Maleki, Nature Photonics5, 728 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    H. A. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Nature Communications 14, 7083 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Loughlin and V

    H. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Phys. Rev. A113, 043717 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    X. S. Yao and L. Maleki, JOSA B13, 1725 (1996). 6

    1996

  33. [41]

    Romisch and A

    S. Romisch and A. de Marchi, inProceedings of the 1999 Joint Meeting of the European Frequency and Time Fo- rum and the IEEE International Frequency Control Sym- posium (Cat. No.99CH36313), Vol. 2 (1999) pp. 1100– 1104 vol.2

    1999

  34. [42]

    Romisch, J

    S. Romisch, J. Kitching, E. Ferre-Pikal, L. Hollberg, and F. Walls, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Fer- roelectrics, and Frequency Control47, 1159 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Vahlbruch, S

    H. Vahlbruch, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 011101 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. E. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, L. McCuller,et al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    K. J. Blow, R. Loudon, S. J. D. Phoenix, and T. J. Shep- herd, Phys. Rev. A42, 4102 (1990)

    1990

  38. [46]

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Living Reviews in Relativity15, 5 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, arXiv:0810.4729 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sudhir,Quantum limits on measurement and control of a mechanical oscillator(Springer, 2017)

    V. Sudhir,Quantum limits on measurement and control of a mechanical oscillator(Springer, 2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    A. F. Galiana,Development of Precision, Field- Deployable, Opto-Mechanical Instrumentation: Accessi- bility as a Functional Requirement, Ph.D. thesis, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    L. A. Bui, inFrontiers in Optics / Laser Science(OSA, Washington, DC, 2018) p. JW4A.83

    2018

  43. [51]

    S. E. Dwyer,Quantum noise reduction using squeezed states in LIGO, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Ganapathy, V

    D. Ganapathy, V. Xu, W. Jia, C. Whittle, M. Tse, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, and L. McCuller, Physical Review D105, 122005 (2022). Amplitude and phase modulation quadratures The magnitude of a quantized electromagnetic field with angular frequencyω ℓ, normalized to its mode profile...

    2022

  45. [53]

    If saturation occurs primarily due to the modulator’s nonlinearity, we can model the OEO’s saturating behavior analytically

    Generally, we will have|H OL[ω0]|>1 initially, and saturation effects will reduce the magnitude ofH OL until |HOL[ω0]|= 1. If saturation occurs primarily due to the modulator’s nonlinearity, we can model the OEO’s saturating behavior analytically. For oscillation amplitudes sa...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.