080902_1_online

RESEARCH ARTICLE | AUGUST 10 2020
Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles and

applications
Z. Y. Ou  ; Xiaoying Li 
APL Photonics 5, 080902 (2020)

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004873
CrossMark
 
View Export
Online Citation
21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photonics PERSPECTIVE scitation.org/journal/app
Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles

and applications
Cite as: APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873
Submitted: 19 February 2020 • Accepted: 17 July 2020 •
Published Online: 10 August 2020
Z. Y. Ou1,2,a) and Xiaoying Li1,a)
AFFILIATIONS
1
College of Precision Instrument and Opto-Electronics Engineering, Key Laboratory of Opto-Electronics Information Technology,
Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, People’s Republic of China
2
Department of Physics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA
a)
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed: xiaoyingli@tju.edu.cn and zou@iupui.edu
ABSTRACT
A new type of quantum interferometer was recently realized that employs parametric amplifiers (PAs) as the wave splitting and mixing ele-
ments. The quantum behavior stems from the PAs, which produce quantum entangled fields for probing the phase change signal in the
interferometer. This type of quantum entangled interferometer exhibits some unique properties that are different from traditional beam
21 March 2024 11:51:28

splitter-based interferometers such as Mach–Zehnder interferometers. Because of these properties, it is superior to the traditional interfer-
ometers in many aspects, especially in the phase measurement sensitivity. We will review its unique properties and applications in quantum
metrology and sensing, quantum information, and quantum state engineering.
© 2020 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004873., s
I. INTRODUCTION quantum noise or the so-called shot noise inherited from the input
field and the vacuum field injected from the unused BS input ports1
Interferometry, a technique based on wave interference, played [dashed line in Fig. 1(a)]. The sensitivity limit of this kind of inter-
a crucial part in the development of fundamental ideas in physics ferometer is referred to as the shot noise limit (SNL) or some- √
as well as in the technological advances of mankind. It has become times the standard quantum limit (SQL), i.e., the general 1/ N-
an indispensable part in precision measurement and metrology ever dependence at a large phase sensing photon number N. In order
since its inception. Most of the physical quantities such as distance, to reduce the vacuum quantum noise, squeezed states are prop-
local gravity fields, and magnetic fields that can be measured by the erly injected into interferometers by replacing the vacuum state.1
interferometric technique are associated with the phases of the inter- The result of the squeezed state injection is the reduction of the
fering waves. It is the extreme sensitiveness to the phase change in detection noise below the shot noise level and thus the enhance-
interferometry that leads to wide applications of the technique in ment of phase measurement sensitivity. Experimental efforts and
precision measurement and metrology. progress were made in the generation and application of these quan-
In traditional interferometry, as shown in Fig. 1(a), an input tum states to optical interferometry systems.2,3 In fact, such a tech-
field is split into two by a beam splitter (BS1). One of the beams, nique was recently applied to km-scale large size interferometers
serving as the probe, is phase modulated so as to encode a phase with the goal of improving the sensitivity for gravitational wave
change (δ) onto it. It then interferes with the other beam, serving detection.4–6
as a reference, at another beam splitter (BS2). This converts the SU(1,1) interferometers are a new type of quantum interferom-
phase change to an intensity change, and the outputs of BS2 are eters, which are quite different from the traditional interferometers
directly measured and analyzed with intensity detectors. Regard- in that the linear beam splitters are replaced by nonlinear optical
less of the difference in design between different schemes, the devices of parametric amplifiers (PAs), as shown in Fig. 1(b). The
sensitivity of traditional interferometers is limited by the vacuum name of SU(1,1) stems from the type of interaction involved in
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-1

© Author(s) 2020
effects have some interesting applications in spectroscopy,28 opti-

cal imaging,29,30 and spatial and temporal shaping.31,32 They can
be mostly understood with classical wave theory. At the quantum
level of single photons when the gain of the parametric amplifiers
is low, interferometers consisting of spontaneous parametric down-
conversion were used to study two-photon or multi-photon inter-
ference,33,34 which cannot be explained by classical theory. These
quantum interferometric effects are the basis for optical quantum
information sciences.35 Moreover, recently a mind-boggling photon
interference effect36 between two spontaneous parametric processes
FIG. 1. Comparison between (a) a traditional Mach–Zehnder interferometer and also found interesting applications in quantum imaging with unde-
(b) an SU(1,1) interferometer.
tected photons.37–41 All these phenomena were recently reviewed in
a comprehensive article.42
On the other hand, when the gain of the parametric amplifiers
in SU(1,1) interferometers is high, the quantum noise performance
parametric processes for nonlinear wave mixing, which is differ- of the interferometers is totally different. Early research develop-
ent from the SU(2)-type interaction for linear wave mixing by a ment of SU(1,1) interferometers in this regime was covered in the
beam splitter. SU(1,1) interferometers were first proposed by Yurke comprehensive review article.42 However, since the publication of
et al.7 to reach the Heisenberg limit (HL), i.e., the general 1/N- the article, there has been significant progress in the field, especially
dependence at a large phase sensing photon number N. This is the in the realization of many variations of the SU(1,1) interferometer
ultimate quantum limit8 in precision phase measurement at large N and its applications in quantum metrology, quantum information,
although it can be broken9 at small N. However, the original ver- and quantum state engineering that are not covered by the review
sion is not practical because it starts with vacuum and thus has a low article. Furthermore, there is some misunderstanding in the early
photon number. That is why there was no experimental implemen- research about the working principle of the interferometer for sen-
tation until recently when a modified version with a photon number sitivity improvement, which leads to non-optimized performance.
boost by coherent state injection was proposed,10,11 which has since The roles of each nonlinear element in the interferometer were also
been realized in atomic four-wave mixing,12–15 bulk χ (2) -nonlinear better understood now, which reveals the underlying physics of the
21 March 2024 11:51:28

medium,16 and nonlinear optical fiber.17–19 In the meanwhile, the- interferometer.
oretical investigations on SU(1,1) interferometers were also carried In this paper, we will explain the basic working principle
out for various input states and different measurement strategies20–22 of SU(1,1) interferometers with the goal of practical implementa-
and were based on quantum Fisher information, leading to the tion and applications. We will concentrate on the quantum noise
quantum Cramer–Rao bound.21,23–26 performance of SU(1,1) interferometers in the high gain regime
The difference between SU(1,1) interferometers and traditional with an emphasis on improving the phase measurement sensitiv-
interferometers lies in the beam splitting and mixing elements. Para- ity. We will have an in-depth discussion on the special features
metric amplifiers are active quantum devices that generate quantum of the interferometer in this case, especially on the role played
fields, whereas beam splitters are passive devices and rely on injec- by quantum entanglement. Based on this discussion, we will find
tion of quantum states to achieve quantum advantages. So, com- the optimum operation conditions for the best performance in the
pared to the traditional interferometers with quantum state injec- form of phase measurement sensitivity and compare it to the opti-
tions, SU(1,1) interferometers exhibit some distinct features that mum classical measurement sensitivity. We will reveal the differ-
make them more desirable in practical applications. The first one ence and similarity between SU(1,1) interferometers and squeezed
is that the involvement of nonlinear optical processes for wave mix- state-based traditional interferometers. These are covered in Secs. II
ing allows the coherent superpositions of waves of different types and III. For the experimental implementation of SU(1,1) inter-
such as atomic spin waves, light waves, and acoustic waves. This ferometers, we will review in Secs. IV and V recent realizations
type of mixing is impossible for linear beam splitters. The second of different forms of the interferometer including those with dif-
is that the employment of parametric amplifiers leads to amplified ferent types of waves. We will discuss in Sec. VI its applications
noise levels at outputs that are much larger than the vacuum noise in multi-parameter measurement, quantum information splitting,
level. This means the outputs are immune to losses, which are detri- quantum entanglement measurement, and mode engineering of
mental to quantum information because of the vacuum noise cou- quantum states. We conclude in Sec. VII with prospects for future
pled in through the loss channels. The third is that the quantum development.
entanglement generated by parametric amplifiers leads to correlated
quantum noise, which can be canceled at destructive interference.
This gives rise to higher signal amplification than noise amplifica- II. PERFORMANCE OF TRADITIONAL
INTERFEROMETRY
tion and thus improved the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or enhanced
sensitivity. The interferometry technique is usually based on interferome-
Interference effects involving nonlinear optical processes were ters such as the Mach–Zehnder (MZ) type shown in Fig. 2, where an
demonstrated as soon as the nonlinear optical effects such as sec- incoming field in a coherent state of |α⟩ is split by a beam splitter
ond harmonic generation were discovered.27 Because of the involve- (BS1) of transmissivity T 1 and reflectivity R1 and then recombined
ment of nonlinear optical processes, these nonlinear interference by another of the same type (BS2) but of transmissivity T 2 and
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-2

© Author(s) 2020
SNRMZ = 4Ips δ2 ,
(op)
(7)
when T 2 = R2 = 1/2 and T 1 → 1. The minimum measurable phase
√
shift is δm = 1/2 Ips when SNRMZ = 1. This is the optimum phase
(op)
measurement sensitivity that is achievable with a classical probing

field for a given phase sensing photon number I ps . Since the detec-
tion noise is from photon number fluctuation of Poissonian nature
and is the same as the shot noise in an electric current, this phase
measurement sensitivity is known as “the shot noise limit (SNL),”
a term preferred by experimentalists. Moreover, since the photon
number fluctuation is originated from quantum nature of light,
this limit is also called “standard quantum limit (SQL)” of phase
FIG. 2. A traditional Mach–Zehnder interferometer with vacuum (|v⟩) or squeezed measurement, a term favored by theorists.
(|r⟩) states at the unused port (dashed line). |αps , r⟩ is a coherent squeezed state
√ Note that the optimum condition T 1 ≈ 1 leads to extremely
with αps = α R1 for phase sensing.
unbalanced photon numbers in the two arms of the interferome-
ter. This is in contrast to the popular balanced implementation of
the interferometer.2,11 This gives rise to the controversy of two clas-
reflectivity R2 . It is straightforward to find the photon number sical limits of phase measurement for the comparison with quan-
outputs of the interferometer given by tum measurement.43 However, the unbalanced scheme is consis-
√ tent with the homodyne measurement technique where the local
I1 = ∣α∣2 (T1 T2 + R1 R2 − 2 T1 T2 R1 R2 cos φ),
(o)
oscillator (LO) has much stronger intensity than the signal field.
√ (1) Here, in the unbalanced scheme, the phase-encoded field (â2 ) can be
I2 = ∣α∣2 (T1 R2 + R1 T2 + 2 T1 T2 R1 R2 cos φ),
(o)
regarded as the signal field to be measured, whereas the other arm
where φ is the overall phase difference between the two arms of the (â1 ) with a much larger photon number is treated as the LO. The
interferometer and T 1,2 + R1,2 = 1. Note the energy conservation: condition of T 2 = R2 = 1/2 corresponds to balanced homodyne mea-
I1 + I2 = ∣α∣2 ≡ Iin . For a small phase change δ, which is to be
(o) (o) surement.44 Thus, the balanced homodyne measurement technique
measured, the change in the output photon number is achieves the optimum phase measurement sensitivity in classical
21 March 2024 11:51:28

√ interferometry.
δI1 = −δI2 = 2∣α∣2 δ T1 T2 R1 R2 sin φ. Perhaps, a better way to understand why we need to have an
(o) (o)
(2)
unbalanced interferometer for optimum sensitivity is through the
Because the two outputs are 180○ out of phase, we can make full use intrinsic phase uncertainty Δ2 φ in any optical field.45 The interfer-
of the two outputs by measuring the difference I− = I1 − I2 , ence method measures the phase difference φ = φ1 − φ2 so that
(o) (o) (o)
which gives twice the change, the measurement uncertainty is Δ2 φ = Δ2 φ1 + Δ2 φ2 if the phase
√ fluctuations in the two arms are independent (indeed, the quan-
δI− = 4∣α∣2 δ T1 T2 R1 R2 sin φ.
(o)
(3) tum fluctuations are independent for coherent states). However,
(o) it was shown45 that the intrinsic phase uncertainty Δ2 φi (i = 1, 2)
Obviously, the change δI− is maximum when φ = π/2, which is the
is inversely proportional to I i . Making I 1 ≫ I 2 gives Δ2 φ1 ≪ Δ2 φ2
operational point we will take in the following.
so that Δ2 φ ≈ Δ2 φ2 = Δ2 φps ∼ 1/I ps (the subscript ps denotes
The measurement sensitivity, on the other hand, depends on
the phase sensing field). However, for a balanced interferome-
the noise level at detection. For the input of a coherent state |α⟩, the
ter, I 1 = I 2 or Δ2 φ1 = Δ2 φ2 , so we have Δ2 φ = 2Δ2 φps . Hence,
detection noise is the photon number fluctuation, which has the
the unbalanced interferometer has half the measurement uncer-
Poissonian statistics: ⟨Δ2 I1,2 ⟩ = I1,2 . Since the two outputs are
(o) (o)
tainty as the balanced one11 and thus better sensitivity with twice
also in coherent states so that their fluctuations are uncorrelated the SNR.43
quantum mechanically, we have Note that, here, we only use one arm for sensing and the opti-
mum condition is T 1 ≈ 1 ≫ R1 . If two arms are used for sensing
⟨Δ2 I− ⟩ = ⟨Δ2 I1 ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 I2 ⟩ = I1 = ∣α∣2 .
(o) (o) (o) (o) (o)
+ I2 (4)
such as the situations of Sagnac interferometers for rotation sensing
If the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is defined as and Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)
for gravitational wave sensing, the optimum condition will be
(δI− )2
(o)
SNR ≡ , (5) T 1 = R1 = 1/2 to give balanced interferometers.
⟨Δ2 I− ⟩ The shot noise limit can be surpassed if we inject a squeezed
(o)
state |r⟩ into the unused port âin

2 (dashed line) of the interferometer,
1
we obtain the SNR for the MZ interferometer, as shown in Fig. 2. Under the optimum operational condition of T 2
SNRMZ = 16∣α∣2 δ2 T1 T2 R1 R2 = 16T1 T2 R2 Ips δ2 , (6) = R2 = 1/2 and T 1 → 1, R1 ≪ 1, the probe√ field becomes a coherent
squeezed state |αps , r⟩ with αps = α R1 and squeezing parameter
where I ps ≡ R1 |α| = I 2 is the number of photons in the field
2
r, which is related to the amplitude gains G = cosh r, g = sinh r
that probes the phase change. This quantity is an important fig- (r > 0) of a degenerate parametric amplifier generating the squeezed
ure of merit for fair comparison of different schemes of phase state.46 As mentioned before, the second BS is equivalent to a bal-
measurement. With T 2 + R2 = 1, we find the optimum SNR, anced homodyne measurement and it is straightforward to find the
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-3

© Author(s) 2020
photon number fluctuation at this time as44 A. Parametric amplifiers as beam splitters
sq Parametric amplifiers are a result of three-wave or four-wave
⟨Δ2 I− ⟩ 2 −2r
= ∣α∣ e 2 2
= ∣α∣ /(G + g) , (8)
mixing in a nonlinear optical process. The interaction Hamiltonian
which gives rise to the signal-to-noise ratio as is in the form of
sq ̵ † â† − ihξ
ĤPA = ihξâ ̵ ∗ â1 â2 , (10)
SNRMZ = 4Ips δ2 (G + g)2 . (9) 1 2
Note that this SNR for the squeezed state interferometry has an where ξ is some parameter proportional to the nonlinear coefficient
enhancement factor of (G + g)2 = e2r√compared to the optimum clas- and the amplitudes of strong pump fields, which can be treated as
sq
sical SNR in Eq. (7) or δm = e−r /2 Ips = δm e−r when SNRMZ = 1.
sq classical waves. The other two relatively weak fields are the quantum
Since the detection noise in Eq. (8) is smaller than the shot noise fields described by the operators â1 , â2 . To have better comparison
level in Eq. (4), this leads to the sub-shot noise interferometry.2,3 with traditional interferometers with BS, we use the Heisenberg pic-
In the expressions above, we assumed R1 |α|2 ≫ g 2 = sinh2 r ture here and describe the system with operator evolution. The input
so that the coherent state provides most of the photons for and the output relation of the quantum fields for the Hamiltonian in
phase sensing. At a large r-value, the squeezed state contributes Eq. (10) are
a sizable photon number for I ps and optimization between r (in)† (in)†
= Gâ1 = Gâ2
(o) (in) (o) (in)
and α will lead to the so-called Heisenberg limit of phase â1 + g â2 , â2 + g â1 , (11)
measurement.47,48
with G = cosh r, g = sinh r as the amplitude gains and r ∝ ξ. Note
In practice, interferometers are usually operated at the dark
that we set the phase of r to zero for convenience without loss of
fringe mode. This is because high sensitivity requires high I ps [see
generality.
Eq. (7)], which can saturate the detectors. This requires φ = π,
If quadrature-phase amplitudes are defined as X̂ = â + â† ,
T 1 = T 2 ≫ R1 = R2 . To avoid electronic noise, homodyne measure-
(o) Ŷ = i(â† − â), we have from Eq. (11)
ment is performed at the dark port (â2 ). In this case, the output
noise is simply the vacuum noise or the squeezed noise from the X̂1,2 = GX̂1,2 + g X̂2,1 , Ŷ1,2 = GŶ1,2 − g Ŷ2,1 .
(o) (in) (in) (o) (in) (in)
(12)
unused input port (â2 in Fig. 2), so it can be easily shown1 that the
(in)
SNR in this case is the same as the optimized classical SNR given by Note from the relation above that the output amplitudes are mix-
21 March 2024 11:51:28

Eq. (7) or the squeezed state case given by Eq. (9). tures of the two input amplitudes, and thus, parametric amplifiers
can act as beam splitters for wave splitting and mixing. The dif-
III. SU(1,1) INTERFEROMETERS ference is that the outputs for parametric amplifiers are amplified
because G = cosh r > 1.
A new type of interferometer, known as the so-called “SU(1,1)
interferometer,”7,10–13 is formed when we replace the beam split-
B. Interference fringe patterns
ters in a Mach–Zehnder interferometer (MZI) with paramet-
ric amplifiers (Fig. 3), which can split and mix two input Assume that the input field âin1 is in a relatively strong coherent
fields coherently for interference. It is well known that para- state |α⟩(|α|2 ≫ 1) and âin
2 is in vacuum, and the fields in the two arms
metric amplifiers are active devices and produce quantum states experience phase shifts of φ1,2 . Using Eq. (11) for the two parametric
by themselves,49,50 so the fields inside the interferometers pos- amplifiers, we find the output photon numbers as
sess some unique quantum behaviors even without the input of
= ∣α∣2 [G21 G22 + g12 g22 + 2G1 G2 g1 g2 cos(φ1 + φ2 )],
(o)
quantum fields. This new type of interferometer is of quantum I1
nature by itself and will exhibit some advantages over traditional (13)
= ∣α∣2 [G21 g22 + G22 g12 + 2G1 G2 g1 g2 cos(φ1 + φ2 )],
(o)
I2
interferometers.
where G1 , g 1 and G2 , g 2 are the amplitude gains of the two paramet-
ric amplifiers, respectively.
Comparing Eq. (13) to Eq. (1), we find three unique features
that differentiate SU(1,1) interferometers [SU(1,1)] from Mach–
Zehnder interferometers (MZI):
(i) The two outputs of SU(1,1) are in phase in contrast to 180○
out of phase for MZI in Eq. (1).
(ii) The interference fringes depend on the phase sum of φ1 , φ2
instead of the phase difference in MZI.
(iii) The outputs are amplified when the gain parameters G2 , g 2
are large.
The first property of in-phase fringes was demonstrated exper-

FIG. 3. SU(1,1) interferometer, where beam splitters of traditional interferometers imentally in the first realization of the SU(1,1) interferometer12
are replaced by parametric amplifiers (PA1, PA2) of gain G1 , G2 , respectively. and in the atom-light hybrid interferometer.51 This property leads
Ips = g12 ∣α∣2 is the photon number of the field sensing the phase change δ.
to I1 − I2 = ∣α∣2 , which, unlike Eq. (3) of the traditional
(o) (o)
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-4

© Author(s) 2020
MZI, is completely independent of the phase, making it impossi- ⟨Δ2 X̂1 (θ)⟩m = ⟨Δ2 X̂2 (θ)⟩m
(o) (o)
ble to obtain any phase change information in the intensity dif-

ference between the two outputs. This also indicates that the pho- = 1 + 2(G1 g2 − G2 g1 )2
ton numbers of the two outputs are highly correlated, which is a = 1 when G1 = G2 , g1 = g2 . (16)
property of parametric processes known as the Manley relation.52
The second property makes it impossible to have the common Since the noise in each arm of the SU(1,1) after PA1 is G21 + g12
path rejection property in such devices as Sagnac interferometers = 1+2g12 > 1, the noise is reduced at the outputs of the SU(1,1) (PA2).
but can give rise to signal enhancement when both beams are This is because of the destructive quantum interference between the
used to probe the phase change, as we will show in Sec. IV C. two arms that cancels the large quantum noise at each arm. Such
The third property leads to the enhancement of the signal size due a noise reduction effect was observed by Hudelist et al. in the first
to a small phase change δ in φ2 of the probe field, measurement of quantum noise performance of SU(1,1).13
Note that Eq. (16) is independent of the quadrature angle θ,
δI1
(o)
= δI2
(o)
= 2δ∣α∣2 G1 G2 g1 g2 sin(φ1 + φ2 ) which means that the noise is minimum for all quadrature-phase
amplitudes X̂1,2 (θ). This is quite different from squeezed state inter-
(o)
≈ 2G2 g2 Ips δ sin(φ1 + φ2 ) for g1 ≫ 1, (14) 1–3
ferometry where only the squeezing quadrature has noise reduc-
where Ips ≡ g12 ∣α∣2 = I2 . The enhancement factor is G2 g 2 as compared tion. This indicates that the underlying physics for noise reduction
to the MZI in Eq. (3) at the optimum condition of R1 ≪ 1, T 2 = R2 here is quantum destructive interference, which reduces noise for
= 1/2. This is because of the amplification of the second parametric the whole field including all quadrature-phase amplitudes, in con-
amplifier when it mixes the two interfering fields. trast to the squeezed state interferometry where noise depends on
the angle of quadrature-phase amplitudes.
C. Quantum noise performance of SU(1,1)
interferometers 2. Quantum beam splitter as a disentanglement tool
Although the signal due to the phase change is increased in To understand how quantum interference occurs at PA2, we
SU(1,1) as compared to MZI, one may argue that this is not surpris- just need to recall Eq. (12), which shows the superposition of the
ing at all because of the amplification of the second PA in SU(1,1). quadrature-phase amplitudes of the incoming fields. Note that the
We can achieve the same effect if we place an amplifier at the outputs relations are in quantum mechanical operator form, which means
of the MZI. However, as we will see, there is a significant difference that quantum fluctuations or noise can be subtracted or added
21 March 2024 11:51:28

in the noise performance. An amplifier at the outputs of the MZI will depending on the phase, giving rise to quantum interference. This
amplify not only the signal but also the noise. So, the use of an ampli- shows that a parametric amplifier can act as a quantum beam split-
fier at best keeps the signal-to-noise ratio. As a matter of fact, due to ter to split and mix waves. In this sense, the roles of a PA and a
added noise from its internal degrees of freedom, such an amplifier BS are the same in the mixing of waves: incoming waves are all
often degrades the signal-to-noise ratio, leading to reduced measure- superposed coherently. It is known that the two outputs of PA1 are
ment sensitivity.53–55 The SU(1,1), on the contrary, will not amplify entangled in the continuous variables of phases and amplitudes49,50
the noise as much as the signal, leading to an enhancement of the and two entangled fields can be transformed by a 50:50 beam splitter
signal-to-noise ratio. The key is in the destructive interference of the into two independent squeezed states with noise reduced at orthog-
quantum noise, and it can be understood from the following three onal quadratures.56–58 In this case, the BS acts as a disentangler that
perspectives. transforms two entangled fields into two unentangled fields. Since
a PA and a BS are the same in wave mixing, the role of PA2 in
1. Quantum noise reduction by destructive quantum the SU(1,1) interferometer is then a disentangler. This happens
interference when the gains of PA1 and PA2 are equal, producing two unentan-
Assume a coherent state |α⟩ input to the SU(1,1) and we make gled fields at the outputs with noise at the vacuum level, as shown
homodyne detection (HD) of X̂(θ) = âe−iθ + â† eiθ at the outputs of in Eq. (16).
PA2. It is straightforward to calculate the quantum fluctuations as11 On the other hand, the difference between a parametric ampli-
fier (PA) and a linear beam splitter (BS) lies in the fact that a
⟨Δ2 X̂1 (θ)⟩ = ⟨Δ2 X̂2 (θ)⟩ parametric amplifier (PA2) has amplified outputs. This feature can
(o) (o)
lead to the loss-tolerant property of SU(1,1) interferometers that
= ∣G1 G2 + g1 g2 ei(φ1 +φ2 ) ∣2 we will discuss later in Sec. III E. It also leads to the following
+ ∣G1 g2 + g1 G2 ei(φ1 +φ2 ) ∣2 understanding.
= (G21 + g12 )(G22 + g22 ) 3. Quantum noiseless amplification due to noise

cancellation
+ 4G1 G2 g1 g2 cos(φ1 + φ2 ). (15)
The action of the SU(1,1) interferometer can be analyzed from
The dependence on φ1 + φ2 is a result of quantum interference in another perspective, that is, quantum amplification. When viewed
SU(1,1), just as in the output photon numbers in Eq. (13). Although as an amplifier, one of the inputs of PA2 is regarded as the signal
we find from Eq. (14) that the measured signal is maximum when input, while the other input is treated as the internal mode of the
φ1 + φ2 = π/2, the minimum noise is achieved at the dark fringe amplifier.53–55 Normally, the internal mode of the amplifier is inac-
when φ1 + φ2 = π and at balanced gain of G2 = G1 , g 2 = g 1 for a given cessible from outside and is left in the vacuum state, which adds in
G1 , g 1 , vacuum noise to the amplified signal. This added noise is the extra
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-5

© Author(s) 2020
noise in addition to the input signal noise, leading to a degraded With the output noise given in Eq. (15), we obtain the SNRs at the
signal-to-noise ratio for the amplified signal compared to the input. two outputs as
If the internal mode can be accessed, as in the case of a parametric
(o) 2
amplifier, squeezed states can be injected to it to reduce the extra ⟨Ŷ1 ⟩
SNRSU(1,1) =
(1)
added noise.54,55 This is the case when the input signal and the inter- ⟨Δ2 Ŷ1 ⟩
(o)
nal mode are uncorrelated. On the other hand, if the input signal
and the internal mode are correlated, further noise reduction can be 4g22 g12 ∣α∣2 δ2
=
achieved. This was first studied by Ou59 as early as in 1994 and was (G21+ g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2
recently demonstrated60 with an arrangement similar to an SU(1,1) 4g22 Ips δ2

interferometer. To understand this, we go back to the input–output = (21)
relation in Eq. (12) for the parametric amplifier. We select field 1 as (G1 + g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2 2
the signal field (s) and field 2 as the internal mode (int) and rewrite and
it as
4G22 g12 ∣α∣2 δ2
SNRSU(1,1) =
(2)
X̂s
(o)
= GX̂s
(in)
+ g X̂int .
(in)
(17) (G21+ g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2
4G22 Ips δ2
If the signal and internal modes are independent, we have = , (22)
(G1 + g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2 2
where Ips = g12 ∣α∣2 is the photon number of the phase sensing field.
⟨Δ2 X̂s ⟩ = G2 ⟨Δ2 X̂s ⟩ + g 2 ⟨Δ2 X̂int ⟩.
(o) (in) (in)
(18)
When g 2 > g 1 and g 2 ≫ 1 so that G22 = 1 + g22 ≈ g22 , the SNR takes the
maximum value of61
The second term in the expression above is the extra noise for the
SNRSU(1,1) = 2(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 ,
(1,2)op
output that degrades the output SNR as compared to the input. (23)
However, if the input signal and the internal modes are correlated, SU(1,1) √
= 2δm /(G1 + g1 ) when SNRSU(1,1) = 1.
(1,2)op
we have from Eq. (17) which gives δm
Note that the optimum SNR is obtained not with equal gains
of the two PAs but under the condition of g 2 > g 1 , g 2 ≫ 1.62 The
21 March 2024 11:51:28

⟨Δ2 X̂s ⟩ = G2 ⟨Δ2 (X̂s + λX̂int )⟩,
(o) (in) (in)
(19) former was the operational condition commonly used in earlier dis-
cussions7,8,10,11 and experimental realizations of SU(1,1)12,13 and cor-
with λ ≡ g/G. If the signal and the internal modes are in the EPR- responds to the minimum noise level at the outputs, as shown in
(in)
type entangled state such as those generated from the first PA, X̂s Eq. (16). However, it leads to an SNR of (G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 , which is a
and X̂int are quantum mechanically correlated so that ⟨Δ2 (X̂s
(in) (in) factor of 2 smaller than the optimum value given in Eq. (23).61
Comparing Eq. (23) to the optimum classical SNR in Eq. (7),
+ λX̂int )⟩ can be smaller than the corresponding vacuum value of
(in)
we obtain an SNR enhancement factor of (G1 + g1 )2 /2. This is
1 + λ2 . In fact, it was shown59 that noiseless quantum amplification a factor of 2 smaller than that of the squeezed state interferome-
can be achieved with the proper adjustment of the parameter. Such try given in Eq. (9). The reason for this is related to the optimum
an effect of noise reduction in amplifiers due to entanglement was scheme of SU(1,1) for phase measurement and will be discussed later
demonstrated first by Kong et al.60 in an atomic vapor system and in Sec. IV C.
later by Guo et al.17 in a nonlinear fiber amplifier. Figure 4 shows a typical result of phase measurement by both
an SU(1,1) interferometer (red, SU11) and a Mach–Zehnder inter-
D. Signal-to-noise ratio and the optimum phase ferometer (black, MZ) under the condition of the same phase sens-
measurement sensitivity in SU(1,1) interferometers ing intensity.63 The peaks are the phase modulation signal, and the
The sensitivity of SU(1,1) interferometers for phase measure-
ment is determined not only by the noise level of the outputs but
also by the signal size due to the phase change. It is usually charac-
terized by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), especially in experiment.
Although the signal size due to the phase change is usually the best
at half of the fringe size, i.e., the overall phase is at π/2, it is bet-
ter to operate at the dark fringe for practical reasons, similar to the
Mach–Zehnder interferometer in Sec. II, and we make homodyne
measurement of Ŷ = i(â† − â). Referring to Fig. 3, when input field
1 to the interferometer is in a strong coherent state of |α⟩ and the
overall phase φ1 + φ2 is set at π for minimum at both outputs, we
obtain the signals at the two outputs for a small phase change δ in
one arm of the interferometer,61 FIG. 4. Phase modulation signals and noise levels for an SU(1,1) interferometer
(red) and a Mach Zehnder interferometer (black). Adapted with permission from
Du et al., Opt Lett. 43, 1051 (2018). Copyright 2018 Optical Society of America.
⟨Ŷ1 ⟩ = 2g1 g2 ∣α∣δ, ⟨Ŷ2 ⟩ = 2g1 G2 ∣α∣δ.
(o) (o)
(20)
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-6

© Author(s) 2020
flat floor is the noise level of measurement. As can be seen, both

the signal and noise are amplified for SU(1,1) as compared to MZI,
but the signal gain is more than noise gain. We can extract SNRs
from Fig. 4. Since it is in log-scale, the SNR of phase measurement
is simply the difference of the peak value and the floor value. It is
found that SNRSU (1,1) = 6.9 dB and SNRMZI = 3.9 dB, leading to an
improvement of 3.0 dB in SNR by SU(1,1) over MZI.
Since both outputs of PA2 contain the information about the
phase change, it is suggested15,43 to measure the joint quantity
ŶJM ≡ Ŷ1 + Ŷ2 to combine the information. It is straightfor-
(o) (o)
61
ward to show that in this case, the SNR is independent of g 2
and has the optimum value given in Eq. (23), SNRJM = SNRSU(1,1)
(1,2)op
amp
FIG. 5. Dependence of the measured quantum noise level IJM as a function for
= 2(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 , but with no further improvement. The extra out-
the detection losses for various gain of the parametric amplifier (PSA gain). The
put nonetheless can be used for quantum information tapping (see value of 2 corresponds to the vacuum noise level. Reproduced with permission
Sec. VI C and Ref. 17). from Li et al., Opt. Express 27, 30552 (2019). Copyright 2019 Optical Society of
It should be noted that the SNR enhancement of SU(1,1) America.
interferometers over the classical SNR is due to the employment
of parametric amplifiers, which require strong pumping for high
With the signal drop by a factor of 1 − L, ⟨Ŷ1 ⟩2L = (1 − L)⟨Ŷ1 ⟩2 ,
(o) (o)
gain and thus consume more energy or resources than traditional
we obtain the SNR due to loss,
interferometers.
(o) 2 (o) 2
⟨Ŷ1 ⟩L ⟨Ŷ1 ⟩
E. Effect of losses SNRLSU(1,1) = ≈ = SNRSU(1,1) . (27)
⟨Δ2 Ŷ1 ⟩L ⟨Δ2 Ŷ1 ⟩
(o) (o)
It is well known that with some loss L such as detection inef-
ficiency involved in the squeezed state, the noise reduction effect is So, the losses outside of the interferometer such as transmission and
degraded with Eq. (8) modified to detection losses have almost no effect on the SNR of SU(1,1) for large
G2 and the ability of loss tolerance increases with G2 of PA2.11,61 This
21 March 2024 11:51:28

sq loss-tolerant property of SU(1,1) was first observed in Ref. 13 and
⟨Δ2 I− ⟩ = ∣α∣2 [(1 − L)e−2r + L], (24)
confirmed later in Refs. 16 and 64. Figure 5 shows the result from
amp
Ref. 64, which plots the measured quantum noise level IJM (value of
where the loss L is modeled as a beam splitter with a transmissiv- 2 corresponds to the vacuum level) as a function of loss for various
ity of 1 − L. The above can be considered as contributions from gain of the parametric amplifier (PA2). It clearly demonstrates that
two parts: the transmitted squeezed noise |α|2 e−2r with a probabil- the effect of loss is mitigated by the amplification (PSA gain). The
ity of 1 − L and the vacuum noise of size |α|2 reflected from the gray straight line (PSA gain = 1) corresponds to the case of direct
unused port with a probability of L, all scaled to the shot noise level detection and is described by the linear dependence in Eq. (24).
of ⟨Δ2 I−snl⟩ = ∣α∣2 . Note that in the existence of loss L, the best noise In fact, the amplified quantum noise from PA2 can not only
reduction achievable is L at infinite squeezing (r → ∞). After con- overcome the vacuum noise introduced through losses, but it can
sidering the reduction of the signal due to loss, we arrive at the also fight against excess classical noise. This strategy was used in
best SNR enhancement factor as (1 − L)/L for the squeezed state microwave detection to tackle the enormous thermal noise back-
interferometry. ground in a microwave circuit65 (see Sec. V A).
On the other hand, the output noise for the SU(1,1) is amplified SU(1,1)’s immunity to losses is only for the output fields of
by the second PA, making it much larger than the vacuum noise level the SU(1,1). For losses inside the interferometer, however, it was
so that the extra noise coupled in through loss is negligible. This is shown11,66 that the effect is exactly the same as that on the squeezed
shown in Eq. (15), which becomes state. So, SU(1,1) is not immune to its internal losses. This suggests
that all the quantum advantage is from the quantum entanglement
⟨Δ2 X̂1 (θ)⟩ = ⟨Δ2 X̂2 (θ)⟩ created in the first PA (PA1), whereas the second PA is simply a
(o) (o)
device for superposition to disentangle the two fields in the two arms
= (G21 + g12 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2 of the interferometer.
= 1 + 2(G1 g2 − G2 g1 )2 Indeed, as variations of SU(1,1), we can replace the second PA
≫ 1 for G2 ≫ G1 > 1 (25) with any linear device that can mix the two fields and achieve the
same performance as SU(1,1), as we will see in the following.
(o)
at dark fringe when φ1 + φ2 = π. So, the noise for Ŷ1 after the loss IV. VARIATIONS OF SU(1,1) INTERFEROMETERS
L is
A. The Scheme of a parametric amplifier and a beam
2 2 splitter (PA + BS)
⟨Δ Ŷ1 ⟩L = (1 − L)⟨Δ Ŷ1 ⟩ + L
(o) (o)
It has been known almost since the discovery of squeezed states

≈ (1 − L)⟨Δ2 Ŷ1 ⟩.
(o)
(26) and EPR-entangled states that in the case of degenerate frequency,
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-7

© Author(s) 2020
they can be converted from each other by a 50:50 beam splitter.56,67 they must be frequency degenerate and the scheme is sensitive to
Since an EPR-type entangled state can be generated with a paramet- losses just like squeezed state interferometry.
ric amplifier,50 we can use a beam splitter to convert it to squeezed
states and measure the phase change with reduced quantum noise, B. Truncated SU(1,1) interferometer
similar to the squeezed state interferometry. However, the state-
Although waves need to be superimposed in order to show the
ments above are for states with no coherent components and the
interference effect, the method of superposition can vary. We have
photon number of squeezed states with no coherent component is
already seen the methods using a parametric amplifier and using
too low to have any practical use.
a beam splitter. In these cases, the waves are physically superim-
To boost the photon number, we can inject a coherent state,
posed and interference occurs at the optical fields of the outputs of
just like what we did in Sec. III. This forms a variation of the SU(1,1)
the wave-combining devices. In particular, for the PA + BS scheme
interferometer with a PA for beam splitting and a BS for wave super-
in Fig. 6, it requires the two fields from PA1 have the same fre-
position and interference (PA + BS scheme). The actual scheme is
quency because of the use of the beam splitter for wave superposi-
shown in Fig. 6. For a large injection |α|2 ≫ 1, it is straightforward
tion. On the other hand, since homodyne detection makes quantum
to calculate58 the output intensity at output port 2 as
measurement of the quadrature-phase amplitude of the field, the
photo-current from homodyne detection can be thought of as the
= Ips [1 − V cos(φ1 + φ2 )],
(o)
I2 (28)
quantum copy of the amplitude of the field. So, the mixing of
√ the photo-currents after homodyne detections is equivalent to the
where Ips = g12 ∣α∣2 and visibility V ≡ 2G1 g1 TR/(g12 + R). Note that
the fringe depends on the sum of the phases of the two arms, sim- superposition of the detected fields and we can replace the beam
ilar to Eq. (13). 100% visibility in interference fringe at output port splitter with a post-detection current mixer to achieve field super-
2 can be achieved with T = G21 /(G21 + g12 ), R = 1 − T for the beam position. This is the idea behind the so-called “truncated” SU(1,1)
(o) interferometer proposed and reported by Anderson et al.,15,43 as
splitter. However, when Ŷ2 is measured at output port 2 by homo-
shown in Fig. 7 where only the first parametric amplifier remains
dyne detection (HD), the optimum SNR for phase measurement is
as compared to SU(1,1) interferometers in Figs. 1(b) and 6. The
achieved when T = (G21 + g12 )2 /(8G21 g12 + 1), R = 4G21 g12 /(8G21 g12 + 1)
mixer for photo-currents from the homodyne detectors (HD) plays
with
the same role as the second parametric amplifier in Fig. 1(b) and
SNRPA−BS = 4δ2 Ips (G21 + g12 ).
(op)
(29) the beam splitter in Fig. 6 to superimpose the two fields in the
interferometer for interference. The current after mixing shows the
21 March 2024 11:51:28

This is a factor of G21 g12
+ improvement over the optimum classical phase signal δϕ as well as the quantum noise cancellation effect
SNR in Eq. (7). due to entanglement in a typical SU(1,1) interferometer. It was
If we use a 50:50 beam splitter, as in Ref. 56, it is straightfor- shown43,61 that the SNR for phase measurement is the same as that
ward to find that the output noise will be (G1 − g1 )2 , while the signal in Eq. (23) in the ideal lossless condition. The truncated version of
is 2I ps δ2 , and the SNR is exactly the same as that in Eq. (23). So, SU(1,1) was recently used in atomic force microscopy with quantum
this variation of SU(1,1) gives the same SNR improvement factor as enhancement.68
the SU(1,1) over the traditional interferometer. It is interesting to Because direct detection is used in the truncated scheme and
note if we switch the positions of PA and BS, that is, using BS for the PA + BS scheme of SU(1,1) interferometers, losses will have a
beam splitting and PA for wave superposition, the result will not be significant effect on the quantum enhancement factor in a similar
that given in Eq. (29) but is the same as that in Eq. (7) for classi- way to the squeezed state interferometry.
cal interferometers.58 This further demonstrates that the quantum
advantage originates from the quantum entanglement in the phase
C. Dual-beam SU(1,1) interferometers
probing beam produced by the first parametric amplifier. Note fur-
ther that since we use a BS to superpose the signal and idler fields, In the SU(1,1) interferometers we discussed so far, the SNR for
phase measurement is given in Eq. (23), which shows an improve-
ment factor of (G1 + g1 )2 /2 over the optimum classical SNR in
Eq. (7). This is a factor of 2 smaller than the improvement factor
FIG. 6. The scheme of the parametric amplifier and beam splitter for a variation of
the SU(1,1) interferometer. Adapted with permission from J. Kong, Z. Y. Ou, and FIG. 7. The scheme of the truncated SU(1,1) interferometer. Reproduced with per-
W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023825 (2013). Copyright 2013 American Physical mission from Gupta et al., Opt. Express 26, 391 (2018). Copyright 2018 Optical
Society. Society of America.
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-8

© Author(s) 2020
by squeezed state interferometry given in Eq. (9). The reason for From the result above, we find that SU(1,1) at best matches
this is quantum resource sharing in phase and amplitude measure- the sensitivity of squeezed state interferometry. This seems to con-
ment,61 which will be discussed later in Sec. VI B. This means that tradict the fact that SU(1,1) can reach the Heisenberg limit of
the current SU(1,1) interferometer is not optimized for phase mea- phase measurement.7 However, the result in Eq. (33) is obtained
surement. To look for the optimized phase measurement scheme, we under the condition of strong coherent state injection to boost
note in Eqs. (13) and (28) that the interference fringe depends on the overall phase sensing photon number I ps . With no coherent state
sum of the phases of the two arms of the interferometer. Therefore, injection, it was shown11 that the Heisenberg limit is recovered.
if we use both fields from PA1 to sense the phase change signal, we It was further shown58 that when the gain parameter g 1 of PA1
will double the signal size δ. This is the dual-beam scheme proposed is comparable to the injected coherent state photon number, the
by Li et al.61 and realized by Liu et al.,69 which is shown in Fig. 8. As Heisenberg limit can also be reached, similar to squeezed state
expected, it can be shown61 that the homodyne detection signals at interferometry.47,48
both output ports are It was shown61 that when dual-beam phase sensing is imple-
2
mented in the truncated scheme and the PA + BS scheme, the factor
⟨Ŷ1⟩ = 4(G1 G2 + g1 g2 )2 ∣α∣2 δ2 , of 2 is also recovered, leading to the same SNR as the squeezed state
2
(30) interferometry. However, because of the second PA, the dual-beam
⟨Ŷ2⟩ = 4(G1 g2 + g1 G2 )2 ∣α∣2 δ2 .
SU(1,1) scheme here is tolerant to losses outside of the interferom-
eter, similar to the original SU(1,1) interferometer in Fig. 3. Fur-
With the noise power given in Eq. (15) [quantities X̂1,2 (π/2) are the
(o)
thermore, different from the PA + BS scheme, the employment of
same as Ŷ 1,2 here] and at the dark fringe of φ1 + φ2 = π, the SNR for separate homodyne detectors in the truncated scheme and the sec-
the dual-beam scheme is ond PA in the dual-beam SU(1,1) scheme does not require the same
frequency for the two fields from the first PA in both schemes. The
4(G1 G2 + g1 g2 )2 Ips δ2
SNRDB =
(1)
, experimental implementation of the dual-beam SU(1,1) interferom-
(G21 + g12 )[(G21 + g12 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2 ] eter was realized by Liu et al.,69 and about 3 dB improvement over
(31)
4(G1 g2 + g1 G2 )2 Ips δ2 the single-beam scheme was demonstrated.
SNRDB =
(2)
,
(G21 + g12 )[(G21 + g12 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2 ]
D. Multi-stage SU(1,1) interferometers
where Ips = (G21 + g12 )∣α∣2 is the photon number of the dual phase
21 March 2024 11:51:28

Similar to multi-path interferometers such as Fabry–Perot
sensing fields. When g 2 → ∞ and G2 ≈ g 2 , we have the optimum interferometers and multi-slit interference in optics, we can also
SNR, add more PAs to form multi-stage SU(1,1) interferometers. In order
to have all the PAs playing the same role in the multi-path inter-
SNRDB = SNRDB = 2(G1 + g1 )4 Ips δ2 /(G21 + g12 )
(1) (2)
(32) ference, we usually work at a low gain regime of the PAs so that
→ 4(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 for g1 ≫ 1, spontaneous emission dominates and two-photon states are gener-
ated. This variation of the SU(1,1) interferometer finds its applica-
which is the same as the one for squeezed state interferometry in tion in the modification of mode structures (temporal and spatial)
Eq. (9) at large g 1 . in the output field for mode engineering of the output quantum
Note that at finite g 1 , the SNR in Eq. (32) is still smaller than states. The detail of this application can be found later in Sec. VI E.
that for squeezed state interferometry. This is again because of quan- In the following, we will present the general principle for this
tum resource distribution, which we will discuss in Sec. VI B. Note scheme.
that the SNRs in Eq. (31) are for one output only, but we have two Consider the multi-stage interferometer shown in Fig. 9 where
outputs for PA2. So, we can make full use of these two outputs by the kth PA is described by the small amplitude gain parameter
performing a joint measurement Ŷ JM ≡ Ŷ 1 + λŶ 2 of the two outputs, 0 < g k ≪ 1 so that the power gain G2k = 1 + gk2 ≈ 1(k = 1, 2, . . . , N). In
as shown in Fig. 8. With λ = 1 and any g 2 , it is shown that the SNR between the PAs sandwiched are phase shifters Θ̂(θ). For simplicity,
for the joint measurement is we assume the phase shifters have the same phase of the amount
θ for the two fields of the PAs together. In the low gain limit, in
SNRJM 2
DB = 4(G1 + g1 ) Ips δ
2
for arbitrary g1 . (33) order to better describe the performance of the system and reveal
the underlying physical principle, we will work in the Schödinger
So, we recover the SNR of squeezed state interferometry when we picture with quantum states. Let us start with the quantum state of
make full use of the resource. one PA.
With the Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) for the parametric amplifier,
the state evolution in the time interval Δt for the system is described
FIG. 8. The dual-beam scheme of the SU(1,1) interferometer for phase measure-
ment. Reproduced with permission from Liu et al., Opt. Express 27, 11292 (2019).
Copyright 2019 Optical Society of America. FIG. 9. Multi-stage SU(1,1) interferometer.
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-9

© Author(s) 2020
by a unitary evolution operator,

̵
Û(Δt) = exp(ĤΔt/ih)
≈ 1 + (g â†s â†i + h.c.) when g ≡ ξΔt ≪ 1, (34)
where we replace the labeling of the fields in Eq. (10) by s, i, which
stand for “signal, idler” due to historic reason, and assume g ≡ ξΔt
is a positive number and only keep the first order in the expansion
of the exponential. Then, with vacuum input, the output state is a
two-photon state of the form
FIG. 10. SU(1,1) interferometer for microwaves. Adapted with permission from
∣Ψ⟩PA = Û(t)∣vac⟩ ≈ ∣vac⟩ + g â†s â†i ∣vac⟩ Flurin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183901 (2012). Copyright 2012 American
Physical Society.
= ∣vac⟩ + g∣1s , 1i⟩. (35)
For the multi-stage interferometer in Fig. 9, the output state is
then low noise parametric amplifier. Similar to the role played for loss
tolerance by the second parametric amplifier in an SU(1,1) inter-
∣Ψ⟩mPA = ÛN (Δt)Θ̂(θ)⋯Û2 (Δt)Θ̂(θ)Û1 (Δt)∣vac⟩ ferometer, Flurin et al.65 used the low noise parametric amplifier to
N amplify the quantum noise to a level that is much larger than the
≈ ∣vac⟩ + (∑ gk e−i(N−k)θ )∣1s , 1i⟩, (36) thermal and electronic background noise in the detection process. In
k=1
this way, they achieved the measurement of the correlated quantum
where the operator Θ̂(θ) adds a total phase of θ to the signal and noise from EPR-entangled microwave fields even in the presence of
idler field together. So, the multi-stage interferometer is equivalent the enormous thermal and electronic background noise.
to one PA but with amplitude gain equal to the sum of the amplitude Working on the goal to demonstrate the EPR-type entangle-
gains of all PAs involved: gT = ∑Nk=1 gk e−i(N−k)θ . This is the result ment between microwave fields, Flurin et al.65 inadvertently real-
of two-photon interference: each PA can generate a pair of photons ized an SU(1,1) interferometer in the microwave regime. In their
with amplitude g k , and the final state is a superposition of all the arrangement shown in Fig. 10, the first amplifier (PA1) is the EPR-
entangled source (entangler), while the second one (PA2) is the
21 March 2024 11:51:28

two-photon states.
In the special case when all the PAs have the same gain, g k = g, one that measures the entanglement (analyzer). This geometry is
we have exactly in the form of Fig. 3 and is an SU(1,1) interferometer but
N without seeding of a coherent state. Indeed, the measurement result
gT = g ∑ e−i(k−1)θ = ge−i(N−1)θ/2 H(θ), (37) shows an interference pattern that depends on the phase difference
k=1 Δφ of the pumps.65 Note that during the experiment described in
where H(θ) ≡ sin Nθ/2
is the multi-path interference factor, which Ref. 65, the gain of the analyzer (PA2) is much larger than 1 and
sin θ/2 is always larger than that of the entangler (PA1). This is exactly
recovers the familiar function of cos θ for N = 2. It first appears in
the setting for achieving the optimum performance of the SU(1,1)
multi-slit interference such as optical grating and has an enhance-
interferometer presented in Eq. (23). The large gain in the ana-
ment factor of N 2 for the two-photon production rate as compared
lyzer (PA2) also satisfies what is required for PA2 to act as an
to the single PA. This is the same physics underlying cavity enhanced
entanglement measurement device (see more later in Sec. VI D
parametric processes70 and can provide active filtering for spectral
and Ref. 64).
mode shaping (see Sec. VI E for details).
The high gain case is not easy to treat because of the general
B. Atom-light hybrid interferometers
non-commuting nature of the Hamiltonian for different PAs.71 Nev-
ertheless, it still gives rise to the modification of the mode structure One of the key differences of an SU(1,1) interferometer from
at the output similar to the low gain case. a traditional interferometer is the way of wave splitting and super-
position for interference: it is through nonlinear mixing of waves.
V. SU(1,1) INTERFEROMETERS OF DIFFERENT WAVES This method can therefore couple different types of waves for inter-
ference, which is basically impossible in a traditional interferome-
A. SU(1,1) interferometer with microwaves ter. This leads to hybrid interferometers where the two interfering
Parametric amplifiers were first realized in radio frequency and waves are different types of waves. One such interferometer is the
microwaves.72 However, thermal and electronic noise is often so atom-light hybrid interferometer, first realized by Chen et al. in
large that it overwhelms the quantum noise in detection processes. 2015.51
So, it is hard to study the quantum behavior of the amplifiers in radio Similar to the all-optical SU(1,1) interferometer in the original
frequency and microwave regimes. This was changed recently when realizations,12,13 the wave splitting and superposition elements in an
near quantum limit low noise parametric amplifiers were invented.73 atom-light hybrid interferometer are Raman amplifiers, which are a
Although thermal and electronic noise is still very high in detection special kind of parametric process. As shown in the inset of Fig. 11, a
processes, Flurin et al.65 utilized the low noise parametric amplifier Raman process couples light waves of strong Raman pump field AW
at high gain as a beam splitter to reveal the EPR-type quantum corre- and Stokes field âS with an atomic collective excitation wave Ŝa (also
lation between two entangled microwave fields generated by another known as a pseudo-spin wave) between two lower states (g, m) via
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-10

© Author(s) 2020
the SU(1,1) interferometer in a spinor Bose–Einstein condensate was

first discussed by Gabbrielli et al.79 and experimentally realized by
Linnemann et al.80 This subject was covered in an excellent review by
Pezzé et al.81 The nonlinear interaction responsible for atomic wave
splitting and superposition is the spin exchange collision between
87
Rb atoms of spin F = 2 manifold and has a Hamiltonian of the
form similar to Eq. (10) for the parametric process,
̵ † â† + H.c.,
Ĥat = hκâ (39)
↑ ↓
FIG. 11. Hybrid atom-light interferometers. (a) Schematic diagram of the interfer-
ometer; PBS: polarization beam splitter, BS: beam splitter, M: mirror, D: detector, B: where â↑ , â↓ correspond to the atomic fields in the spin states of
magnetic field for atomic phase change. (b) Time sequence of light pulses. (c) MZ |↑⟩ ≡ |F = 2, mF = 1⟩ and |↓⟩ ≡ |F = 2, mF = −1⟩, respec-
interferometer-equivalent interference paths for atomic spin wave Sa and optical
wave aS , RA1, RA2: Raman amplifiers. Inset: atomic levels and optical waves.
tively. The effective nonlinear coupling κ ≡ gN 0 is related to
the microscopic nonlinearity g, arising from coherent collisional
interactions and the number of colliding atoms N 0 in the ini-
an excited state (e). The Raman interaction Hamiltonian74,75 has the tial state of |F = 2, mF = 0⟩, acting as the pump mode.
same form as the parametric interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (10), Figure 12 shows the schematic of the interferometer (a) and the
phase-dependent atomic numbers with their average showing the
̵ W â† Ŝ†a − ihη
ĤR = ihηA ̵ ∗ A∗W âS Ŝa , (38)
S interference pattern (b). Note that the sum of the two output chan-
except that one of the light fields, say â2 , is replaced by the atomic nels is measured because they are in phase, which is the unique
spin wave Ŝa and the other field â1 is renamed as the Stokes property of the SU(1,1) interferometer. This version of the SU(1,1)
field âS . interferometer is the unseeded one without coherent state injec-
In most applications of Raman amplifiers, the atomic states are tion since initially there is no atom in either |↑⟩ or |↓⟩ state.
treated as inaccessible internal states of the amplifier, which are often Nonetheless, phase measurement sensitivity beyond the SQL was
in the vacuum state (unexcited state) and are not taken into con- demonstrated.
sideration. They are responsible for the spontaneous emission noise The atom-light hybrid interferometer discussed in Sec. V B and
of the amplifier. For the action of the SU(1,1) interferometer, as we the atomic SU(1,1) interferometers discussed here all involve atomic
21 March 2024 11:51:28

see from Sec. III, it requires the atomic spin wave to participate as internal states. An atomic interferometer usually refers to interfer-
one of the interfering fields. Therefore, the atomic spin wave is a ometers involving the de Broglie matter waves of atoms via their
part of the waves participating in the interference together with the external motional states.82 An SU(1,1) of this type requires matter
optical Stokes field. So, the interference fringe will depend on both wave amplifiers,83,84 which can be realized by four-wave mixing of
the atomic phase and the optical phase, thus forming an atom-light matter waves.85
hybrid SU(1,1) interferometer. The schematic diagram is shown in For the hybrid atom-light interferometer involving the external
Fig. 11(a). The input Stokes field aS1 , after interacting with atoms translational degrees of freedom of atoms, we need to go back to
pumped by the first writing field W 1 [see Fig. 11(b) for the time Raman amplification but deal with ultra-cold atoms in a BEC86–88
sequence], is amplified as aS2 . In the meantime, an atomic spin wave where super-radiance of light is correlated with the atomic motional
Sa is also generated in the atomic ensemble. This is the wave split- states in a similar way as in Eq. (38).
ting process [RA1 in Fig. 11(c)]. Since the atomic spin wave stays
in the atomic ensemble, to combine it with the amplified Stokes, we D. Phonon SU(1,1) interferometer
send back with a mirror (M) the delayed Stokes field a′S2 together Parametric amplifiers are the essential ingredients for an
with the second write field W 2 [RA2 in Fig. 11(c); see Fig. 11(b) for SU(1,1) interferometer. Nonlinear interactions are usually involved
the time sequence]. This design is somewhat similar to a Michelson for them as we have seen before in Raman amplifiers and para-
interferometer where one BS is used for dual purpose.14 The output metric processes. Opto-mechanical systems couple light fields with
aS3 is detected by D to reveal the interference fringe as the optical or a mechanical oscillator and can realize similar nonlinear interac-
atomic phase is scanned. The atomic phase can be changed by the tion for parametric amplification. The opto-mechanical coupling
external magnetic field via the Zeeman effect, as demonstrated by between a mechanical oscillator and a single optical cavity mode has
Chen et al.51 an interaction Hamiltonian given by89
The atomic phase can also be altered by shining an off-resonant
light beam on the atoms via the AC Stark shift.76 Thus, an interesting ̵ † âx̂m ,
ĤOM = hγâ (40)
application of the atom-light interferometer is to measure the pho-
ton number of the off-resonant light field in the sense of quantum where x̂m = b̂+ b̂† , â and b̂ are the annihilation operators for the opti-
non-demolition (QND) measurement.77 This approach is similar to cal cavity mode and the phonon mode of the mechanical oscillator,
the QND measurement scheme for microwave photons.78 respectively, and γ is the opto-mechanical coupling constant. With
a strong coherent optical field, we can make a linear approximation
C. Atomic SU(1,1) interferometer â = α + âs , and the Hamiltonian in Eq. (40) becomes
The atomic interferometer discussed in Sec. V B is a hybrid ver-
sion involving optical waves in interference. An all-atom version of ̵ †s b̂ + h.c.) + hΓ(â
ĤOM ≈ hΓ(â ̵ †s b̂† + h.c.), (41)
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-11

© Author(s) 2020
FIG. 12. Atomic SU(1,1) interferome-

ter. (a) Interferometric scheme with the
wave splitting and recombination pro-
cesses equivalent to parametric ampli-
fiers (PAs). (b) The output atomic num-
ber distributions as the phase of the
atomic waves changes. Reproduced with
permission from Linnemann et al. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 117, 013001 (2016). Copyright
2016 American Physical Society.
21 March 2024 11:51:28

where Γ = γα is the effective opto-mechanical coupling rate. The version of the all-phonon SU(1,1) interferometer (Sec. IV A) where
first term in Eq. (41) has the form of the well-known beam split- the second parametric amplifier is replaced by a beam splitter.
ter Hamiltonian, whereas the second term is similar to a parametric
amplification process given in Eq. (10). The derivation above is over- VI. APPLICATIONS OF SU(1,1) INTERFEROMETERS
simplified without considering the multi-mode nature of the optical
The primary application of SU(1,1) interferometers is in phase
field. With a multi-mode model, the interaction can be viewed as
measurement. It was shown in Sec. III D that the phase measurement
a Raman process so that the second term in Eq. (41) corresponds
sensitivity can beat the standard quantum limit. On the other hand,
to the Stokes scattering, while the first term corresponds to the
as we have found in Sec. III C 1, the noise reduction in SU(1,1) is due
anti-Stokes scattering. Whichever term dominates the interaction
to quantum destructive interference, which reduces all noise of the
depends on the cavity resonance to the Stokes or anti-Stokes com-
whole output fields of the interferometer. So, the sensitivity enhance-
ponent of the optical field. In analogy with a Ramsey interferometer,
ment effect is not limited to phase measurement and can also be
Qu et al.90 utilized the beam splitter-like Hamiltonian in the first
applied to the measurement of other quadrature-phase amplitudes
term of Eq. (41) to realize an opto-mechanical Ramsey interferom-
such as amplitude measurement, as we will show next.
eter. Of course, had they used the second term of Eq. (41), it would
have become a hybrid photon–phonon SU(1,1) interferometer in
the same spirit of the atom-light hybrid interferometer discussed A. Multi-parameter measurement
in Sec. V B. As is well known, phase and amplitude are conjugate vari-
For an all-phonon SU(1,1) interferometer, strong nonlinear ables so that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents their
interaction between mechanical oscillators is required. This was real- simultaneous measurement with precision beyond what the uncer-
ized by Patil et al.,91 who demonstrated parametric amplification of tainty principle allows. However, this limitation is on one object
phonons and thermo-mechanical noise squeezing. Equipped with and the entanglement between two objects can break this lim-
phonon parametric amplifiers, Cheung et al.92 realized a PA + BS itation, which is what leads to the famous EPR paradox in an
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-12

© Author(s) 2020
apparent violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.49,50,93 The above application of the SU(1,1) interferometer to the
However, Braunstein and Kimble57 made use of this seemingly simultaneous measurement of phase and amplitude was experimen-
contradicting behavior of the entangled source to achieve simul- tally demonstrated by Liu et al.19 Furthermore, the measurement
taneous measurement of phase and amplitude with measurement scheme is extended to simultaneous measurement of multiple non-
precision, beating the limit set by the Heisenberg uncertainty rela- commuting observables, which are not necessarily orthogonal [HD1
tion. The experimental demonstration of this phenomenon was for X̂s (ϕ1 ), HD2 for X̂s (ϕ2 ), HD3 for X̂s′ (ϕ3 ) in Fig. 13 with arbi-
first performed by Li et al.94 following a proposal by Zhang and trary ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 ]. Since outputs are amplified, we can further split the
Peng,95 which is a variation of the quantum dense coding scheme of signal output without introducing vacuum noise for the simultane-
Braunstein and Kimble.57 More recently, Steinlechner et al.96 applied ous measurement of another modulation non-orthogonal to phase
the same technique to a prototype interferometer for gravita- and amplitude by HD3 of X̂s′ (ϕ3 ).
tional wave detection with simultaneous measurement of two non- The advantages of the SU(1,1) interferometer over the quan-
orthogonal quantities. tum dense coding scheme57 are as follows: (1) more than two non-
A look at the quantum dense coding scheme by Braunstein and commuting quantities can be simultaneously measured and (2) it is
Kimble reveals that it is just the PA + BS scheme of the SU(1,1) inter- tolerant to propagation and detection losses.
ferometer that we discussed in Sec. IV A. Since the role of the BS is
the same as the second parametric amplifier in the SU(1,1) interfer- B. Quantum resource sharing
ometer to superpose the two entangled fields, the original SU(1,1)
When using SU(1,1) interferometers for the simultaneous mea-
interferometer with two parametric amplifiers should be able to
surement of phase and amplitude, there exists an interesting rela-
accomplish the same task as the quantum dense coding scheme.
tion between the optimum sensitivities of the two measurements.
Indeed, it was theoretically shown61 that while homodyne detection
Expressed in terms of the signal-to-noise ratios, the relation is
of Ŷ 1 at the signal output port of PA2 (port 1 in Fig. 3) gives rise to
written as61,97
the measurement of the phase modulation δ with an SNR of
SNRPh + SNRAm = SNRop , (44)
4g22 Ips δ2 where SNRop is the optimized SNR of the corresponding measure-
=
(1)
SNRPh
(G1 + g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2 2
ment when the resource is all devoted to that measurement so that it
→ 2(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 for g2 > g1 and g1 ≫ 1, (42) is impossible to make the other measurement. This can be seen from
Eqs. (42) and (43) where, if we set the modulation signals equal, δ = ε,
21 March 2024 11:51:28

as presented in Eq. (21), homodyne detection of X̂2 at the idler out- and add the two SNRs, we have
put port of PA2 (port 2 in Fig. 3) leads to the measurement of the SNRPh + SNRAm = 4(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 = SNRop ,
(1) (2)
(45)
amplitude modulation with an SNR of
where SNRop is given by Eq. (33) for the optimum phase measure-
4G22 Ips ε2 ment sensitivity obtained in the dual-beam scheme. In fact, the less-
=
(2)
SNRAm
(G1 + g1 )(G22 + g22 ) − 4G1 G2 g1 g2
2 2 than-optimized results in Eq. (32) for finite g 1 in the dual beam
scheme can be attributed to the relation in Eq. (45) of quantum
→ 2(G1 + g1 )2 Ips ε2 for g2 > g1 and g1 ≫ 1, (43) resource sharing. When Y 1 is measured for the phase modulation
signal, the other port can still be used for amplitude measurement,
where ε is the amplitude modulation signal. Similar to the phase
but a straightforward calculation gives an SNR of
measurement sensitivity given in Eq. (42), the sensitivity of the
amplitude measurement presented in Eq. (43) also beats the stan- SNRAm = 2Ips ε2 /(G21 + g12 ),
(2)
(46)
dard quantum limit. Figure 13 shows the schematic of the SU(1,1)
interferometer for the simultaneous measurement of both a phase where we set g 2 > g 1 and G2 ≈ g 2 ≫ 1 for the optimum value and
shift δ and an amplitude change ε in the signal field. Note that the ε is the amplitude modulation signal. This, when set to have ε = δ,
phase measurement [HD1 for X̂s (ϕ1 ) with ϕ1 = π/2] and ampli- together with the SNR for phase modulation in Eq. (32) leads to
tude measurement [HD2 for X̂i (ϕ2 ) with ϕ2 = 0] are performed at Eq. (45) for quantum resource sharing even at finite g 1 . Furthermore,
different ports (signal and idler output ports) that are independent although the phase measurement result of the joint measurement
of each other. Therefore, we can make the simultaneous measure- between the two ports in Eq. (33) gives SNRop , since both ports are
ment of encoded phase and amplitude signals with their sensitivities used for phase measurement, which leaves no room for amplitude
simultaneously beating the standard quantum limit. measurement, namely, SNRAm = 0, this again satisfies Eq. (45) for
FIG. 13. Simultaneous phase (δ) and

amplitude (ε) measurement by using an
SU(1,1) interferometer. HD: homodyne
detection and BS: beam splitter. Repro-
duced with permission from Liu et al.
Opt. Express 26, 27705 (2018). Copy-
right 2018 Optical Society of America.
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-13

© Author(s) 2020
quantum resource sharing. Note from Eq. (46) that when g 1 → ∞, satisfies the inseparability criterion: I ≡ 14 (⟨Δ2 X̂− ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩) < 1.105
SNRAm → 0, indicating that the dual-beam scheme discussed in However, this traditional homodyne method is prone to loss, which
(2)
Sec. IV C is not suitable for amplitude modulation measurement. severely limits the application of entanglement. On the other hand,
The reason for this can be traced to the intensity correlation between as we have shown in Sec. III A, parametric amplifiers (PAs) can act
the two entangled fields from the first parametric amplifier or the as non-conventional beam splitters for mixing of two fields, which is
so-called twin beam effect:98 noise in the intensity difference is exactly performed when quantities X̂− ≡ X̂1 − X̂2 and Ŷ + ≡ Ŷ 1 + Ŷ 2
reduced due to intensity correlation, whereas the amplitude mod- are measured, forming an SU(1,1)-type interferometer. We analyze
ulation signal encoded in the two fields is also canceled, leading to this scheme next.
no amplitude modulation signal in the intensity difference. As shown in Fig. 14, the two fields â1 and â2 , whose entan-
glement property needs to be characterized, enter the input ports
C. Quantum information tapping of a parametric amplifier (PA) of amplitude gain parameters G, g.
We perform homodyne detections (HD1, HD2) at the two outputs,
It is well known99 that when quantum information is split (o)
one for the X-quadrature (X̂1 ) and the other for the Y-quadrature
with a beam splitter, vacuum noise comes in from the unused port, (o)
leading to degradation of SNRs of the split signals as compared to (Ŷ2 ), similar to the scheme of joint measurement of phase and
the input. Shapiro suggested using squeezed states to combat the amplitude. According to Eq. (12), we obtain the input and output
vacuum noise and preserve the SNRs of the split signals.99 This relations for the X, Y-quadratures as
is the so-called quantum information tapping. Such a scheme was
X̂1,2 = GX̂1,2 − g X̂2,1 , Ŷ1,2 = GŶ1,2 + g Ŷ2,1 ,
(o) (o)
implemented by Bruckmeier et al.100 (49)
The SU(1,1) interferometer discussed here can be used for
quantum information tapping. Consider the two outputs of PA2. We where we dropped the input label (in) for clarity and added a π phase
have from Eq. (23) for g 2 > g 1 and G2 ≈ g 2 ≫ 1 to g so that it changes sign. Then, the results of measurement are
⟨Δ2 X̂1 ⟩ = ⟨Δ2 (GX̂1 − g X̂2 )⟩

(o)
SNRSU(1,1) = SNRSU(1,1) = 2(G1 + g1 )2 Ips δ2 .
(1) (2)
(47)
= G2 ⟨Δ2 (X̂1 − kX̂2 )⟩ = G2 ⟨Δ2 X̂− ⟩,
(k)
So, the two outputs are identical copies of each other, which can
⟨Δ2 Ŷ1 ⟩ = ⟨Δ2 (GŶ1 + g Ŷ2 )⟩
(o)
be thought of as the two split signals for the modulated phase
signal encoded to the input field before PA2. The input SNR
21 March 2024 11:51:28

= G2 ⟨Δ2 (Ŷ1 + kŶ2 )⟩ = G2 ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩,
(k)
(50)
is obtained from the direct measurement and is given as SNRin
= 2(G1 + g1 )2 δ2 Ips .61 Hence, we have the transfer coefficients, which
where k ≡ g/G → 1 for large G and X̂− ≡ X̂1 −kX̂2 , Ŷ+ ≡ Ŷ1 +kŶ2 . If
(k) (k)
are defined as T (1,2) ≡ SNRSU(1,1) /SNRin , satisfying the relation for
(1,2)
we block the two inputs and make measurement for vacuum input,
quantum information tapping, we can obtain the result of uncorrelated vacuum for comparison.
Taking the ratio for the two measurements, we have
T
(1)
+ T (2) = 2. (48)
⟨Δ2 X̂1,2 ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ1,2 ⟩
(o) (o)
Note that the classical tapping limit is T +T ≤ 1. The
(1) (2) 99
Iamp ≡
(1,2)
experimental implementation of the quantum information tapping ⟨Δ2 X̂1,2 ⟩v + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ1,2 ⟩v
(o) (o)
scheme from an SU(1,1) interferometer was realized by Guo et al.,17

⟨Δ2 X̂− ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩
(k) (k)
which is basically the amplifier version101 of quantum informa-
= → I for k → 1. (51)
tion tapping but with quantum entangled fields as the input in 2(1 + k2 )
order to achieve noiseless quantum amplification.59,60 A variation
of this scheme is the much improved dual-beam encoding scheme Therefore, we can make direct measurement of the inseparability
in an SU(1,1) interferometer.69 It was demonstrated for the first quantity I with a high gain parametric amplifier (k → 1). The advan-
time by the quantum information tapping technique that a quan- tage is its tolerance to any loss at detection (LD ), as in all applications
tum enhanced signal can be split into two while still maintaining
the quantum enhancement property. The SU(1,1) scheme of quan-
tum information tapping was extended by Liu et al.102 to a three-
way quantum information tapping scheme for quantum information
cascading.
D. Measurement of entanglement
in continuous variables
Verification of quantum entanglement between two light
sources is a basic experimental technique in quantum informa-
tion. For continuous variables, it is usually done via the homodyne FIG. 14. Entanglement measurement with the help of a parametric amplifier (PA).
detection technique by directly measuring the quadrature-phase HD: homodyne detection. LD : detection loss. Reproduced with permission from
amplitude correlations of the two fields: ⟨Δ2 X̂− ⟩ and ⟨Δ2 Ŷ + ⟩ with Li et al., Phys. Rev. A 101, 053801 (2020). Copyright 2020 American Physical
Society.
X̂− ≡ X̂1 − X̂2 and Ŷ + ≡ Ŷ 1 + Ŷ 2 .49,50,103,104 Quantum entanglement
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-14

© Author(s) 2020
of SU(1,1) interferometers. The other advantage is the simultane- here the interferometric scheme to achieve flexible and precise spec-
ous measurement of X̂− , Ŷ+ with no parameter adjustment. The tral mode engineering for the two-photon state produced from
disadvantage is the need to have a relatively high gain. spontaneous parametric emission (SPE) processes.
Furthermore, if we make joint measurement for the quantities When pumped by an ultra-short pulse (∼100 fs), SPE pro-
X̂− ≡ X̂1 − λX̂2 and Ŷ+ ≡ Ŷ1 + λŶ2 at the two outputs, one cesses generate a broadband two-photon state of the form similar
(o) (o) (o) (o) (o) (o)
106
at a time, it can be shown that with a proper adjustment of the to Eq. (35) but with a multi-frequency mode description,
electronic coefficient λ = (kG − g)/(G − kg), we can always obtain
∣Ψ2⟩ = ∣vac⟩ + g ∫ dΩs dΩi F(Ωs , Ωi )â†s (Ωs )â†i (Ωi )∣vac⟩, (53)
⟨Δ X̂− ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩
2
⟨Δ2
X̂− ⟩ + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩
(o) (o) (k) (k)
JM
Iamp = = = I (k) (52) where F(Ωs , Ωi ) is the normalized joint spectral function (JSF)
⟨Δ2 X̂− ⟩v + ⟨Δ2 Ŷ+ ⟩v
(o) (o) 2(1 + k2 ) describing the joint spectral properties of the signal (subscript s) and
idler (subscript i) photons and has the form of
for any gain parameters G, g. Notably, we have Iamp JM
= I with 2 2
λ = 1. Note that when G = 1, g = 0, this is exactly the method of direct F(Ωs , Ωi ) = Ne−(Ωs +Ωi ) /2σp sinc(ΔkL/2), (54)
homodyne measurement,49,50,103,104 but with the help of a parametric
with Δk as the wave vector (phase) mismatch among all the waves in
amplifier of G, g ≫ 1, the scheme is immune to losses.
a nonlinear medium of length L. g(≪1) is similar to the same quan-
The discussion above is for the single-mode case. For the multi-
tity in Eq. (35). It is proportional to L and the nonlinear coefficient
mode case, parametric amplifiers have the ability to select the dom-
and is related to the peak amplitude of the pump field. N is the nor-
inating mode.106 This is because different modes have different
malization constant. Note that Eq. (54) is written in terms of the
parametric gains. In the high gain limit, the mode with the largest
frequency offsets Ωs , Ωi (Ωl ≡ ωl − ωl0 , l = s, i) from the central fre-
gain will dominate. Thus, application of parametric amplifiers to
quencies ωs0 , ωi0 of the generated fields, which are determined by
entanglement measurement can also filter out unwanted higher
the phase matching condition Δk = 0 and the center frequency of the
order modes and concentrate on the dominating mode. By using
pump field.
the mode engineering technique on parametric amplifiers discussed
If the frequencies of the signal and idler photons are close to
in Sec. VI E, we can select the mode of our interest.
each other, that is, |ωs0 − ωi0 | ≪ ωs0 , ωi0 , then the sinc-function
The scheme discussed above for entanglement measurement
in F(Ωs , Ωi ) has a broad bandwidth much wider than the pump
was implemented experimentally by Li et al.64 with fiber optical
bandwidth σ p . In this case, F(Ωs , Ωi ) is mainly determined by the
parametric amplifiers, demonstrating the loss-tolerant and mode
21 March 2024 11:51:28

exponential function and forms a strip along −45○ , as shown in
selecting properties for the high gain case.
Fig. 15(a). The strip orientation of −45○ reflects the frequency anti-
correlation between the signal and idler photons due to energy con-
E. Mode engineering of quantum states with SU(1,1)
servation of photons. This shape of JSF gives rise to a two-photon
interferometers
state with multiple temporal modes and is not desirable for quan-
Another interesting application of SU(1,1) interferometers is tum interference in quantum information applications. Single-mode
the modification of the mode structure of the quantum state in two-photon states are preferable, corresponding to a factorable JSF
the output fields to achieve quantum state engineering. The mode with a shape such as a round circle.
structure of quantum states has recently attracted a lot of atten- The JSF of the two-photon state can be modified by using an
tion because it increases the degrees of freedom for quantum fields SU(1,1) interferometer with a spectrally dependent phase θ by using
and is especially appealing to quantum information science because
of its ability to achieve multi-dimensional quantum entanglement
(see a comprehensive review by Fabre and Treps107 ). Modes of pho-
tons play essential roles in quantum interference because they define
the identity of photons and often lead to distinguishability.108 It
is crucial to have mode match between interfering fields in order
to achieve high visibility. Our discussion so far on SU(1,1) inter-
ferometers has assumed perfect mode match. Multi-mode behav-
ior of SU(1,1) is also quite different from linear interferometers.
In fact, a recent work demonstrated the mode cleaning ability
of SU(1,1).64,106 In the following, we will discuss the ability of
SU(1,1) for tailoring the mode structure of quantum fields to our
need.
The modification of the mode structure is achieved by engi-
neering the phase change in between the two PAs. This idea was FIG. 15. Contour plot of the joint spectral function F(Ωs , Ωi ) (JSF) of a two-photon
put into action31,32 soon after the first experimental realization of state generated from four-wave mixing processes in optical fibers, but the variables
the SU(1,1) interferometers.12,13 It can be used to modify both are in wavelengths, as in the original paper113 (Ωl ≡ ωl − ωl 0 , λl = 2πc/ωl , l = s, i).
spatial31,109,110 and temporal/spectral32,111–115 profiles of the output (a) A single parametric process. (b) An SU(1,1) interferometer with spectrally
fields. More recently, a multi-stage SU(1,1) (Sec. IV D) was imple- dependent phase for the modification of JSF. Marginal intensity distribution I(Ωs )
is below the horizontal axes. Reproduced with permission from Su et al., Opt.
mented for precise and versatile engineering of the spectral mode
Express 27, 20479 (2019). Copyright 2019 Optical Society of America.
function of the output quantum states.116 As an example, we present
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-15

© Author(s) 2020
FIG. 16. Contour plot of the joint spectral function F(Ωs , Ωi )

(JSF) for the output state from a multi-stage SU(1,1) inter-
ferometer. N = (a1) 3, (a2) 4, and (a3) 5. The variables are
in wavelengths as in Fig. 15. Reproduced with permission
from Su et al., Opt. Express 27, 20479 (2019). Copyright
2019 Optical Society of America.
a linear dispersive medium sandwiched in between the two PAs, and mix beams for interference. They possess some unique proper-
as shown in Fig. 9 with N = 2. Then, the interference term H(θ) ties, making them advantageous over the traditional beam splitter-
= 2 cos θ in Eq. (37) will modify the single PA term g or the JSF F(Ωs , based interferometers. These properties include higher sensitivity,
Ωi ) in Eq. (54) for the broadband case. For the case of near degen- detection loss tolerance, and mixing of different types of waves. A
erate frequencies of |ωs0 − ωi0 | ≪ ωs0 , ωi0 , the first-order dispersion key feature of the interferometer is the quantum correlation between
disappears and second-order dispersion leads to θ = β(Ωs −Ωi )2 LDM the two interfering arms of the interferometer, which is respon-
with β being proportional to the second-order dispersion coefficient sible for the enhancement of phase measurement sensitivity. The
and LDM as the length of the linear dispersive medium. Figure 15(b) involvement of the parametric amplifier in the superposition of the
shows the modified JSF together with the marginal intensity I(ωs ) of interfering waves leads to the loss tolerance property that has some
the signal field, showing the interference fringe. The island structure practical implications in quantum metrology. The nonlinear mixing
of the modified JSF is a result of two-photon interference and forms of different types of waves for interference opens up doors for poten-
a multi-dimensional two-photon state with entanglement between tially much wider application of this new type of interferometer than
different islands.117 Filters can be used to select the roundest island the traditional interferometers. These advantages originate from the
21 March 2024 11:51:28

for a nearly factorable JSF (yellow dashed lines). The shape of the employment of parametric amplifiers in the interferometers. Para-
islands can be adjusted depending on the pump bandwidth σ p and metric amplifiers are active elements requiring strong pumping and
the length LDM of the dispersive medium. are thus very resource intensive. Despite these demonstrated advan-
The cleanliness and thus better quality of the selected island tages, we still have many challenges, both fundamental and tech-
depend on the visibility of interference. This can be improved with nological, in the further development of the technique of SU(1,1)
a multi-stage design, presented in Sec. IV D, where the interfer- interferometers.
Nθ/2
ence term H(θ) = sin sin θ/2
will make the islands well separated with Among these advantageous properties, the ability to mix waves
increasing stage number N, as shown in Fig. 16. The improved vis- of different types in SU(1,1) interferometers will make them more
ibilities in the interference pattern shown in the marginal intensity promising than others for sensing applications in wide areas. It will
should give a cleaner JSF with better quality as N increases. How- be especially attractive to those waves that lack an efficient way
ever, the well-known mini-peaks of the H(θ) function between the of detection such as THz and far infrared waves. SU(1,1) interfer-
main islands are troublesome. Further shaping of the H(θ) function ometers allow sensing of phase changes in these waves but make
can be done with a design of uneven gain g k or gain medium length detection at other waves for which detection efficiency is high, so
Lk (g k ∝ Lk ) distribution among N PAs. It was shown that a binomial long as there is a coupling between these waves for nonlinear mix-
distribution Lk = L1 (N − 1)!/(k − 1)!(N − k)! (k = 1, 2, . . ., N) will ing. In fact, this idea has already been applied to spectral sens-
eliminate the mini-peaks, leading to an improved JSF.118 ing and imaging of an object with photons at one wavelength but
With SU(1,1) interferometers, there are many degrees of free- detecting at another.28,37–41 This should also widen our capability
dom for adjustment and fine tuning in the modification of the JSF to construct sensors for measuring a variety of physical quantities
of the two-photon state to achieve what we want. Although the through these waves. For example, coupling an atomic de Broglie
discussion is for the low gain case (g ≪ 1), it was shown exper- wave through translational degrees of freedom to light by super-
imentally that the interferometric technique works equally well in radiance87,88,119 will allow us to sense gravitational field. An all-
the high gain regime for the precise engineering of the mode struc- matter wave SU(1,1) interferometer can also be used to measure
ture of entangled fields in continuous variables.111,112,115,118 How- gravity and will require matter wave mixing85 for its realization.
ever, all the theoretical treatment112,118 in this case does not consider To make these applications possible, we need to look for nonlin-
the non-commuting property of the Hamiltonian between different ear mixing between waves of our interest. Of course, these inter-
PAs.71 actions may not be in the form of parametric interaction given
in Eq. (10) and the interferometers constructed with them will
not be SU(1,1)-type as we discussed in this paper. They will have
VII. SUMMARY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
totally different properties yet to be explored. An example is the
SU(1,1) interferometers are a new type of interferometers that engineered multi-particle interaction for phonons in trapped ion
employ nonlinear interactions such as parametric processes to split systems.120
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-16

© Author(s) 2020
The experimental realizations discussed in this paper are mostly aforementioned questions will likely broaden our knowledge and
proof-of-principle experiments, and they are operated under rel- applications of non-traditional interferometers.
atively small phase sensing photon numbers (I ps ). For their wide
applications in sensing, we still need to see how they can be adapted
to practical situations and different environments. For example, for ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
surpassing the performance of traditional interferometers in actual
The authors would like to thank the support from the National
sensing applications, we need to increase the absolute sensitivity.
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11527808 and
This is achieved by increasing the phase sensing photon number I ps .
91736105), the National Key Research and Development Program of
However, this usually leads to saturation of the parametric amplifiers
China (Grant No. 2016YFA0301403), and the US National Science
and other unwanted nonlinear effects such as self-phase modula-
Foundation (Grant No. 1806425).
tion in optical fibers. Perhaps, the solution to this problem lies in
the selection of operating points at relatively low overall gain of the
interferometer with double injection, as suggested in Ref. 10 and DATA AVAILABILITY
realized in Ref. 94. A recent proposal suggests to tap some of the
pump photons for sensing to increase I ps .25 Different applications Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were
require different variations of SU(1,1) interferometers. For exam- created or analyzed in this study.
ple, how can SU(1,1) interferometers be adapted to measure rota-
tion like Sagnac interferometers do? This is not obvious since the REFERENCES
SU(1,1) interferometers depend on the phase sum instead of phase 1
C. M. Caves, “Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer,” Phys. Rev. D
difference. 23, 1693 (1981).
To take the quantum advantages for realization of quantum 2
M. Xiao, L.-A. Wu, and H. J. Kimble, “Precision measurement beyond the shot-
sensing, we need to have an effective way to control the inter- noise limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 278 (1987).
nal losses of the interferometers. Although SU(1,1) interferometers 3
P. Grangier, R. E. Slusher, B. Yurke, and A. LaPorta, “Squeezed-light-enhanced
are relatively immune to external losses such as detection inef- polarization interferometer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2153 (1987).
4
ficiency, what limits the enhancement of sensitivity is the inter- J. Abadie et al., “A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum
nal losses experienced by the fields in between the two PAs or shot-noise limit,” Nat. Phys. 7, 962 (2011).
5
the losses suffered by the PAs.11,66 These losses will introduce H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slutsky, and H. Vahlbruch,
21 March 2024 11:51:28

“First long-term application of squeezed states of light in a gravitational-wave
uncorrelated vacuum noise that cannot be canceled by quantum
observatory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 181101 (2013).
destructive interference, leading to extra noise and reducing SNRs. 6
R. Schnabel, “Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferome-
This is not fundamental but poses practical challenges in device ters,” Phys. Rep. 684, 1 (2017).
construction. 7
B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, “SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers,”
As we discussed at the end of Secs. IV D and VI E, the high gain Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986).
8
case in multi-stage SU(1,1) has not been treated theoretically because Z. Y. Ou, “Fundamental quantum limit in precision phase measurement,” Phys.
of the issue of non-commuting Hamiltonian of different PAs. The Rev. A 55, 2598 (1997).
9
high gain regime of the parametric amplifier is important because it P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee,
can generate EPR-type quantum entanglement in continuous vari- and J. P. Dowling, “Quantum metrology with two-mode squeezed vacuum: Parity
detection beats the Heisenberg limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 103602 (2010).
ables.49,50 It is the basis for complete quantum state teleportation and 10
W. N. Plick, J. P. Dowling, and G. S. Agarwal, “Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot
quantum metrology applications. Thus, this will be a challenge for noise, quantum interferometry,” New J. Phys. 12, 083014 (2010).
future theoretical investigation of SU(1,1). 11
Z. Y. Ou, “Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyond the stan-
SU(1,1) interferometers have the potential to reach the ulti- dard quantum limit by a nonlinear interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 023815
mate Heisenberg limit (HL) of phase measurement sensitivity. How- (2012).
12
ever, as we have seen, internal losses are the main obstacle for J. Jing, C. Liu, Z. Zhou, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Realization of a nonlinear
improving sensitivity. How will losses affect the ability of SU(1,1) interferometer with parametric amplifiers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 011110 (2011).
13
interferometers to reach the Heisenberg limit? F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Quantum metrol-
The approach of SU(1,1) interferometers is to change the struc- ogy with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers,” Nat.
Commun. 5, 3049 (2014).
tures of interferometers by replacing beam splitters with paramet- 14
J. M. Lukens, N. A. Peters, and R. C. Pooser, “Naturally stable Sagnac-Michelson
ric amplifiers. This is in contrast to the approach of inputting dif- nonlinear interferometer,” Opt. Lett. 41, 5438 (2016).
ferent quantum states for sensing in traditional interferometers. It 15
B. E. Anderson, P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, T. Horrom, C. Hermann-
is known that parametric amplifiers are quantum devices produc- Avigliano, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, “Phase sensing beyond the standard
ing quantum states by themselves, whereas beam splitters are clas- quantum limit with a variation on the SU(1,1) interferometer,” Optica 4, 752
sical devices that do not produce quantum states by themselves (2017).
16
but rely on the injection of quantum states to achieve quantum M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, and M. Chekhova, “Detection loss tolerant
sensing. The former approach can be thought of as the hardware supersensitive phase measurement with an SU(1,1) interferometer,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 119, 223604 (2017).
change of devices, whereas the latter as the software program- 17
X. Guo, N. Liu, X. Li, Y. Liu, and Z. Y. Ou, “Noise figure improvement and quan-
ming of input states. The general condition for optimum quantum tum information tapping in a fiber optical parametric amplifier with correlated
states was derived before.8 Is there an optimum interaction or hard- quantum fields,” Sci. Rep. 6, 30214 (2016).
ware design in the construction of the non-traditional interferom- 18
J. M. Lukens, R. C. Pooser, and N. A. Peters, “A broadband fiber-optic nonlinear
eters for sensing or other applications? Answer to this and other interferometer,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 091103 (2018).
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-17

© Author(s) 2020
19 44
Y. Liu, J. Li, L. Cui, N. Huo, S. M. Assad, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Loss-tolerant H. P. Yuen and V. W. S. Chan, “Noise in homodyne and heterodyne detection,”
quantum dense metrology with SU(1,1) interferometer,” Opt. Express 26, 27705 Opt. Lett. 8, 177 (1983).
(2018). 45
Z. Y. Ou and Q. Su, “Uncertainty in determining the phase for an optical field
20
D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “The phase sensitivity of an due to the particle nature of light,” Laser Phys. 13, 1175 (2003).
SU(1,1) interferometer with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light,” New J. Phys. 46
D. F. Walls, “Squeezed states of light,” Nature 306, 141 (1983).
16, 073020 (2014). 47
P. Luca and A. Smerzi, “Mach-Zehnder interferometry at the Heisenberg
21
D. Li, B. T. Gard, Y. Gao, C.-H. Yuan, W. Zhang, L. Hwang, and J. P. Dowling, limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073601
“Phase sensitivity at the Heisenberg limit in an SU(1,1) interferometer via parity (2008).
detection,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 063840 (2016). 48
M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, “Optimal quantum-enhanced interferometry using
22
S. Adhikari, N. Bhusal, C. You, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, “Phase estimation a laser power source,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 173601 (2013).
in an SU(1,1) interferometer with displaced squeezed states,” OSA Continuum 1, 49
M. D. Reid, “Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox using
438 (2018). nondegenerate parametric amplification,” Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989).
23
B. E. Anderson, B. L. Schmittberger, P. Gupta, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, 50
Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble, and K. C. Peng, “Realization of the
“Optimal phase measurements with bright- and vacuum-seeded SU(1,1) interfer- Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68,
ometers,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 063843 (2017). 3663 (1992).
24
Q.-K. Gong, X.-L. Hu, D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Intramode- 51
B. Chen, C. Qiu, S. Chen, J. Guo, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Atom-
correlation-enhanced phase sensitivities in an SU(1,1) interferometer,” Phys. light hybrid interferometer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 043602 (2015).
Rev. A 96, 033809 (2017). 52
J. M. Manley and H. E. Rowe, “Some General Properties of Nonlinear Elements
25
S. S. Szigeti, R. J. Lewis-Swan, and S. A. Haine, “Pumped-up SU(1,1) interfer- - Part I: General Energy Relations,” Proc. Inst. Radio Eng. 44, 904 (1956); see also
ometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150401 (2017). R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, San Diego, 2007).
26
X.-L. Hu, D. Li, L. Q. Chen, K. Zhang, W. Zhang, and C.-H. Yuan, “Phase 53
C. M. Caves, “Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers,” Phys. Rev. D 26,
estimation for an SU(1,1) interferometer in the presence of phase diffusion and 1817 (1982).
photon losses,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 023803 (2018). 54
G. J. Milburn, M. L. Steyn-Ross, and D. F. Walls, “Linear amplifiers with phase-
27
P. D. Maker, R. W. Terhune, M. Nisenoff, and C. M. Savage, “Effects of disper- sensitive noise,” Phys. Rev. A 35, 4443 (1987).
sion and focusing on the production of optical harmonics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 21 55
Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, and H. J. Kimble, “Quantum noise reduction in optical
(1962). amplification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3239 (1993).
28
D. A. Kalashnikov, A. V. Paterova, S. P. Kulik, and L. A. Krivitsky, “Infrared 56
Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, and H. J. Kimble, “Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-
spectroscopy with visible light,” Nat. Photonics 10, 98 (2015). Rosen paradox for continuous variables in nondegenerate parametric amplifica-
29
S.-K. Choi, M. Vasilyev, and P. Kumar, “Noiseless optical amplification of tion,” Appl. Phys. B 55, 265 (1992).
images,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1938 (1999). 57
21 March 2024 11:51:28

30
S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, “Dense coding for continuous variables,”
A. Mosset, F. Devaux, and E. Lantz, “Spatially noiseless optical amplification of Phys. Rev. A 61, 042302 (2000).
images,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 223603 (2005). 58
J. Kong, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Phase-measurement sensitivity beyond the
31
A. M. Pérez, T. Sh. Iskhakov, P. Sharapova, S. Lemieux, O. V. Tikhonova, standard quantum limit in an interferometer consisting of a parametric amplifier
M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, “Bright squeezed-vacuum source with 1.1 spatial and a beam splitter,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 023825 (2013).
mode,” Opt. Lett. 39, 2403 (2014). 59
Z. Y. Ou, “Quantum amplification with correlated quantum fields,” Phys.
32
T. Sh. Iskhakov, S. Lemieux, A. Perez, R. W. Boyd, G. Leuchs, and M. V. Rev. A 48, R1761 (1993).
Chekhova, “Nonlinear interferometer for tailoring the frequency spectrum of 60
J. Kong, F. Hudelist, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Cancellation of internal quan-
bright squeezed vacuum,” J. Mod. Opt. 63, 64 (2015). tum noise of an amplifier by quantum correlation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 033608
33
L. Mandel, “Quantum effects in one-photon and two-photon interference,” Rev. (2013).
Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999). 61
J. Li, Y. Liu, L. Cui, N. Huo, S. M. Assad, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Joint measurement
34
Z.-Y. J. Ou, Multi-Photon Quantum Interference (Springer, New York, 2007). of multiple noncommuting parameters,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 052127 (2018).
35 62
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum M. Manceau, F. Khalili, and M. Chekhova, “Improving the phase super-
computation with linear optics,” Nature 409, 46 (2001). sensitivity of squeezing-assisted interferometers by squeeze factor unbalancing,”
36
X. Y. Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel, “Induced coherence and indistinguisha- New J. Phys. 19, 013014 (2017).
bility in optical interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991). 63
W. Du, J. Jia, J. F. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Absolute sensitivity
37
G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz, and of phase measurement in an SU(1,1) type interferometer,” Opt. Lett. 43, 1051
A. Zeilinger, “Quantum imaging with undetected photons,” Nature 512(7515), (2018).
409 (2014). 64
J. Li, Y. Liu, N. Huo, L. Cui, C. Feng, Z. Y. Ou, and X. Li, “Pulsed entanglement
38
A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, R. Lapkiewicz, G. B. Lemos, and A. Zeilinger, “Quan- measured by parametric amplifier assisted homodyne detection,” Opt. Express 27,
tifying the momentum correlation between two light beams by detecting one,” 30552 (2019).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 1508 (2017). 65
E. Flurin, N. Roch, F. Mallet, M. H. Devoret, and B. Huard, “Generating entan-
39
A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, R. Lapkiewicz, G. B. Lemos, and A. Zeilinger, gled microwave radiation over two transmission lines,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,
“Interference fringes controlled by noninterfering photons,” Optica 4, 341 (2017). 183901 (2012).
40 66
A. V. Paterova, S. M. Maniam, H. Yang, G. Grenci, and L. A. Krivit- A. M. Marino, N. V. Corzo Trejo, and P. D. Lett, “Effect of losses on
sky, “Hyperspectral infrared microscopy with visible light,” arXiv:2002.05956 the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A 86, 023844
(2020). (2012).
41 67
I. Kviatkovsky, H. M. Chrzanowski, E. G. Avery, H. Bartolomaeus, and A. Furusawa, J. L. Sorensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S.
S. Ramelow, “Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared,” Polzik, “Unconditional quantum teleportation,” Science 282, 706 (1998).
arXiv:2002.05960 (2020). 68
R. C. Pooser, N. Savino, E. Batson, J. L. Beckey, J. Garcia, and B. J. Lawrie, “Trun-
42
M. V. Chekhova and Z. Y. Ou, “Nonlinear interferometers in quantum optics,” cated nonlinear interferometry for quantum enhanced atomic force microscopy,”
Adv. Opt. Photonics 8, 104 (2016). Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230504 (2020).
43 69
P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, B. E. Anderson, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, “Opti- Y. Liu, N. Huo, J. Li, L. Cui, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Optimum quantum resource
mized phase sensing in a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer,” Opt. Express 26, 391 distribution for phase measurement and quantum information tapping in a dual-
(2018). beam SU(1,1) interferometer,” Opt. Express 27, 11292 (2019).
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-18

© Author(s) 2020
70 95
Z. Y. Ou and Y. J. Lu, “Cavity enhanced spontaneous parametric down- J. Zhang and K. Peng, “Quantum teleportation and dense coding by means of
conversion for the prolongation of correlation time between conjugate photons,” bright amplitude-squeezed light and direct measurement of a Bell state,” Phys.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2556 (1999). Rev. A 62, 064302 (2000).
71 96
N. Quesada and J. E. Sipe, “Effects of time ordering in quantum nonlinear S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, M. Meinders, H. Müller-Ebhardt, K. Danz-
optics,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 063840 (2014). mann, and R. Schnabel, “Quantum dense metrology,” Nat. Photonics 7, 626
72
W. H. Louisell, Coupled Mode and Parametric Electronics (Wiley, New York, (2013).
1960). 97
S. M. Assad, J. Li, Y. Liu, N. Zhao, Z. Wen, P. K. Lam, Z. Y. Ou, and X. Li,
73
N. Roch, E. Flurin, F. F. Nguyen, P. Morfin, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, M. H. “Accessible precisions for estimating two conjugate parameters using Gaussian
Devoret, and B. Huard, “Widely tunable, nondegenerate three-wave mixing probes,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023182 (2020).
microwave device operating near the quantum limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 147701 98
O. Aytür and P. Kumar, “Pulsed twin beams of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1551
(2012). (1990).
74 99
L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Long-distance quantum J. H. Shapiro, “Optical waveguide tap with infinitesimal insertion loss,” Opt.
communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics,” Nature 414, 413 (2001). Lett. 5, 351 (1980).
75 100
K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, “Quantum interface between R. Bruckmeier, H. Hansen, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, “Realization of a
light and atomic ensembles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010). paradigm for quantum measurements: The squeezed light beam splitter,” Phys.
76
C. Qiu, S. Chen, L. Q. Chen, B. Chen, J. Guo, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, “Atom- Rev. Lett. 79, 43 (1997).
light superposition oscillation and Ramsey-like atom-light interferometer,” Optica 101
J. A. Levenson, I. Abram, T. Rivera, P. Fayolle, J. C. Garreau, and P. Grangier,
3, 775 (2016). “Quantum optical cloning amplifier,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 267 (1993).
77 102
S. Y. Chen, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Hang, “Quantum non-demolition N. Liu, J. Li, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Three-way noiseless signal splitting in
measurement of photon number with atom-light interferometers,” Opt. Express a parametric amplifier with quantum correlation,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 063838
25, 31827 (2017). (2016).
78 103
S. Haroche, “Controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to C. Gross, H. Strobel, E. Nicklas, T. Zibold, N. Bar-Gill, G. Kurizki, and M. K.
classical boundary,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1083 (2013). Oberthaler, “Atomic homodyne detection of continuous-variable entangled twin-
79
M. Gabbrielli, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, “Spin-mixing interferometry with Bose- atom states,” Nature 480, 219 (2011).
Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 163002 (2015). 104
J. Peise, I. Kruse, K. Lange, B. Lücke, L. Pezzé, J. Arlt, W. Ertmer, K. Hammerer,
80
D. Linnemann, H. Strobel, W. Muessel, J. Schulz, R. J. Lewis-Swan, K. V. L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, “Satisfying the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
Kheruntsyan, and M. K. Oberthaler, “Quantum-enhanced sensing based on time criterion with massive particles,” Nat. Commun. 6, 8984 (2015).
reversal of nonlinear dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 013001 (2016). 105
L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Inseparability criterion for
81
L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. continuous variable systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000).
Phys. 90, 035005 (2018). 106
J. Li, Y. Liu, N. Huo, L. Cui, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Measuring continuous-
21 March 2024 11:51:28

82
A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, “Optics and interferometry variable quantum entanglement with parametric-amplifier-assisted homodyne
with atoms and molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1051 (2009). detection,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 053801 (2020).
83 107
S. Inouye, T. Pfau, S. Gupta, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. E. Pritchard, and C. Fabre and N. Treps, “Modes and states in quantum optics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.
W. Ketterle, “Phase-coherent amplification of atomic matter waves,” Nature 402, (to be published), arXiv:1912.09321.
641 (1999). 108
Z. Y. Ou, Quantum Optics for Experimentalists (World Scientific, 2017).
84
M. Kozuma, Y. Suzuki, Y. Torii, T. Sugiura, T. Kuga, E. W. Hagley, and L. Deng, 109
G. Frascella, E. E. Mikhailov, N. Takanashi, R. V. Zakharov, O. V. Tikhonova,
“Phase-coherent amplification of matter waves,” Science 286, 2309 (1999). and M. V. Chekhova, “Wide-field SU(1,1) interferometer,” Optica 6, 1233
85
L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, J. Wen, M. Trippenbach, Y. Band, P. S. Julienne, J. E. (2019).
Simsarian, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, “Four-wave mixing 110
G. Frascella, R. V. Zakharov, O. V. Tikhonova, and M. V. Chekhova, “Experi-
with matter waves,” Nature 398, 218 (1999). mental reconstruction of spatial Schmidt modes for a wide-field SU(1,1) interfer-
86
S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, D. E. Pritchard, and ometer,” Laser Phys. 29, 124013 (2019).
W. Ketterle, “Superradiant Rayleigh scattering from a Bose-Einstein condensate,” 111
S. Lemieux, M. Manceau, P. R. Sharapova, O. V. Tikhonova, R. W. Boyd,
Science 285, 571 (1999). G. Leuchs, and M. V. Chekhova, “Engineering the frequency spectrum of bright
87
D. Schneble, G. Campbell, E. Streed, M. Boyd, D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, squeezed vacuum via group velocity dispersion in an SU(1,1) interferometer,”
“Raman amplification of matter waves,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 041601(R) (2004). Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 183601 (2016).
88 112
Y. Yoshikawa, T. Sugiura, Y. Torii, and T. Kuga, “Observation of super-radiant P. R. Sharapova, O. V. Tikhonova, S. Lemieux, R. W. Boyd, and M. V.
Raman scattering in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 041603(R) Chekhova, “Bright squeezed vacuum in a nonlinear interferometer: Fre-
(2004). quency and temporal Schmidt-mode description,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 053827
89
C. K. Law, “Interaction between a moving mirror and radiation pressure—A (2018).
Hamiltonian formulation,” Phys. Rev. A 51, 2537 (1995). 113
J. Su, L. Cui, J. Li, Y. Liu, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Versatile and precise quan-
90
K. Qu, C. Dong, H. Wang, and G. S. Agarwal, “Optomechanical Ramsey tum state engineering by using nonlinear interferometers,” Opt. Express 27, 20479
interferometry,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 053809 (2014). (2019).
91 114
Y. S. Patil, S. Chakram, L. Chang, and M. Vengalattore, “Thermomechanical D. B. Horoshko, M. I. Kolobov, F. Gumpert, I. Shand, F. König, and
two-mode squeezing in an ultrahigh-Q membrane resonator,” Phys. Rev. Lett. M. V. Chekhova, “Nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer with ultra broadband
115, 017202 (2015). squeezed light,” J. Mod. Opt. 67, 41 (2020).
92 115
H. F. H. Cheung, Y. S. Patil, L. Chang, S. Chakram, and M. Vengalattore, N. Huo, Y. Liu, J. Li, L. Cui, X. Chen, R. Palivela, T. Xie, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou,
“Nonlinear phonon interferometry at the Heisenberg limit,” arXiv:1601.02324 “Direct temporal mode measurement for the characterization of temporally mul-
(2016). tiplexed high dimensional quantum entanglement in continuous variables,” Phys.
93 Rev. Lett. 124, 213603 (2020).
M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A.
116
Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: J. Li, J. Su, L. Cui, T. Xie, Z. Y. Ou, and X. Li, “Generation of pure-state
From concepts to applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009). single photons with high heralding efficiency by using a three-stage nonlinear
94 interferometer,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 204002 (2020).
X. Li, Q. Pan, J. Jing, J. Zhang, C. Xie, and K. Peng, “Quantum dense coding
117
exploiting a bright Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 047904 C. Reimer, S. Sciara, P. Roztocki, M. Islam, L. Romero Cortés, Y. Zhang,
(2002). B. Fischer, S. Loranger, R. Kashyap, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss,
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-19

© Author(s) 2020
119
L. Caspani, W. J. Munro, J. Azaña, M. Kues, and R. Morandotti, “High- S. A. Haine, “Information-recycling beam splitters for quantum enhanced
dimensional one-way quantum processing implemented on d-level cluster states,” atom interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 053002 (2013).
Nat. Phys. 15, 148 (2019). 120
D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, M. Rowe, A. Ben-Kish, J. Britton, W. M.
118
L. Cui, J. Su, J. Li, Y. Liu, X. Li, and Z. Y. Ou, “Quantum state engi- Itano, B. Jelenković, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, “Trapped-
neering by nonlinear quantum interference,” Phys. Rev. A (to be published), ion quantum simulator: Experimental application to nonlinear interferometers,”
arXiv:1811.07646v2 [quant-ph]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 247901 (2002).
21 March 2024 11:51:28
APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-20

© Author(s) 2020

080902_1_online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

080902_1_online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

080902_1_online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH ARTICLE | AUGUST 10 2020

Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles and

APL Photonics 5, 080902 (2020)

21 March 2024 11:51:28

Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles

Z. Y. Ou1,2,a) and Xiaoying Li1,a)

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-1

effects have some interesting applications in spectroscopy,28 opti-

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-2

measurement sensitivity that is achievable with a classical probing

21 March 2024 11:51:28

state |r⟩ into the unused port âin

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-3

21 March 2024 11:51:28

The first property of in-phase fringes was demonstrated exper-

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-4

ble to obtain any phase change information in the intensity dif-

21 March 2024 11:51:28

= (G21 + g12 )(G22 + g22 ) 3. Quantum noiseless amplification due to noise

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-5

recently demonstrated60 with an arrangement similar to an SU(1,1) 4g22 Ips δ2

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-6

flat floor is the noise level of measurement. As can be seen, both

21 March 2024 11:51:28

It has been known almost since the discovery of squeezed states

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-7

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-8

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-9

by a unitary evolution operator,

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-10

the SU(1,1) interferometer in a spinor Bose–Einstein condensate was

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-11

FIG. 12. Atomic SU(1,1) interferome-

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-12

21 March 2024 11:51:28

FIG. 13. Simultaneous phase (δ) and

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-13

⟨Δ2 X̂1 ⟩ = ⟨Δ2 (GX̂1 − g X̂2 )⟩

21 March 2024 11:51:28

scheme from an SU(1,1) interferometer was realized by Guo et al.,17

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-14

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-15

FIG. 16. Contour plot of the joint spectral function F(Ωs , Ωi )

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-16

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-17

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-18

21 March 2024 11:51:28

APL Photon. 5, 080902 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0004873 5, 080902-19