The quantum Fisher information (QFI) in SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers was considered, and the QFI-only calculation was overestimated. In general, the phase estimation as a two-parameter estimation problem, and the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) is necessary. In this paper, we theoretically generalize the model developed by Escher et al [Nature Physics 7, 406 (2011)] to the QFIM case with noise and study the ultimate precision limits of SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers with photon losses because photon losses as a very usual noise may happen to the phase measurement process. Using coherent state and squeezed vacuum state as a specific example, we numerically analyze the variation of the overestimated QFI with the loss coefficient, and find its disappearance and recovery phenomenon.
The quantum Fisher information (QFI) in SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers was considered, and the QFI-only calculation was overestimated. In general, the phase estimation as a two-parameter estimation problem, and the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) is necessary. In this paper, we theoretically generalize the model developed by Escher et al [Nature Physics 7, 406 (2011)] to the QFIM case with noise and study the ultimate precision limits of SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers with photon losses because photon losses as a very usual noise may happen to the phase measurement process. Using coherent state and squeezed vacuum state as a specific example, we numerically analyze the variation of the overestimated QFI with the loss coefficient, and find its disappearance and recovery phenomenon.
In this paper, we revisit the quantum Fisher information (QFI) calculation in SU(1,1) interferometer considering different phase configurations. When one of the input modes is a vacuum state, we show by using phase averaging, different phase configurations give the same QFI. In addition, by casting the phase estimation as a two-parameter estimation problem, we show that the calculation of the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) is necessary in general. Particularly, within this setup, the phase-averaging method is equivalent to a two-parameter estimation problem. We also calculate the phase sensitivity for different input states using QFIM approach.
The fundamental precision limit of an interferometer is crucial since it bounds the best possible sensitivity one could achieve using such a device. This thesis will focus on several different interferometers and try to give the ultimate precision bounds by carefully counting all the resources used in the interferometers. The thesis begins with the basics of the quantum state of light. The fundamentals of quantum metrology are also reviewed and discussed. More specifically, the terminology of classical and quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound and classical and quantum Fisher information are introduced. Chapter 3 discusses the conclusive precision bounds in two-mode interferometer such as Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) and SU(1,1) interferometer. I revisit the quantum Fisher information approach of these two interferometers and show the discrepancy of phase sensitivity on the physically same setup. Then I establish fundamental precision estimation bounds for such device, due to the reason that many works of literature fail to accurately count the resources and knowledge of phase-to-be-estimated used in the interferometers. The analysis suggests that for a MZI, one can never do better than SNL in phase sensitivity, when an input to one of the two ports is the vacuum. If one does not allow the detector to use any external phase reference or power resource, then the precision is limited by the SNL. For a SU(1,1) interferometer, firstly, when one of the input states is restricted to be a vacuum state, I showed that by using either the phase-averaging method or the quantum Fisher information matrix method, different phase configurations of the SU(1,1) interferometer result in the same QFI. Secondly, I compared the results of the phase-averaging method and the quantum Fisher information matrix method, and then I argued that for an SU(1,1) interferometer, phase averaging or quantum Fisher information matrix method is generally required, and they are equivalent. Finally, I used the quantum Fisher information matrix method to calculate the precision limit for other common input states, such as two coherent state inputs or coherent state with squeezed vacuum inputs. In chapter 4, I will consider a passive multi-mode interferometer for multiparameter phase estimation. It was suggested that optical networks with relatively inexpensive overhead---single photon Fock states, passive optical elements, and single photon detection---can show significant improvements over classical strategies for single-parameter estimation, when the number of modes in the network is small. In this chapter, I analytically compute the quantum Cramer-Rao bound to show these
Abstract We derive a general phase-matching condition (PMC) for enhancement of sensitivity in SU(1,1) interferometers. Under this condition, the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of two-mode SU(1,1) interferometry becomes maximal with respect to the relative phase of two modes, for the case of an arbitrary state in one input port and an even (odd) state in the other port, and the phase sensitivity is enhanced. We also find that optimal parameters can let the QFI in some areas achieve the Heisenberg limit for both pure and mixed initial states. As examples, we consider several input states: coherent and even coherent states, squeezed vacuum and even coherent states, squeezed thermal and even coherent states. Furthermore, in the realistic scenario of the photon loss channel, we investigate the effect of photon losses on QFI with numerical studies. We find the PMC remains unchanged and is not affected by the transmission coefficients for the above input states. Our results suggest that the PMC can exist in various kinds of interferometers and the phase-matching is robust to even strong photon losses.
We consider an optical interferometer with coherent light in one input and a squeezed vacuum in another. Such an interferometer is known to beat the standard quantum limit of sensitivity to the difference of phase shifts in its arms. We find the ultimate limit of precision for such an interferometer by calculating the quantum Fisher information of the mixed quantum state in one of the interferometer's outputs about the difference phase. We show that, in the vicinity of the black fringe, this information is asymptotically close to the quantum Fisher information about this phase for the two-mode readout. We conclude that the single-mode readout is optimal for phase estimation in squeezing-enhanced interferometry and allows for the Heisenberg scaling of precision. We also show that the optimal local measurement in the vicinity of the black fringe consists of amplifying the output field in a phase-sensitive way and measuring its photon number.
Phase estimation has a wide range of applications. Over the years, several strategies have been studied to improve precision in phase estimation. These strategies include using exotic quantum states to quantum detection schemes. This dissertation summarizes my effort in improving the precision of phase estimation with a linear and nonlinear interferometer. Chapter 1 introduces quantum optics and quantum metrology. I introduce all relevant quantum states of light used. We also look into tools and terminologies of quantum metrology such as Fisher information, shot-noise limit, Heisenberg limit, etc., along with examples of phase estimation with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In Chapter 2, I discuss multiple phase estimation using a multimode interferometer. Building upon previous work, our scheme consists of a multimode interferometer with single-photon inputs. By using a quantum Fisher information analysis, we show that our scheme gives a constant improvement over other schemes. We also show that our scheme with photon-number-resolving detection approaches the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound. Moreover, we also consider the probabilistic nature of photon emission at the input, and we study its effect on phase sensitivity. I discuss phase estimation with SU(1,1) interferometer in Chapter 3. We look at phase sensitivity in this interferometer with different input states. Namely, we consider two different phase estimation scheme, one using thermal and squeezed states, and others using coherent and displaced squeezed states with parity and on-off as a detection scheme. We also look into the effect of photon loss inside the interferometer. In Chapter 4, we revisit phase estimation in SU(1,1) interferometer from the perspective of quantum Fisher information. I discuss in detail a longstanding confusion regarding the use of quantum Fisher information in SU(1,1) interferometer. We show that phase averaging or quantum Fisher information matrix method is needed in general for calculating the phase sensitivity which resolves inconsistencies reported in previously published articles.
We theoretically derive the lower and upper bounds of quantum Fisher information (QFI) of an SU(1,1) interferometer whatever the input state chosen. According to the QFI, the crucial resource for quantum enhancement is shown to be large intramode correlations indicated by the Mandel Q parameter. The subtraction of photons from the squeezed vacuum state has the effect of increasing the average photon number of the new field state, as well as the intramode correlations. For example, for a coherent state $\ensuremath{\bigotimes}$ a squeezed vacuum state with a given fixed input mean number of photons as the input, if p photons are subtracted from the squeezed-vacuum state before inputting the SU(1,1) interferometer, the phase sensitivities can be improved due to the intramode-correlation increment.