Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu

Preparation of squeezed spin states of atoms for subquantum interferometry

Galina F. Grom, A. Kuzmich

Published Jun 1, 1995• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Spin Squeezing and Non-linear Atom Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensates

Christan Groß

Springer theses•Jan 1, 2012•10 citations

Spin-squeezed atom interferometry and sensor networks

Mark A. Kasevich, Benjamin K. Malia

Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology II•Mar 8, 2023•0 citations

Precision atom interferometry with squeezed atomic states

Mark A. Kasevich

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 3, 2020•0 citations

Engineering Spin-Squeezed States for Quantum-Enhanced Atom Interferometry

Nils J. Engelsen, Onur Hosten, Rajiv Krishnakumar +1 more

We create up to 20 dB spin-squeezed states of atomic ensembles using an optical cavity-based measurement. The prepared states are suitable for atomic sensors that require free space release of the atoms.

Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics•Jan 1, 2016•2 citations

Towards atom interferometry with squeezed states

Baochen Wu, Graham P. Greve, James K. Thompson

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•May 31, 2018•0 citations

Effects of systematic error on quantum-enhanced atom interferometry

Joshua Goldsmith, J. J. Hope, Simon A. Haine

We develop a framework for describing the effects of systematic state-preparation error in quantum-enhanced atom interferometry on sensing performance. We do this in the context of both spin-squeezed and non-Gaussian states for the two-axis-twisting (TAT), one-axis-twisting (OAT), and twist-and-turn (TNT) state-preparation schemes, and derive general conditions for robustness and susceptibility of quantum states to state-preparation error. In the spin-squeezing regime, we find that OAT is more susceptible to state-preparation error than TAT due to its parameter-dependent phase-space rotation. In the non-Gaussian regime, we find that OAT is robust to state-preparation errors, which can be explained by a small ratio of off-diagonal to diagonal elements in its Fisher-covariance matrix. In contrast, TNT does not exhibit this robustness. We find that the single-parameter unbiased estimators that are habitually used in quantum-enhanced atom interferometry are not always optimal, and that there may be occasions where biased estimators, or two-parameter unbiased estimators, lead to lower net error.

arXiv:2410.00341•Physical Review A•May 12, 2025•2 citations
We develop a framework for describing the effects of systematic state-preparation error in quantum-enhanced atom interferometry on sensing performance. We do this in the context of both spin-squeezed and non-Gaussian states for the two-axis-twisting (TAT), one-axis-twisting (OAT), and twist-and-turn (TNT) state-preparation schemes, and derive general conditions for robustness and susceptibility of quantum states to state-preparation error. In the spin-squeezing regime, we find that OAT is more susceptible to state-preparation error than TAT due to its parameter-dependent phase-space rotation. In the non-Gaussian regime, we find that OAT is robust to state-preparation errors, which can be explained by a small ratio of off-diagonal to diagonal elements in its Fisher-covariance matrix. In contrast, TNT does not exhibit this robustness. We find that the single-parameter unbiased estimators that are habitually used in quantum-enhanced atom interferometry are not always optimal, and that there may be occasions where biased estimators, or two-parameter unbiased estimators, lead to lower net error.