Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication

Topics

Photonic Quantum Computing

Breaking Rayleigh's curse for two unbalanced single-photon emitters: BLESS technique

arXiv
Authors: Konstantin Katamadze, Boris Bantysh, Andrey Chernyavskiy, Yurii Bogdanov, Sergei Kulik

Year

2021

Paper ID

40267

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

76

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Rayleigh's criterion states that resolving point sources below the point spread function width is impossible, with error increasing at shorter distances, known as Rayleigh's curse. While detection mode shaping solves this for equal sources, it fails for unbalanced sources with unknown brightness ratios. We propose BLESS, a technique using Beam moduLation and Examination of Shot Statistics, breaking Rayleigh's curse for unbalanced sources. Classical and quantum Cramer-Rao bound calculations show BLESS's strong potential for real imaging experiments.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Photonic Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Rayleigh's criterion states that resolving point sources below the point spread function width is impossible, with error increasing at shorter distances, known as Rayleigh's curse.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2112.13244 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13244 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13244

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #40267

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.