The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Noise in homodyne detection
Abstract
A simple but rigorous analysis of the important sources of noise in homodyne detection is presented. Output noise and signal-to-noise ratios are compared for direct detection, conventional (one-port) homodyning, and two-port homodyning, in which one monitors both output ports of a 50-50 beam splitter. It is shown that two-port homodyning is insensitive to local-oscillator quadrature-phase noise and hence provides (1) a means of detecting reduced quadrature-phase fluctuations (squeezing) that is perhaps more practical than one-port homodyning and (2) an output signal-to-noise ratio that can be a modest to significant improvement over that of one-port homodyning and direct detection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer
Caves, C. M. (1981) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.1693 · Cited by 3,202
Metadata
- Authors
- Schumaker, B. L.
- Venue
- Optics Letters
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- Published
- 1984-05-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 189
- ISSN
- 0146-9592 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-4794
- OpenAlex
- W2003148036
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noise in homodyne detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1364/ol.9.000189
- The paper
- Schumaker, B. L. (1984). Noise in homodyne detection. Optics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1364/ol.9.000189
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
