Abstract
1. Introduction
Imaging is one of the most important applications in optics, ranging from microscopy to astronomy. Achieving higher resolution is the main task in the imaging problem, while the conventional imaging system is limited to the diffraction of light, which is defined by Rayleigh[1] and known as the Rayleigh criterion. The Rayleigh criterion indicates that two incoherent point sources are regarded as just resolved when the maximum of the illuminance produced by one point coincides with the first minimum of the illuminance produced by the other point. Many theoretical works and technical methods have been proposed to improve the imaging resolution, such as scanning electron microscopy[2,3] and stimulated emission depletion[4,5]. These methods aim to get a narrower point spread function (PSF), which do not overcome the Rayleigh resolution limit in principle.
With the development of quantum mechanics and statistics, whether distinguishing two point sources in quantum formulation could beat the Rayleigh resolution limit or not has been re-examined. For this purpose, imaging was cast as a parameter estimation problem[6–8]. Direct imaging based on intensity measurement leads to infinite uncertainty of separation estimation, as two incoherent point sources are close enough, which is called Rayleigh’s curse[9], while the fundamental precision limit of the estimation quantified by quantum Fisher information[10] remains a constant. In the few years since, many other works expanded this problem to more realistic scenarios[11–21]. The works mentioned above only consider incoherent sources, while imaging an object with coherent light is also an essential problem. It has been shown that the resolution of two coherent point sources depends on the relative phase between them[22,23], and degree of coherence plays a key role in the resolution[24,25]. In recent years, two point sources’ resolution with partial coherence provoked wide discussions[26–28]. It was shown that the existence of coherence will reduce the resolution of two point sources when the separation tends to zero, and Rayleigh’s curse will be resurgent in the completely coherent case[26]. This conclusion has been extensively debated[27–29], mainly focusing on the accuracy of the model and how to parameterize the coherence. Ref. [30] points out that the number of total photons detected by measurement devices is changed by the degree of coherence, which is the main controversy in previous works. In this work, we renormalize the quantum state in the imaging plane and model the imaging problem in terms of the coherence of the sources, and this modeling approach gives a clear picture of the effect of the sources’ coherence on the resolution, as well as the change in coherence during the transmission of the optical field. In addition, we also consider the degree of coherence changes with the separation of two sources, which is a ubiquitous effect in practical imaging applications. We will give the optimal measurement method for both cases.
2. Theory
We begin with two partially coherent point sources with the transverse positions and in the object plane. The initial state can be modeled as a probabilistic mixture of incoherent and coherent in-phase components,
Sign up for Chinese Optics Letters TOC. Get the latest issue of Chinese Optics Letters delivered right to you!Sign up now
Next, we will consider two cases. (i) The degree of coherence is independent on the separation between two sources. (ii) The degree of coherence changes with . An example of the latter case is that the two sources are illuminated by an incoherent source, which is shown in Fig. 1. According to the Van Cittert–Zernike theorem, the relation between the degree of coherence of two point sources, , in positions and , and intensity distribution of illumination source can be stated mathematically by
Figure 1.An example of two point sources with partial coherence. Two point objects are illuminated by an incoherent optical source. Even though the illumination source is completely incoherent, photons arriving at two points in the object plane may share the common origin, which exhibits partial coherence.
To estimate , we can perform a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) denoted by on , and get the probabilities , from which we can derive an unbiased parameter estimator as well as its variance . The variance of trials is bounded by the Cramér–Rao inequality, [10,31,32], with the Fisher information (FI) defined by
Upon writing in its eigenbasis, , quantum Fisher information (QFI) for the parameter can be calculated by[12,31]
Furthermore, the quantum state defined by Eq. (3) is rank-2. Therefore the QFI can be reduced to a simpler form[12],
By using the condition of the inversion-symmetric PSF, we can get , for any odd . Therefore, Eq. (9) can be further simplified,
Because the two point sources are in-phase, we can consider that and are real functions. The FI of direct imaging is defined by . To illustrate the results, we consider, for convenience, Gaussian PSF with a normalized coordinate with respect to the PSF’s width.
3. Results
For a constant degree of coherence, Fig. 2 shows that QFI varies with the change of the separation , which has a small difference from Fig. 3 in Ref. [26], mainly due to the parameterization of coherence. We reproduce the results in Ref. [28] in a different way and confirm the validity of that. In the limit , which corresponds to the incoherent model, QFI is independent of . While , which is the totally coherent case, QFI tends to zero when equals zero, and Rayleigh’s curse is resurgent.
Figure 2.QFI for the estimation of the separation of two partially coherent sources with different degrees of coherence p; the FI of SPADE equals the QFI.
Figure 3.QFI and FI of direct imaging with the intensity measurement Fd for the estimation of the separation of two partially coherent sources with separation-dependent degree of coherence p; even though QFI drops to zero as the separation approaches zero, in the sub-Rayleigh region, where s < 2, QFI is much larger than Fd. QFI and FI meet at large separation.
Spatial-mode demultiplexing (SPADE), which projects the light field into Hermite–Gaussian (HG) spatial modes[9], is an optimal measurement method for resolving two incoherent point sources. We will demonstrate that it is also optimal when the two sources are partially coherent and the degree of coherence is a constant. Here, we adopt the method in Ref. [17], where displaced Gaussian PSF can be expanded in the HG basis,
The above analysis just considers the situation that the degree of coherence is a constant. However, the degree of coherence may change with the separation in practice. For example, as previously stated, . Next, we consider the precision of different measurement methods. As shown in Fig. 3, the FI of direct imaging tends to zero when the separation approaches zero. QFI derivated by Eq. (10) also drops to zero for infinitesimal separation. Rayleigh’s curse cannot be avoided. However, in the sub-Rayleigh region where the separation is smaller than the width of the PSF, i.e., , the QFI is much larger than , which indicates that there exists room to improve the resolution in this region.
Next, we will give the measurement methods for resolving sources with a separation-dependent degree of coherence. As shown in Fig. 3, direct imaging cannot saturate quantum Cramér-Rao bound (QCRB) when is small. Now we analyze whether SPADE measurement can saturate QCRB. Different from the case with a constant degree of coherence , the classical FI cannot be calculated analytically with an infinite number of HG modes. Therefore, we consider SPADE with a finite number of modes, which has the POVM . When , the POVM has only two elements, and we call it b-SPADE[9,33,34]. The FI of SPADE with the different mode number is shown in Fig. 4. As increases, more FI can be gained from the SPADE.
Figure 4.FI for SPADE with finite mode number k; even b-SPADE with k = 0 has an FI larger than Fd in the sub-Rayleigh region. b-SPADE performs worse than direct imaging in a large separation region and they are equal to each other at s1 ≈ 2.47.
Although increasing the number of modes can improve the estimation precision, their difference lies mainly in the region where is large. Moreover, it is challenging to implement SPADE with large . On the other hand, direct imaging performs well for large . Therefore, we propose a measurement method to choose b-SPADE measurement and direct imaging adaptively. and FI of b-SPADE meet at , and the choice is based on the comparison between estimation of separation and .
We show the performance of the method with a numerical simulation. As shown in Fig. 5, the starting point of the process is the prior distribution , which is a uniform distribution in the interval [0,10]. The probability of the measurement outcome is described by the likelihood function . Once the th measurement result is obtained, the posterior probability is updated by Bayes’s rule,
Figure 5.Protocol of the adaptive measurement method. An initial estimation of the separation s is first obtained by direct imaging. By comparing the estimate sest and s1, we can choose the b-SPADE or direct imaging. At each step, the choice of different measurement methods is based on the estimation result calculated by the posterior distribution drawn from the last step. N is the number of cycles.
Figure 6.Simulation results for adaptive measurement method conditioned on N = 1000 detected photons; dashed lines are the FI of direct imaging and b-SPADE, and stars are the simulation results calculated by the inverse of the mean squared error.
4. Discussions and Conclusions
Here we consider the situation in which the degree of coherence between two sources is real. In general, the degree of coherence can be complex[35]. According to the Van Cittert–Zernike theorem, the phase of the degree of coherence,
With the development of quantum theory of resolving for two incoherent point sources, quantum-limited resolution of two partially coherent sources has aroused great discussion. There are some controversies in the physical model of this problem[26–28,30]. In this work, we give a new perspective toward resolving these controversies with a grounded model that explicitly considers the contributions from the coherence of the sources and that is acquired through the propagation. For a constant degree of coherence, quantum limit gives a finite resolution between the two sources, and Rayleigh’s curse is resurgent only in the completely coherent case (). If the degree of coherence depends on the separation as given by the Van Cittert–Zernike theorem, Rayleigh’s curse cannot be avoided. However, in the sub-Rayleigh region where the separation is smaller than the width of PSF, there exists room to improve the resolution compared to direct imaging. SPADE is the optimal measurement method for both cases, while it is challenging to realize experimentally. For a separation-dependent degree of coherence, we propose a feasible measurement method by adaptively choosing direct imaging and binary SPADE, and give the simulation result, which corresponds well to the theory. Our work can also be extended to the more complicated situations in which more unknown parameters such as the centroid and intensity ratio of the two sources are to be estimated.
Note: We are aware of the related independent work in Ref. [37].
References
[1] L. Rayleigh. XXXI. Investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., 8, 261(1879).
[2] H. J. Leamy. Charge collection scanning electron microscopy. J. Appl. Phys., 53, R51(1982).
[3] D. Drouin, A. R. Couture, D. Joly, X. Tastet, V. Aimez, R. Gauvin. Casino v2.42—a fast and easy-to-use modeling tool for scanning electron microscopy and microanalysis users. Scanning, 29, 92(2007).
[4] T. A. Klar, S. W. Hell. Subdiffraction resolution in far-field fluorescence microscopy. Opt. Lett., 24, 954(1999).
[5] S. W. Hell, J. Wichmann. Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy. Opt. Lett., 19, 780(1994).
[6] C. W. Helstrom. Resolvability of objects from the standpoint of statistical parameter estimation. J. Opt. Soc. Am., 60, 659(1970).
[7] C. W. Helstrom. Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(1976).
[8] E. Betzig. Proposed method for molecular optical imaging. Opt. Lett., 20, 237(1995).
[9] M. Tsang, R. Nair, X.-M. Lu. Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources. Phys. Rev. X, 6, 031033(2016).
[10] S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 3439(1994).
[11] F. Yang, R. Nair, M. Tsang, C. Simon, A. I. Lvovsky. Fisher information for far-field linear optical superresolution via homodyne or heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode. Phys. Rev. A, 96, 063829(2017).
[12] J. Řehaček, Z. Hradil, B. Stoklasa, M. Paúr, J. Grover, A. Krzic, L. L. Sánchez-Soto. Multiparameter quantum metrology of incoherent point sources: towards realistic superresolution. Phys. Rev. A, 96, 062107(2017).
[13] C. Napoli, S. Piano, R. Leach, G. Adesso, T. Tufarelli. Towards superresolution surface metrology: quantum estimation of angular and axial separations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 140505(2019).
[14] Z. Yu, S. Prasad. Quantum limited superresolution of an incoherent source pair in three dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 180504(2018).
[15] B. Wang, L. Xu, J. C. Li, L. Zhang. Quantum-limited localization and resolution in three dimensions. Photon. Res., 9, 1522(2021).
[16] L. J. Fiderer, T. Tufarelli, S. Piano, G. Adesso. General expressions for the quantum Fisher information matrix with applications to discrete quantum imaging. PRX Quantum, 2, 020308(2021).
[17] E. Bisketzi, D. Branford, A. Datta. Quantum limits of localisation microscopy. New J. Phys., 21, 123032(2019).
[18] J. M. Donohue, V. Ansari, J. Řeháček, Z. Hradil, B. Stoklasa, M. Paúr, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, C. Silberhorn. Quantum-limited time-frequency estimation through mode-selective photon measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 090501(2018).
[19] S. De, J. Gil-Lopez, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Z. Hradil, J. Řeháček. Effects of coherence on temporal resolution. Phys. Rev. Res., 3, 033082(2021).
[20] F. Yang, A. Tashchilina, E. S. Moiseev, C. Simon, A. I. Lvovsky. Far-field linear optical superresolution via heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode. Optica, 3, 1148(2016).
[21] Z. S. Tang, K. Durak, A. Ling. Fault-tolerant and finite-error localization for point emitters within the diffraction limit. Opt. Express, 24, 22004(2016).
[22] J. W. Goodman. Introduction to Fourier Optics(2005).
[23] Z. Hradil, J. Řeháček, L. Sánchez-Soto, B.-G. Englert. Quantum Fisher information with coherence. Optica, 6, 1437(2019).
[24] V. P. Nayyar, N. K. Verma. Two-point resolution of Gaussian aperture operating in partially coherent light using various resolution criteria. Appl. Opt., 17, 2176(1978).
[25] M. Born, E. Wolf. Interference and diffraction with partially coherent light. Prin. Opt., 6, 491(1993).
[26] W. Larson, B. E. A. Saleh. Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence. Optica, 5, 1382(2018).
[27] M. Tsang, R. Nair. Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence: comment. Optica, 6, 400(2019).
[28] W. Larson, B. E. A. Saleh. Resurgence of Rayleigh’s curse in the presence of partial coherence: reply. Optica, 6, 402(2019).
[29] Z. Hradil, D. Koutný, J. Řeháček. Exploring the ultimate limits: super-resolution enhanced by partial coherence. Opt. Lett., 46, 1728(2021).
[30] M. Tsang. Poisson quantum information. Quantum, 5, 527(2021).
[31] M. G. A. Paris. Quantum estimation for quantum technology. Int. J. Quantum Inf., 7, 125(2009).
[32] M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, A. Datta. Multi-parameter quantum metrology. Adv. Phys. X., 1, 621(2016).
[33] M. Paúr, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, J. Rehacek. Achieving the ultimate optical resolution. Optica, 3, 1144(2016).
[34] S. A. Wadood, K. Liang, Y. Zhou, J. Yang, M. A. Alonso, X.-F. Qian, T. Malhotra, S. M. H. Rafsanjani, A. N. Jordan, R. W. Boyd, A. N. Vamivakas. Experimental demonstration of superresolution of partially coherent light sources using parity sorting. Opt. Express, 29, 22034(2021).
[35] K. Liang, S. A. Wadood, A. N. Vamivakas. Coherence effects on estimating two-point separation. Optica, 8, 243(2021).
[36] J. W. Goodman. Statistical Optics(2015).
[37] S. Kurdzialek. Back to sources–the role of losses and coherence in super-resolution imaging revisited. Quantum, 6, 697(2022).
Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address