Tomography of an optomechanical oscillator via parametrically amplified position measurement
Extracted source text · arXiv 1811.08444
%New Journal of Physics
%Prahlad Warszawski
\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
\usepackage{iopams}
\pdfminorversion=4
\usepackage{blindtext}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{placeins}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amsbsy}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{floatrow}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
%\usepackage{pstricks} %%%%%%%I had to comment this out post Miktex update
\usepackage{tikz}
\newcommand{\Arrow}[1]{%
\parbox{#1}{\tikz{\draw[->](0,0)--(#1,0);}}
}
\newcommand{\overlim}[1]{{\buildrel{#1}\over\longrightarrow\;}}
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\bal}{\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}}
\newcommand{\eal}{\end{aligned}\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
\newcommand*\thesubfloatfigure{\themainfigure(\alph{subfloatfigure})}
\newcommand{\erf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\Erf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\erfs}[2]{(\ref{#1})--(\ref{#2})}
\newcommand{\erfa}[2]{(\ref{#1}) and (\ref{#2})}
\newcommand{\arf}[1]{{App.}~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\srf}[1]{section~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\crf}[1]{Ref.~\cite{#1}}
\newcommand{\trf}[1]{Table ~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\frfs}[2]{figures~\ref{#1}--\ref{#2}}
\newcommand{\frf}[1]{figure~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\ea}{{\it et al.}}
\newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
\newcommand{\dg}{^\dagger}
\newcommand{\mb}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.0,0.8,0} [MB: #1]}}
\newcommand{\ab}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.0,0,0.6} [AB: #1]}}
\newcommand{\mbadd}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.0,0.8,0} #1}}
\newcommand{\mbrm}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.0,0.8,0} \sout{#1}}}
\newcommand{\ssum}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle #1\right|}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle #1|#2\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\com}[2]{\left[#1,#2\right]}
\newcommand{\braketop}[3]{\left\langle #1\left|#2\right|#3\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\mean}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}
\newcommand{\trace}[2][]{{\rm Tr_{#1}}\left(#2\right)}
\newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{{\rm Im}}
\newcommand{\RealPart}{{\rm Re}}
\newcommand{\leftexp}[2]{{\vphantom{#2}}^{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand{\leftind}[2]{{\vphantom{#2}}_{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand{\elem}{\in}
\newcommand{\rp}{\right)}
\newcommand{\lp}{\left(}
\newcommand{\lcb}{\left\{}
\newcommand{\rcb}{\right\}}
\newcommand{\rsb}{\right]}
\newcommand{\lsb}{\left[}
\newcommand{\lbv}{\left|}
\newcommand{\rbv}{\right|}
\newcommand{\lvb}{\lbv}
\newcommand{\rvb}{\rbv}
\renewcommand{\inf}{\infty}
\newcommand{\myfrac}[2]{^{#1\negthickspace\negthickspace}/_{\negthinspace#2}}
\newcommand{\mycaption}[2]{\caption[#1]{\small #1 #2}}
\newcommand{\order}[1]{{{\mathcal O}\lp#1\rp}}
\newcommand{\iohbar}{\frac{-i}{\hbar}}
\newcommand{\melem}[1]{_{#1}}
\newcommand{\pref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\hc}{\mathrm{h.c.}}
\newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
% from the NLD paper
\newcommand{\qrho}{\rho}
\newcommand{\crho}{\varrho}
\newcommand{\gd}{\gamma_\downarrow}
\newcommand{\gu}{\gamma_\uparrow}
\newcommand{\varlambda}{\Lambda}
\newcommand{\varchi}{X}
\newcommand{\varS}{\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{\varK}{\mathbb{K}}
%Superoperators
\newcommand{\superop}[1]{{\mathcal #1}}
\newcommand{\sD}{{\superop{D}}}
\newcommand{\sL}{{\superop{L}}}
\newcommand{\sC}{{\superop{C}}}
\newcommand{\sT}{{\superop{T}}}
\newcommand{\sM}{{\superop{M}}}
\newcommand{\sB}{{\superop{B}}}
%Unitary transforms
\newcommand{\tU}{{\tr{U}}}
\newcommand{\tS}{{\tr{S}}}
\newcommand{\tD}{{\tr{D}}}
\newcommand{\tR}{{\tr{R}}}
\newcommand{\tP}{{\tr{P}}}
\newcommand{\tT}{{\tr{T}}}
\newcommand{\trans}[1]{^{#1}}
%Argument of Unitary transforms
\newcommand{\atr}[1]{{\mathbf #1}}
\newcommand{\atU}{{\atr{U}}}
\newcommand{\atS}{{\atr{S}}}
\newcommand{\atD}{{\atr{D}}}
\newcommand{\atR}{{\atr{R}}}
\newcommand{\atP}{{\atr{P}}}
\newcommand{\atT}{{\atr{T}}}
%frequencies
\newcommand{\wg}{\omega_\g}
\newcommand{\we}{\omega_\e}
\newcommand{\wf}{\omega_\f}
\renewcommand{\wr}{\omega_r}
\newcommand{\wm}{\omega_m}
%projectors
\newcommand{\projector}{\Pi}
\newcommand{\proj}[1]{\projector_{#1}}
\newcommand{\dproj}[1]{\dot{\projector}_{#1}}
\newcommand{\bproj}[1]{\bar{\projector}_{#1}}
%cavity operators
\newcommand{\ad}{a^\dag}
\newcommand{\ada}{a^\dag a}
%transmon operators
\newcommand{\sz}{\sigma_0}
\newcommand{\szd}{\sigma_0^\dag}
\newcommand{\so}{\sigma_1}
\newcommand{\sod}{\sigma_1^\dag}
\newcommand{\gz}{g_0}
\newcommand{\go}{g_1}
%interaction operators
\newcommand{\izp}{I_{0+}}
\newcommand{\izm}{I_{0-}}
\newcommand{\izpm}{I_{0\pm}}
\newcommand{\izmp}{I_{0\mp}}
\newcommand{\iop}{I_{1+}}
\newcommand{\iom}{I_{1-}}
\newcommand{\iopm}{I_{1\pm}}
\newcommand{\iomp}{I_{1\mp}}
\newcommand{\itp}{I_{2+}}
%parameters
\newcommand{\epm}{\epsilon_m}
\newcommand{\Lz}{\Lambda_0}
\newcommand{\lz}{\lambda_0}
\newcommand{\Dz}{\Delta_0}
\newcommand{\Zz}{Z_0}
\newcommand{\chiz}{\chi_0}
\newcommand{\zetaz}{\zeta_0}
\newcommand{\xiz}{\xi_0}
\newcommand{\Lo}{\Lambda_1}
\newcommand{\Do}{\Delta_1}
\newcommand{\Zo}{Z_1}
\newcommand{\chio}{\chi_1}
\newcommand{\zetao}{\zeta_1}
\newcommand{\xio}{\xi_1}
\newcommand{\subge}{\mathcal{E}_{\g\e}}
\newcommand{\sm}{\sigma_-}
\renewcommand{\sp}{\sigma_+}
\newcommand{\sigmaz}{\sigma_z}
\newcommand{\comm}[2]{\lsb #1,#2\rsb}
\newcommand{\blu}{\color[rgb]{0,0,0.6}}
\newcommand{\blk}{\color{black}}
\newcommand{\acd}[1]{{\blue #1}}
\newcommand{\wpb}[1] {\blu {\small \bf [[#1]]}\blk }
\newcommand{\pw}[1] {\red {\small \bf [[#1]]}\blk }
\newcommand{\rep}[2]{\sout{#1}{\blu #2}}
\newcommand\stPW{\bgroup\markoverwith{\textcolor{red}{\rule[0.5ex]{2pt}{0.4pt}}}\ULon}
\listfiles
\begin{document}
\title[Tomography of an optomechanical oscillator via parametric amplification] {Tomography of an optomechanical oscillator via parametrically amplified position measurement}
\date{\today}
\author{P.~Warszawski\textsuperscript{1}, A.~Szorkovszky\textsuperscript{2,3}, W.~P.~Bowen\textsuperscript{2} and A.~C.~Doherty\textsuperscript{1}}
\address{\textsuperscript{1} Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Physics,
The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia}
\address{\textsuperscript{2} Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Mathematics and Physics,
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia}
\address{\textsuperscript{3} Institute Mittag-Leffler, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, S-18262 Djursholm, Sweden}
%\ead{williams@ucl.ac.uk}
\begin{abstract}
We propose a protocol \blk for quantum state tomography of nonclassical states in optomechanical systems. Using a parametric drive, the procedure overcomes the challenges of weak optomechanical coupling, poor detection efficiency, \blk and thermal noise to enable \blk high efficiency homodyne measurement. Our analysis is based on the analytic description of the generalized measurement that is performed when optomechanical position measurement competes with thermal noise and a parametric drive. The proposed experimental procedure is numerically simulated in realistic parameter regimes, which allows us to show that tomographic reconstruction of otherwise unverifiable nonclassical states is made possible.
\end{abstract}
% Uncomment for keywords
%\vspace{2pc}
%\noindent{\it Keywords}: Quantum, tomography, optomechanical, measurement
\maketitle
\section{Introduction} % (fold)
\label{sec:introduction}
Optomechanical systems, consisting of interacting electromagnetic and mechanical modes, make accessible the preparation and control of macroscopic nonclassical states~\cite{revCavOptMech,teufel2011sideband,schliesser2008resolved,o2010quantum,PhysRevA.82.061804}. Squeezed states~\cite{PhysRevA.79.063819,purdy2013strong,wollman2015quantum} can be created using a linearized optomechanical coupling, while using non-linear measurement, or a non-linear coupling, allows the synthesis of more exotic non-Gaussian states~\cite{PhysRevLett.107.020405,ludwig2012enhanced}. Nonclassical optomechanical states are of interest for many reasons; as a macroscopic test of quantum mechanics, as a resource for quantum metrology~\cite{Schreppler1486} and quantum information processing~\cite{schmidt2012optomechanical}, and as a way to investigate hybrid quantum systems~\cite{1402.1195}. Undoubtedly, the creation of such states is a major experimental challenge. However, in this paper we focus on the complimentary task of verifying that the claimed state has been produced.
The gold standard for demonstrating that a nonclassical state has been prepared is quantum state tomography~\cite{tomRevLvovsky,tomRevAriano}. This process is performed by measuring many copies of an identically prepared state of interest. The measurement must be varied across the repetitions such that a quorum of (non-commuting) observables is probed~\cite{fano}. For example, in optical homodyne tomography the quorum is formed by varying the local oscillator phase and thus measuring the different field quadratures. In contrast, the related technique of heterodyne detection involves simultaneously jointly measuring two quadratures at the expense of additional noise. Repeated measurements on identically prepared states allows a statistical picture to be developed, with this information captured in the density matrix assigned to the prepared state. The number of copies necessary to achieve a particular level of certainty regarding the prepared state depends on the experimental procedure comprising the measurement in combination with the nature of the state itself.
In the setting of optomechanics, tomography can be performed on the basis of continuous measurement of the position of the oscillator. Although, at any given moment, such a measurement reads out only the position of the oscillator, by monitoring the position over time it is possible to estimate all quadrature observables of the initial state and thereby obtain the required quorum of observables. There is significant prior work on using continuous measurements and time dynamics in this way to perform quantum tomography, particularly the early work by Deutsch and Jessen and collaborators which introduced the idea of continuous measurement tomography in the context of reconstructing the hyperfine state of an ensemble of atoms theoretically~\cite{silberfarb2005quantum,riofrio2011quantum,cook2014single} and implemented it in practice~\cite{smith2004continuous,smith2013quantum}.
To model our measurements, we will apply the standard tools of the trajectory theory of continuous quantum measurements~\cite{WisMil10} and use it to determine the initial quantum state at the beginning of a measurement. Continuous measurement tomography where the system dynamics are used to achieve a quorum of observables for quantum state tomography have also been considered in~\cite{six2016quantum,chantasri2018quantum}
Our approach to this will be to explicitly determine the {\it positive operator valued measure} (POVM) that is implemented by the continuous optomechanical position measurement, following~\cite{jacLin,wisQTraj,herkommer1996localization}. This general approach is very similar to that of~\cite{six2016quantum,chantasri2018quantum} where continuous measurement state tomography of qubits is considered. There are several other approaches to obtaining information about initial states in continuous quantum measurement that are closely related, for example~\cite{gammelmark2013past,guevara2015quantum,tan2015prediction,hacohen2016quantum}. Recent work also demonstrates optimal tomography of qubit states by sequential weak measurements on an ensemble by demonstrating that it is possible to implement the spin-coherent-state in this way~\cite{shojaee2018optimal}.
%In optomechanical systems, measurement of the mechanical mode is achieved by detecting the light leaking out of the coupled optical mode, which is phase shifted by an amount that depends on the mechanical position. In the regime that the coupling is small, the mechanical oscillator position cannot be resolved on a time scale short compared with the period of motion. In this regime, the continuous measurement of position monitors both quadratures of the mechanical motion, so the detection is more similar to optical heterodyne detection. The signal to noise ratio in such optomechanical measurements is affected by thermal noise of the oscillator as well as the quantum efficiency of the optical or microwave measurement. This poses significant challenges for establishing the wavefunction for nonclassical states of motion. In this paper, the inclusion of resonant parametric amplification alongside the continuous measurement is proposed. We show that a sufficiently strong parametric drive converts the optomechanical position measurement into nearly perfect homodyne detection with the quadrature determined by the phase of the parametric drive. This significantly increases the signal to noise ratio for measurements of the initial quantum state and allows for efficient tomographic reconstruction.
In optomechanical systems, measurement of the mechanical mode is achieved by detecting the light leaking out of the coupled optical mode, which is phase shifted by an amount that depends on the mechanical position.
%In the regime that the coupling is small, the mechanical oscillator position cannot be resolved on a time scale short compared with the period of motion.
In the typical regime, the coupling is not large enough to resolve the mechanical oscillator on time scales short compared with the period of motion.
Consequently, in this regime, the continuous measurement of position monitors both quadratures of the mechanical motion equally, such that the measurement is similar to optical heterodyne detection~\cite{sme}. In addition to the noise penalty associated with heterodyne detection, the signal-to-noise ratio is also degraded by thermal fluctuations that enter from the mechanical bath during the measurement period as well as quantum backaction noise due to the non-perfect quantum efficiency of the optical or microwave detector.
%thermal noise of the oscillator as well as the quantum efficiency of the optical or microwave measurement.
This poses significant challenges for establishing the density matrix of non-classical states of motion. One approach that has been developed to address these challenges is to use a stroboscopic interaction to achieve a backaction evading measurement~\cite{Suh1253258,Vasilakis2015}.
%\wpb{Here we should cite: Suh, Schwab et al Science vol 344 pg 1262 (2014); and Vasilakis, Polzik et al Nature Physics Vol 11 pp 389 (2015) } \blu.
So long as the interaction is strong enough that the measurement rate dominates the rate at which thermal fluctuations enter the oscillator, and the detection efficiency is sufficiently high, such a measurement can approach the equivalent of ideal optical homodyne detection~\cite{bowMil}. Another suggested approach has been to imprint the mechanical state onto a strong optical coherent pulse~\cite{Shahandeh}, although their analysis neglects the thermal fluctuations.
In this paper, we consider an alternative approach that retains the usual continuous optical measurement, but includes
an additional resonant parametric amplification of the mechanical oscillator.
Parametric amplification plays an important role in the manipulation and measurement of oscillator quantum states, by squeezing one quadrature and amplifying the other. It is a readily available resource in optomechanics, since mechanical systems often possess significant nonlinearities that can be used to enable parametric driving of the oscillator~\cite{szorkovszky2014detuned,unterreithmeier2009universal,suh2010parametric,castellanos2008amplification,
rugar1991mechanical}. Furthermore, in~\cite{szorkovszky2012position,PhysRevLett.107.213603,szorkovszky2013strong} it is shown that, in conjunction with continuous measurement, arbitrarily high levels of squeezing can be achieved in principle. This proposal is closely analogous to a recent experiment in circuit QED has used parametric drive of a microwave cavity to improve the effective efficiency of measurements on transmon qubits~\cite{eddins2018high}.
%Optomechanical systems consist of interacting electromagnetic and mechanical modes. Of particular interest is the case of a single macroscopic mechanical mode cooled close to its ground state, such that quantum mechanical effects are an important consideration in constructing an accurate model of the system. Coupling, via radiation pressure, of the mechanical mode to the electromagnetic mode then allows information about the former to be collected by detection of light leaking into the environment. Experiments~\cite{BDexpI,BDexpII,bdexperiment,zdexperiment} are not limited to the optical domain (in which an optical cavity with a suspended end mirror could be used), for example an LC circuit can form a resonator in the microwave domain. Optomechanical systems in the quantum regime provide a testbed for quantum mechanics at a macroscopic scale and may also be useful for quantum information processing. A common ingredient, though, is the creation of non-classical mechanical states. This is a challenging task and the end product needs to be quality controlled, via a verification process termed quantum state tomography. The main purpose of this paper is to show that exposing the mechanical system to a period of resonant parametric amplification improves the tomographic performance. Barriers relating intrinsically to the measurement protocol, together with those arising from realistic imperfections (such as a thermal bath and detector inefficiency), can in this way be overcome.
%Quantum state tomography is performed by measuring many copies of an identically prepared state of interest. Many copies are required as the quantum measurement necessarily introduces back-action of some sort, rendering features of the initial state irretrievable lost. The idea of conducting one preparation and then copying the state before performing the measurement is ruled out by the quantum no-cloning theorem, so multiple preparations are required. It is necessary to measure multiple observables in order to learn everything possible regarding a quantum state, with the set of observables called a quorum~\cite{fano}. To achieve a measurement on the mechanical mode of our optomechanical systems, the light leaking out of the coupled optical mode will be measured. In optical homodyne tomography the quorum is formed by varying the local oscillator phase from copy to copy and thus measuring the different field quadratures. In contrast, the related technique of heterodyne detection involves simultaneously jointly measuring two quadratures at the expense of additional noise. Repeated measurements on identically prepared states allows a statistical picture be developed, with this information captured in the density matrix assigned to the prepared state. The number of copies necessary to achieve a particular level of certainty regarding the prepared state depends on the experimental procedure comprising the measurement.
Importantly for quantum state tomography, parametric amplification adds no noise, in principle, and is therefore very effective at transducing small signals. Indeed, its use to improve tomography of optical field states was proposed more than two decades ago~\cite{leonhardt1994high}. Note, also, that recently a state of the art experiment based on the ideas of~\cite{leonhardt1994high} has been proposed~\cite{1367-2630-20-1-013005}.
%\wpb{Here, need to cite Leonhardt and Paul, PRL vol 72 pg 4086 (1994).}
When applied to tomography of mechanical oscillator states, however, significant differences are readily apparent.
%The oscillator is a dynamical system that can be probed nondestructively \pw{pw: i was confused by this due to the usage in comparison with `non-demolition'}.
The oscillator is a dynamical system that can be probed repeatedly.
As such, a series of measurements, or a continuous measurement, can be made. How can these multiple measurement outcomes be best used to estimate the initial state of the oscillator?
%How does the dynamics of the system affect the inferences which can be made about its quantum state?,
How is the information gathered from one measurement influenced by the quantum backaction due to measurements in the past? Finally, if the mechanical oscillator is connected, as usual, to a thermal bath, how does this effect the optimal approach to obtain estimates, and their accuracy? These are the main questions addressed in this paper.
In this paper we make use of two complimentary methods of analysis in order to obtain simple analytical expressions for the generalized measurement, or POVM, associated with a mechanical oscillator exposed to different sequences of continuous measurement and parametric driving. The first, simplified, method models the measurement part of the dynamics as being completely analogous to heterodyne detection of some specific, but unknown efficiency, for which the POVM is well known. Important conclusions can then be drawn regarding the effectiveness of the measurement protocols that involve parametric amplification. However, this initial analysis is non-constructive, in the sense that it does not specify the effective heterodyne efficiency that is achieved in the optomechanical experiment, or the appropriate filter of the measured current required to achieve an optimal estimate of the initial system state. To obtain this we use, as discussed above, the theory of continuous quantum measurements, and, specifically, stochastic master equations or quantum trajectories~\cite{WisMil10,sme}. These equations specify the stochastic evolution of the mechanical quantum state given the measurement record. In addition to this theoretical framework, we make use of our recent analysis~\cite{warDoh} in order to find the more detailed form of the POVM.
%. The effective dynamics of the mechanical oscillator as per~\cite{sme}, consists of parametric drive, thermal decoherence, and continuous position measurement.
%These equations specify the stochastic evolution of the mechanical quantum state given the measurement record. To convert the quantum trajectory model into a POVM requires utilising our recent analysis~\cite{warDoh}
%how best to filter the measurement record and, also, to find the actual dependency of the proxy detector efficiency upon system variables and imperfections,
%We describe a continuous optomechanical position measurement, in the presence of parametric driving and thermal decoherence,
%we use \blk the theory of continuous quantum measurements, and, specifically, stochastic master equations or quantum trajectories~\cite{WisMil10,sme}.
%. The effective dynamics of the mechanical oscillator as per~\cite{sme}, consists of parametric drive, thermal decoherence, and continuous position measurement.
%These equations specify the stochastic evolution of the mechanical quantum state given the measurement record.
%, as well as the statistics of the measurement record itself.
%Making use of our recent analysis~\cite{warDoh}, we can then
%\blk we obtain simple analytical expressions for the generalised measurement, or {\it positive operator valued measure} (POVM), associated with a mechanical oscillator exposed to different sequences of continuous measurement and parametric driving. These provide the optimal estimate achievable of the mechanical quadratures for each sequence given the measurement record, as well as the measurement weightings required to achieve these estimates.
Our results show, broadly, that
%, in the context of optomechanics,
a sufficiently strong parametric drive converts a continuous optomechanical measurement into near-perfect homodyne detection, with the detected quadrature determined by the phase of the parametric drive. We are able to find explicit expressions for the strength of the parametric drive that is required to approach ideal homodyne measurement in terms of system parameters such as the quantum efficiency of the optical measurement, the damping rate of the oscillator and the thermal phonon number. Importantly, neither high detector efficiency nor high optomechanical couplings are required to reach this regime. All that is required is that the parametric drive can be made strong enough to outpace the effects of the thermal bath on the mechanical oscillator. We show that this result holds in two regimes of optomechanics: the bad-cavity regime with on-resonant drive, and the sideband-resolved regime with blue-detuned drive. Although details differ, the physics is very similar in these two experimentally relevant regimes. This opens a pathway to efficiently perform quantum state tomography of mechanical systems in new parameter regimes, where strong measurements and high detector efficiency are unavailable.
%We are able to find simple expressions for the strength of the parametric drive that is needed to An interesting finding is that a sequence of parametric amplification strength thresholds exist, which correspond to varying levels of protocol success, from the perspective of making accurate estimates of the initial state quadratures. The first threshold marks the boundary at which a finite quantity of information is obtained (one might call this a `low hurdle'!). The second threshold is the point at which
%%outperformance can be achieved by delaying measurement as long as possible while the parametric amplification takes hold.
%it is beneficial to delay the measurement as long as possible while the parametric amplification takes hold.
%The final threshold defines the amplification strength required to enter the homodyne regime, where the excess noise added to quadrature measurement is less than that introduced by a heterodyne measurement.
%threshold exists where the rate of parametric amplification is sufficient to overcome the decoherence introduced by the thermal bath.
%equals the thermally-driven upwards going transition rate for the mechanical oscillator \wpb{we should emphasize this physical meaning of the threshold throughout}.
%Below this threshold, the optomechanical measurement should be made as strong as possible to extract information from the oscillator prior to the effect of decoherence from the bath; while above it, the measurement should be made as weak as possible. This latter somewhat counter intuitive result can be understood as acting to minimise the effect of back-action noise at early times, before the parametric amplification has had significant effect, with the exponential growth due to parametric amplification allowing a strong effective measurement in the long-time limit even for an arbitrarily weak measurement.
%Given the success of resonant parametric amplification in transforming a heterodyne measurement into a homodyne one, it is of particular interest to compare and contrast to the blue-detuned resolved sideband regime of optomechanical operation. This regime leads to {\it non}-resonant parametric amplification, with the blue-detuned laser drive causing the simultaneous absorption of a photon by the optical cavity and a phonon by the mechanical oscillator. In this way, the mechanical state is amplified phase insensitively. The benefit of both mechanical quadratures being amplified is achieved at the cost of additional noise, meaning that the homodyne limit cannot be reached with non-resonant amplification alone. However, we will show that if resonant parametric drive is included, then an enhanced effect is produced in the blue-detuned regime.
% \blk
%Two specific scenarios that are considered are a one-step process where continuous measurement and parametric amplification are simultaneously applied, and a two step-process, where the measurement is delayed. We find that, when performed optimally and with the same experimental parameters, the latter strategy is always superior. We attribute this to a reduction in measurement back-action are short times, where the parametric amplification has not
%We will make use of our recent analysis of such stochastic master equations~\cite{warDoh} to determine what information about the initial quantum state of the mechanical system is contained in the measurement record. Specifically, it is possible to write simple analytical expressions showing how the generalised measurement, or {\it positive operator valued measure} (POVM), depends on the various parameters of the dynamics.
%We show that the introduction of resonant parametric amplification converts the optomechanical measurement from a heterodyne style one to homodyne, with a resulting improvement in tomographic performance.
Although increasing the resonant parametric amplification strength transforms the POVM from a heterodyne to homodyne form, it is not a priori obvious that this actually leads to superior tomographic performance. The intuition for it to do so is that, for some states that we wish to reconstruct, it will be more effective, in the probing of each state copy, to gain precise information regarding a particular quadrature than imprecise information concerning both. This is expected to be manifest for states that have hard to resolve features, or, equivalently, quickly oscillating Wigner function representations. The prototypical example of such states are the ``cat state" superpositions, so we choose to base our numerical investigation around these. The simulation of experimental data allows a comparison of the tomographic performance as a function of the strength of the resonant parametric amplification. Our findings confirm the expectation that performance is greatest when information is concentrated in a single quadrature, with the homodyne paradigm being most desirable.
%This significantly increases the signal to noise ratio for measurements of the initial quantum state and allows for efficient tomographic reconstruction.
%Optomechanical systems consist of interacting electromagnetic and mechanical modes. Of particular interest is the case of a single macroscopic mechanical mode cooled close to its ground state, such that quantum mechanical effects are an important consideration in constructing an accurate model of the system. Coupling, via radiation pressure, of the mechanical mode to the electromagnetic mode then allows information about the former to be collected by detection of light leaking into the environment. Experiments~\cite{BDexpI,BDexpII,bdexperiment,zdexperiment} are not limited to the optical domain (in which an optical cavity with a suspended end mirror could be used), for example an LC circuit can form a resonator in the microwave domain. Optomechanical systems in the quantum regime provide a testbed for quantum mechanics at a macroscopic scale and may also be useful for quantum information processing. A common ingredient, though, is the creation of non-classical mechanical states. This is a challenging task and the end product needs to be quality controlled, via a verification process termed quantum state tomography. The main purpose of this paper is to show that exposing the mechanical system to a period of resonant parametric amplification improves the tomographic performance. Barriers relating intrinsically to the measurement protocol, together with those arising from realistic imperfections (such as a thermal bath and detector inefficiency), can in this way be overcome.
%Quantum state tomography is performed by measuring many copies of an identically prepared state of interest. Many copies are required as the quantum measurement necessarily introduces back-action of some sort, rendering features of the initial state irretrievable lost. The idea of conducting one preparation and then copying the state before performing the measurement is ruled out by the quantum no-cloning theorem, so multiple preparations are required. It is necessary to measure multiple observables in order to learn everything possible regarding a quantum state, with the set of observables called a quorum~\cite{fano}. To achieve a measurement on the mechanical mode of our optomechanical systems, the light leaking out of the coupled optical mode will be measured. In optical homodyne tomography the quorum is formed by varying the local oscillator phase from copy to copy and thus measuring the different field quadratures. In contrast, the related technique of heterodyne detection involves simultaneously jointly measuring two quadratures at the expense of additional noise. Repeated measurements on identically prepared states allows a statistical picture be developed, with this information captured in the density matrix assigned to the prepared state. The number of copies necessary to achieve a particular level of certainty regarding the prepared state depends on the experimental procedure comprising the measurement.
The organisation of this paper is as follows. In \srf{smeSoln} the system is introduced in detail and the mathematical techniques necessary to prepare for a direct analysis of tomographic performance are described. Most of the general conclusions are drawn in \srf{simple}, where a simplified analysis of the measurement protocol is performed. The limitations of this analysis are then addressed in \srf{tomogram} and \srf{BlueDetuned}, where specific expressions are provided for two experimental regimes of interest.
%In \srf{tomogram} and \srf{BlueDetuned} this analysis is carried out in two experimental regimes of interest.
Then, numerical simulations are studied in \srf{sims} and, finally, conclusions are provided in \srf{conc}.
%Parametric amplification plays an important role in the manipulation and measurement of oscillator quantum states, by squeezing one quadrature and amplifying the other. Importantly, this amplification adds no noise, in principle, so is very effective at transducing small signals. Mechanical systems often possess significant nonlinearities that can be used to enable parametric drive of the oscillator~\cite{szorkovszky2014detuned,unterreithmeier2009universal,suh2010parametric,castellanos2008amplification,
%rugar1991mechanical}. In~\cite{szorkovszky2012position} it is shown that in conjunction with a continuous measurement protocol arbitrarily high levels of squeezing can be achieved in principle.
%
%In this work we will use the theory of continuous quantum measurements, and specifically stochastic master equations or quantum trajectories~\cite{WisMil10}, to describe optomechanical position measurement. The effective dynamics of the mechanical oscillator as per~\cite{sme}, consists of parametric drive, thermal decoherence, and continuous position measurement. The quantum trajectory equations specify the stochastic evolution of the quantum state of the mechanical system given the measurement, as well as the statistics of the measurement record itself. We will make use of our recent analysis of such stochastic master equations~\cite{warDoh} to determine what information about the initial quantum state of the mechanical system is contained in the measurement record. Specifically, it is possible to write simple analytical expressions showing how the generalised measurement, or {\it positive operator valued measure} (POVM), depends on the various parameters of the dynamics. We show that the introduction of resonant parametric amplification converts the optomechanical measurement from a heterodyne style one to homodyne, with a resulting improvement in tomographic performance. We study the efficiency of tomographic reconstruction of the initial ``cat state" superpositions through numerical simulations.
%
%The organisation of this paper is as follows. In \srf{smeSoln} the system is introduced in detail and the mathematical techniques necessary to prepare for a direct analysis of tomographic performance are described. In \srf{tomogram} and \srf{BlueDetuned} this analysis is carried out in two experimental regimes of interest. Then, numerical simulations are studied in \srf{sims} and, finally, conclusions are provided in \srf{conc}.
%\begin{itemize}
%
% \item introduce optomechanical systems
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item gen description
%\item some experiments~\cite{BDexpI,BDexpII,bdexperiment,zdexperiment} (and more!)
%\item goal is to produce non-classical states. These need to be verified by tomography.
%
%\end{itemize}
%
% \item introduce tomography
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item general description.
%\item original paper(s).
%\item First experiment.
%\item state of the art experiments.
%\item relation to quantum measurement theory, POVMS
%\end{itemize}
%
%
%
% \item further specific details to optomechanical tomography:
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item any unique features compared with gen tomographic methods
%\item egs of states of tomographic interest
%\item experiments
%\item past theoretical work.
%\end{itemize}
%
%\item parametric amplification as a tomographic tool
%\begin{itemize}
%\item its use in transducing small signals~\cite{szorkovszky2014detuned,unterreithmeier2009universal,suh2010parametric,castellanos2008amplification,
%rugar1991mechanical}
%\item compare/contrast to~\cite{szorkovszky2012position}. ie aim and mathematical techniques
%
%\end{itemize}
%
%\item the simplified systems and methods that we use
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item an effective single mode system
%\item regime of~\cite{sme}
%\item coherent state input and quadratic evolution gives gaussian, solvable system
%\end{itemize}
%
%\item use of simulations to confirm conjectures. Conclusions of paper
%\begin{itemize}
%\item produces data to feed into tomographic reconstruction
%\item shows that premise of homodyne superiority holds
%\item shows convergence of our system to homodyne type measurement when squeezing applied
%\item allows assumed generalisation to non-gaussian input states to be confirmed
%\end{itemize}
%
%\item organisation of paper
%\begin{itemize}
%\item introduce proposed system and experimental procedure and general analytical techniques
%\item analysis of optomechanical tomography for zero detuning and coherent states --- 1step
%\item analysis of optomechanical tomography for zero detuning and coherent states --- 2step
%\item analysis of optomechanical tomography for zero detuning and coherent states --- BDetune
%\item simulations
%\item concluion
%\end{itemize}
%
%
%
%
%\end{itemize}
\section{Model of optomechanical position measurement}
\label{smeSoln}
We consider a conventional optomechanical position measurement~\cite{revCavOptMech}. Our results apply equally to nanoelectromechanical systems with detection of a microwave field but, to be concrete, we will refer to optical fields throughout. The system is indicated schematically in \frf{schematic}(a). A laser of angular frequency $\omega_{{\rm L}}$ drives a single mode of an optical cavity having angular frequency $\omega_{{\rm cav}}$. The laser-cavity detuning is $\Delta=\omega_{{\rm L}}-\omega_{{\rm cav}}$.
The mechanical oscillator ($\omega_{{\rm m}}$) induces a shift in the resonant frequency of the optical cavity that is proportional to its position. The optical damping rate is $\kappa$, while the mechanical mode is taken to be coupled to a finite temperature thermal bath described by damping rate $\gamma$ and thermal phonon occupancy $n_{{\rm th}}$. The light-enhanced optomechanical coupling strength, $g$, originates from the radiation pressure of cavity photons on the mechanical oscillator. It is defined as $g=\sqrt{N} G x_{\rm zp}$ where $N$ is the mean steady-state intracavity photon number, $G$ is the the optical frequency shift per unit displacement of the mechanical oscillator and $x_{\rm zp}$ is root-mean-square displacement of the ground state wavefunction of the oscillator, i.e. its zero-point motion amplitude. \blk
%proportional to the square root of the steady-state intracavity photon number, the root-mean-square displacement of the ground state wavefunction of the oscillator and the optical frequency shift per displacement.
We restrict our attention to the regime where the rotating-wave approximation (RWA) for the optics and the `linearization' approximation for the optomechanical coupling can be made~\cite{revCavOptMech}. We will work in units such that $\hbar=1$.
In order to facilitate an analytic treatment of the POVMs that arise as a result of the continuous measurement, we will study regimes of the optomechanical system where the cavity field relaxes rapidly compared to the mechanical dynamics, i.e. $\kappa \gg \gamma$, where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are the respective decay rates of the optical cavity and mechanical oscillator. This is the regime in which the vast majority of opto- and electromechanics experiments reside, an exception being recent work where the mechanical oscillator is coupled to a second cavity to greatly increase its decay rate~\cite{Toth2017}.
%~\wpb{here, we need to cite {\it A dissipative quantum reservoir for microwave light using a mechanical oscillator} Nature Physics, Toth, Kippenberg etc.}. \blk
Consequently, the system can be approximately described by a master equation involving the mechanics alone. (We expect our protocol to work qualitatively similarly in other cases but defer a study of this to future work.)
%There are several well-known experimentally relevant regimes where this is possible.
We consider two specific experimentally relevant regimes \blk in this paper: the zero-detuned bad-cavity regime ($\Delta=0$ and $\kappa\gg \omega_{{\rm m}}$ \blk) and the blue-detuned resolved-sideband regime \blk ($\Delta\approx \omega_{{\rm m}}$ and $\omega_{{\rm m}}\gg\kappa$). In both regimes we
%Note that in the blue-detuned regime we still
require weak coupling $\kappa\gg g$, such that \blk the dynamics of the mechanical mode alone can be considered by adiabatically eliminating the cavity.
%\wpb{I believe the slight change in meaning I've introduced here is correct, but might be worth double-checking}.
In this limit, the optomechanical coupling is well-described by the measurement rate $\mu=4g^2/\kappa$ \cite{bowMil}.
$\mu$ defines an the upper bound to the rate at which information about the mechanical system can be extracted from the optical field leaving the cavity. In the zero-detuned bad-cavity regime, if the measurement rate exceeds the thermal decoherence rate $\gamma n_{\rm th}$ (or expressed in terms of the {\it optomechanical cooperativity} $C=g^2/\kappa\gamma$, $C>n_{\rm th}$), the quantum back-action heating associated with the measurement exceeds the heating from the mechanical thermal bath, as first observed in~\cite{zdexperiment}. \blk
%See~\cite{zdexperiment} for an experiment in the zero-detuning bad-cavity regime.
In the blue-detuned regime, laser light entering the cavity is accompanied by the absorption of a phonon by the oscillator, leading to amplification. See~\cite{BDexpI,BDexpII,bdexperiment} for some blue-detuned experiments that make use of this. We will be able to compare the effect of this intrinsic amplification with the effect of the parametric drive on the tomographic signal.
%and we also
%
%with respect to the laser frequency
% $\omega_{{\rm L}}=\Delta+\omega_{{\rm m}}$
%so that we work in the sideband-resolved regime $\gamma\ll\kappa\ll\omega_{{\rm m}}$ and introduce the laser-cavity detuning $\Delta=\omega_{{\rm L}}-\omega_{{\rm cav}}$. The requirement $\kappa\gg\gamma$ allows the cavity to be adiabatically eliminated and an effective single mode system examined. This leads to a measurement strength, $\tilde{\mu}$, defined in terms of more fundamental parameters as $\tilde{\mu}=4g^2/\kappa$, in units such that $\hbar=1$.
The general experimental procedure, illustrated in \frf{schematic}(a), is to shine laser light upon the optical cavity, which then leads to a phase shift on the reflected light that depends on the mechanical oscillator position. Monitoring the returning light through homodyne detection results in a measured current, $I(t)$, allowing information about the mechanical oscillator position to be gathered. Our work is concerned with tomography, so only the initial mechanical oscillator state is of interest, but despite this the measurement takes place over a finite amount of time corresponding to, in the regimes of interest in this paper, many mechanical oscillation periods. The presence of the thermal bath adds noise to the system, as does the radiation pressure fluctuations that represent the backaction noise of the measurement, so that typically it is only at early times that the monitored light will contain a significant amount of tomographic information. Statistics are collected over a large number of trials that are then used to perform quantum state tomography.
\begin{figure}
\centering
%% \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize,scale=1,keepaspectratio=true]%{optMechDiagramModCombo6.jpg}
%%\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize,scale=1]{optMechDiagramModCombo6.jpg}
%\includegraphics[width=1\hsize,scale=1]{optMechDiagramModCombo15.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=1\hsize,scale=1]{figure1.png}
\caption{\label{angles} {\bf a)} Schematic of a driven optomechanical system subject to continuous weak measurement. The measured signal $I(t)$ is demodulated into currents $I_X, I_Y$ representing the $X$ and $Y$ quadratures. The currents can be filtered, by $h(t)$, to provide an estimate $X_{{\rm est}},Y_{{\rm est}}$ of the initial quadratures of the quantum state that is to be reconstructed using tomography. The spring constant of the mechanical oscillator is capacitively modulated at strength $\chi$ at twice the oscillator frequency, $\omega_m$, which gives resonant parametric amplification and leads to system squeezing of a quadrature defined by the modulation phase $\theta$. The oscillator is coupled to a finite temperature ($n_{{\rm th}}$) bath at rate $\gamma$. It is also coupled, through optomechanical coupling, $g$, to an optical cavity, of frequency $\omega_{{\rm cav}}$, which has a damping rate of $\kappa$. A laser, of frequency $\omega_{{\rm L}}=\omega_{{\rm cav}}+\Delta$, is shone onto the cavity, with the reflected light directed into the detector.
{\bf b-d)}~In these schematics we show how the one and two-step experiments are differentiated in terms of the timing of measurement and parametric amplification (abbreviated as P. Amp.). The two-step process switches on the measurement, $\mu$, after an amplification time $\tau$. At time $\tau$ in the two-step process we consider both maintaining the squeezing for the duration of the measurement (subplot c) and turning it off (subplot b).
The one-step process (subplot d) has both constant measurement, $\mu$, and constant amplification, $\chi$.
%The two-step process switches on the measurement, $\mu_2$, after an amplification time $\tau$. At time $\tau$ in the two-step process we consider both maintaining the squeezing for the duration of the measurement (subplot c) and turning it off (subplot d).
}
\label{schematic}
\end{figure}
%The categorisation of our measurement scheme is closely related to heterodyne and homodyne detection. Heterodyne detection provides a measurement of both mechanical quadratures simultaneously, each of which is less accurate than the fundamental quantum limit. Homodyne detection gives single quadrature information with the benefit of saturating the quantum limit (with perfect detector efficiency). It is this contrast between measurement schemes that we will exploit when utilising resonant parametric amplification --- as squeezing is increased we move from a heterodyne regime to a homodyne one, in which obtained information concerns a single quadrature only, but in a more focused manner. That this is beneficial for quantum state tomography will be demonstrated directly via simulated experiments in \srf{sims}.
To combat the degradation of the signal due to the thermal noise, and allow a superior signal to noise ratio to be achieved, we propose to selectively amplify a chosen quadrature of the quantum state.
%attribute of the quantum state: a particular quadrature.
The schematic in \frf{schematic}(a) shows the presence of this additional experimental resource: the ability to resonantly parametrically drive the oscillator. We use the quadrature definitions $X=(a+a\dg)/\sqrt{2}$ and $Y=-i(a-a\dg)/\sqrt{2}$ in terms of the interaction picture annihilation and creation operators of the oscillator. The parametric drive allows a quadrature of the mechanical motion to be squeezed with strength $\chi$. It is modelled by the squeezing Hamiltonian
\beq
H=\frac{i\chi}{4}\left(e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2}\right),
\label{hamiltonian}
\eeq
with the angle $\theta$ determining which quadrature is squeezed ($\theta=0$ squeezes the $X$ quadrature, $\theta=\pi$ squeezes the $Y$ quadrature). Experimentally, the squeezing can be achieved, for instance, by electromechanically modulating the frequency of the oscillator at twice its resonant frequency, $\omega_m$, with a phase of $\theta$ relative to that of the laser~\cite{PhysRevLett.107.213603,rugar1991mechanical}. Prior to the application of the squeezing, and within the rotating wave approximation that we employ, there is no preferred mechanical quadrature and an equal amount of information is gathered about each in any single trial. The squeezing removes this symmetry and allows a closer inspection of one quadrature at the cost of another. It is the amplified, or {\it anti}-squeezed, quadrature that will be more visible in the measurement record and thus contain the bulk of the tomographic information. %The benefit provided by resonant parametric amplification for the tomographic reconstruction of difficult to resolve input states is a central result of this paper and will be explored in detail.
The experimentalist has access to the complete measurement record $I(t)$. We can think of this measurement record as arising from a sequence of very weak measurements of the system occurring at each moment of time. We will often refer to this sequence of measurements as a composite measurement. To find the POVM that represents a composite measurement, the theory of open quantum systems and quantum trajectories can be applied~\cite{WisMil10,wisQTraj,jacSteck}. Information about the mechanical system leaks out into the environment, which is both detected (via the optomechanical measurement scheme) and undetected (information leaking into the thermal bath or lost due to optical measurement inefficiencies\blk). This requires a density matrix description in which the state matrix follows a different trajectory in each run of the experiment. This makes it more challenging to determine the POVM that arises from the composite measurement, relative to well-known examples in the literature~\cite{wisQTraj,jacSteck}. Recently, two of the authors have given a general method of solution for Gaussian bosonic quantum trajectories such as the ones of interest here~\cite{warDoh}. This makes it possible to determine the relevant POVMs analytically in the two regimes of interest. We detail our methods further in \ref{qtraj}.
While the statistics of the composite measurement can, in principle, depend on any property of the measurement record $I(t)$, we find, as in earlier examples~\cite{wisQTraj,jacSteck}, that there are two simple sufficient statistics that essentially determine the POVM. These correspond to each quadrature of the oscillator motion, and the general form of the sufficient statistic for the $X$-quadrature is
\beq
X_{{\rm est}}=\int^t_0 h_X(r)I(r)dr,
\label{filterGeneral}
\eeq
where $h_{X}$ is a filter function that depends on the system parameters. There is a corresponding form for $Y_{\rm est}$ with a possibly distinct filter function $h_{Y}$. The quantities $X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}$ are estimates of the {\it initial} system quadratures as we wish to perform tomography. The integral receives dominant contributions from early times as the system state will progressively become less correlated with the initial state due to measurement back-action and coupling to decohering baths. Finding the form of $h_X(t)$, for the non-trivial system of interest, is an important result of our work and specific expressions will be given in later sections. The origin of the term `composite measurement' is made clear from the form of \erf{filterGeneral}, where the measurement results for each small time slice are integrated over the duration of the measurement.
It is easiest to specify the POVM, that is implemented by the composite optomechanical position measurement, by considering an initial coherent state. We denote the POVM by $W_I$ and the complex amplitude by $\alpha_0$.
From the resultant Gaussian statistics, it will be made clear where the composite measurement lies in relation to homodyne and heterodyne detection. Moreover, the statistics of the POVM for an initial coherent state completely determine the POVM for all initial states, so this is without loss of generality. (To see this recall that a density matrix $\rho$ is completely specified by its Q-function $Q(\alpha)=\langle \alpha |\rho |\alpha\rangle$.) The results of~\cite{warDoh} imply a bivariate Gaussian probability distribution for $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$:
%\red After breaking $\alpha_0$ into quadratures as $\alpha_0=\left(X_0+iY_0\right)/\sqrt{2}$ and defining $\Delta_{X}=X_{\rm est}-X_0$ and $\Delta_{Y}=Y_{\rm est}-Y_0$ we obtain \blk
%\begin{equation}
%\bqa
% \fl&\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\alpha_0)=\langle \alpha_0 | W_{I}|\alpha_0\rangle = \nonumber\\
%\fl&N \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2(1-\rho_{c}^{2})}\left(\frac{(X_{\rm est}-X_0)^2}{\sigma_{X}^{2}}+\frac{(Y_{\rm est}-Y_0)^2}{\sigma_{Y}^{2}}-\frac{2\rho_{c}(X_{\rm est}-X_0)(Y_{\rm est}-Y_0)}{\sigma_{X}\sigma_{Y}}\right) \right].\label{eq:POVM}
%% \hspace*{-2cm}&=\langle \alpha_0 | W_{I}|\alpha_0\rangle. \label{eq:POVM}
%\eqa
\beq
\fl P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\alpha_0)=\langle \alpha_0 | W_{I}|\alpha_0\rangle =
N \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2(1-\rho_{c}^{2})}\left(\frac{\Delta_{X}^2}{\sigma_{X}^{2}}+\frac{\Delta_{Y}^2}{\sigma_{Y}^{2}}-\frac{2\rho_{c}\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}}{\sigma_{X}\sigma_{Y}}\right) \right],
\label{eq:POVM}
% \hspace*{-2cm}&=\langle \alpha_0 | W_{I}|\alpha_0\rangle. \label{eq:POVM}
\eeq
%\end{equation}
where we have broken $\alpha_0$ into quadratures as $\alpha_0=\left(X_0+iY_0\right)/\sqrt{2}$ and defined $\Delta_{X}=X_{\rm est}-X_0$ and $\Delta_{Y}=Y_{\rm est}-Y_0$.
%In this expression the amplitude, $\alpha_0$, is broken into quadratures as $\alpha_0=\left(X_0+iY_0\right)/\sqrt{2}$.
$\sigma_{X}^2$ and $\sigma_{Y}^2$ are the observed variances of $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$ respectively. The bivariate correlation, $\rho_{c}$, is equal to zero if the squeezing is aligned with the $X$ or $Y$ quadratures. $\sigma_{X}$, $\sigma_{Y}$ and $\rho_{c}$ are determined by the underlying system parameters and we defer explicit expressions until later sections. $N$ is a normalization factor that does not depend on $X_0$ or $Y_0$. With our chosen quadrature operator definitions,
%\wpb{the two unrelated "normalisations" in consecutive sentences was confusing -- at least to me!}
the POVM of (\ref{eq:POVM}) corresponds to ideal heterodyne detection when $\sigma_X^2=1=\sigma_Y^2$ and $\rho_c=0$. Ideal homodyne detection of the $Y$-quadrature corresponds to $\sigma_Y^2=1/2$ while $\sigma_X^2=\infty$ and $\rho_c=0$. Imperfect heterodyne detection with overall efficiency $\eta$ corresponds to $\sigma_X^2=1/\eta=\sigma^2_Y$, while homodyne detection of $Y$ with efficiency $\eta$ corresponds to $\sigma^2_Y=1/2\eta$.
%\wpb{I switched X and Y here to match the parametric amplification later on}
It should be observed that for ideal homodyne detection $\sigma_Y^2$ exactly matches the coherent state variance, introducing no uncertainty over-and-above the inherent uncertainty of the Y-quadrature. On the other hand, heterodyne detection results in one unit of zero-point uncertainty above the intrinsic quadrature uncertainty. This is, of course, a direct result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which forbids perfect simultaneous measurements of non-commuting observables. \blk
%The primary comparison of measurement procedures will be between the variance of the estimates of the initial coherent state quadratures. For perfect heterodyne detection the variance of both quadratures is given, with our chosen normalisation, by unity, while perfect homodyne variance is equal to $\half$ for the measured quadrature (the unmeasured quadrature has infinite variance). If the detector efficiency if less than unity then the heterodyne and homodyne variances are modified to $\frac{1}{\eta}$ and $\frac{1}{2\eta}$ respectively. The results, for our suggested protocol, will conform to our expectation that increased squeezing pushes the effective measurement towards being of a homodyne type. The simulated experiments of \srf{sims} will show that the homodyne measurement type is preferred for quantum state tomography and also that the suggested conclusions derived from Gaussian input states hold when more complicated, non-Gaussian, states are considered. %The reader should keep in mind that the composite measurement, and all discussions of the resultant state estimates, relate to the {\it initial} state and not the wavefunction of the oscillator at the end of the measurement process.
%
%The general form of the optimal estimate of the initial state is
%\beq
%X_{{\rm est}}=\int^t_0 h_X(r)I(r)dr,
%\label{filterGeneral}
%\eeq
%where $h_{X}$ is a filter function and $I$ is the measured current. There is a corresponding form for $Y_{\rm est}$ with a distinct filter function $h_{Y}$. The integral receives dominant contributions from initial times as the system state will progressively become less correlated with the initial state due to measurement back-action and coupling to decohering baths. Finding the form of $h(t)$ for the non-trivial system of interest is an important result of our work. The origin of the term `composite measurement' is made clear from \erf{filterGeneral}, where the measurement results for each small time slice are integrated over the duration of the measurement.
We can now be more concrete about the content of the following sections. Firstly, we obtain as much as possible of the important physics via a simplified analysis that treats the measurement step of the protocol as being equivalent to an instantaneous inefficient heterodyne measurement. Then, to delve deeper into the impact of a more realistic model of our proposed measurement protocol, and also find the form of the filters in \erf{filterGeneral}, we give an explicit analysis in
%Firstly, the analysis of explicit expressions for $Y_{\rm est}$, $\sigma_{Y}$ is performed in
two different regimes: in section~\ref{tomogram} the zero-detuning bad-cavity regime is analysed in some detail, and then, in section~\ref{BlueDetuned}, a similar, but briefer, analysis is performed for the blue-detuned regime. Next, we conduct an explicit analysis of quantum state tomography for non-classical mechanical states using the proposed multi-stage measurement protocol. The tomographic data analysis procedure is well understood for heterodyne and homodyne measurement, the results of which can be readily converted into an estimate of the initial mechanical oscillator state~\cite{tomRevAriano}. The situation of inefficient detection, and possibly additional noise directly added to the output signal, can also be described within this framework. Of course, with tomography, the input state is not known, so the problem is to invert from the measured probabilities back to the unknown state with the aid of the POVM. Our preferred method of doing so is via Maximum Likelihood (MaxLik) tomography~\cite{tomRevLvovsky,ORIGINALmaxLik}. We will implement this measurement on simulated experimental data in \srf{sims}.
\blk
%We defer the analysis of explicit expressions for $X_{\rm est}$, $\sigma_{X_0}$ and so on until subsequent sections. In section~\ref{tomogram} the zero-detuning bad-cavity regime is analysed in some detail, with our primary techniques introduced. Much of the resulting intuition then carries over to the second blue-detuned regime, which is treated in \srf{BlueDetuned}.
%This leaves the explicit analysis of quantum state tomography for non-classical mechanical states. This is well understood for heterodyne and homodyne measurement and can be readily converted to an optimal estimate of the initial mechanical oscillator state~\cite{tomRevAriano}. The situation of inefficient detection, and possibly additional noise directly added to the output signal, can also be described within this framework. Of course with tomography the input state is not known, so the problem is to invert from the measured probabilities back to the unknown state with the aid of the POVM. Our preferred method of doing so is via Maximum Likelihood (MaxLik) tomography~\cite{tomRevLvovsky,ORIGINALmaxLik} which we will use upon simulated experimental data in \srf{sims}. %The experimental arrangement of concern for us, as described in \frf{schematic}(a), has complications beyond standard heterodyne or homodyne detection. There is competing noise from the mechanical oscillator thermal bath, which impacts system dynamics in contrast to additive noise on the output signal, and there is also mechanical squeezing. This provides non-trivial system dynamics as a backdrop, with information concerning the mechanical oscillator is leaking out into the environment.
%, we can obtain expressions for the variances in the observers' estimates of the initial quadratures
%\bal
%\sigma_{X_0}^2=&\frac{\zeta +2 \epsilon \cos (\theta )}{\zeta^{2}-4 \epsilon ^{2}}\quad&&\xrightarrow{\: \theta =0 \: }\quad
%\frac{1}{ \zeta -2 \epsilon }\\
%\sigma_{Y_0}^2=&\frac{\zeta -2 \epsilon \cos (\theta )}{\zeta^{2}-4 \epsilon^{2}}\quad&&\xrightarrow{\: \theta =0 \: }\quad
%\frac{1}{\zeta +2 \epsilon }\\
%\rho_{c}=&\frac{2 \epsilon \sin (\theta )}{\sqrt{\zeta^{2}-4 \epsilon^{2} \cos^{2}(\theta )}}&&\xrightarrow{\: \theta =0 \: }\quad0,
%\label{quads}
%\eal
%with the $\theta\rightarrow 0$ limit corresponding to squeezing of the $X$ quadrature. Using our quadrature definitions, the Wigner function marginal probability distributions of a coherent state have variance $\frac{1}{2}$, with this limit reached by homodyne detection while heterodyne detection has a bounding variance of $1$. NOTE that the form (unstated) of the POVM parameters ensures that $\zeta\geq2\epsilon\geq 0$. We can, of course, also find the most likely values of $X_0,Y_0$, which are of large significance as they comprise the data point for the marginal Wigner function distribution. They will be stochastic and depend on the measurement record. Their actual form is not of great import to us in this article as here we investigate the efficiency with which the tomography can be performed under various experimental arrangements.
\section{Simplified analysis of optomechanical measurement with parametric amplification}
\label{simple}
%In this section, we introduce key features of optomechanical tomographic performance by analysing experimental protocols that {\it separate} the effects of parametric amplification and measurement. This corresponds to the two-step protocol depicted in \frf{schematic}(b). Additionally, we model the measurement as being of an heterodyne type with some effective efficiency, $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, which is different, in general, to the actual detector efficiency of \frf{schematic}(a), $\eta$. The measurement is idealized in the sense that the only imperfection is an effective inefficiency, but modeling the measurement step in this way does not actually remove any generality, provided we limit ourselves to input states of a Gaussian nature. This is because each aspect of the system dynamics preserves this Gaussianity, merely transforming its mean and variance. The measurement is assumed to be complete, in that it is carried on until the system state is completely decorrelated, by measurement backaction and the thermal bath, with the initial state of tomographic interest. Thus, within $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, we can place the dependence upon specific laser detuning, measurement strength and actual detector efficiency and focus on the tomographic impact of parametric amplification. In later sections all the details within $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ will be unraveled --- including, but not limited to, incomplete measurements and concurrent squeezing with measurement --- but for now, we obtain general results as a function of $\eta_{{\rm het}}$.
In this section, we provide a simplified analysis of optomechanical tomographic performance in the case of a two-step protocol (see \frf{schematic}(b)) that is followed in order to extract information concerning the initial state of the mechanical oscillator. The two steps are, firstly, a period of parametric amplification and, secondly, the optomechanical measurement of the oscillator, via the detection of light leaking from the cavity, as per \frf{schematic}(a). The simplification that we employ is to model the measurement step in a broad sense, so that although the expressions we provide are accurate, they do not display an explicit dependence upon the intra-measurement dynamics. In later sections, these dependences will be revealed. The purpose for the current simplification is that important physics relating to the impact of the supplementary squeezing step can still be introduced. We will highlight and discuss the transformation of the measurement protocol from having a purely heterodyne description, with the squeezing turned off, to having strong homodyne features, when the squeezing is on. We wish to be completely clear in our use of the terms `measurement protocol', which can include supplementary experimentally implemented processes in addition to physical measurement --- that is, an initial squeezing step is included --- whereas `measurement step' refers to the well defined portion of the protocol during which the measurement strength is non-zero.
%transformation of the overall protocol by the squeezing step
%
%--- which consists of
%
%an explicit dependence upon the details of the
%
%Although we refer broadly to the second step as being the measurement step, the first, squeezing, step plays a crucial role in the overall measurement protocol (which is comprised of the two steps). It will be shown that the squeezing step imbues the protocol with homodyne characteristics, which are otherwise absent.
To begin, we familiarize ourselves with the description of the second step (the measurement step). As has been discussed, the optomechanical measurement in the {\it absence} of squeezing (step-two of \frf{schematic}(b)) provides an equal amount of information about both mechanical quadratures. This is true in both the zero-detuned and blue-detuned regimes. However, the measurement's quality is degraded by the prolonged exposure of the system to the thermal bath. Additionally, the efficiency $\eta$ of the detector must be considered, and one can also envision the measurement being carried out for some finite (and therefore sub-optimal) time $T$. It is therefore natural to describe the measurement step --- step-two of the protocol --- in terms of non-ideal heterodyne detection, having some effective efficiency $\eta_{\rm het}$, which describes the overall noise level of the measurement. To be clear, all the measurement imperfections are included in $\eta_{\rm het}$ (a function of $\gamma, n_{\rm th}, \mu,\eta,T$) and it will be, in general, smaller than the actual detector efficiency, $\eta_{\rm het}\leq\eta$. In later sections, explicit expressions for $\eta_{\rm het}$ will be provided, for both the zero-detuned and blue-detuned regimes, but in this section we will focus on general results independent of the detailed specification of the measurement step.
To provide the reader more clarity regarding the role of $\eta_{\rm het}$, let us analyse a heterodyne measurement a little further.
%consider the case of heterodyne measurement, with effective efficiency $\eta_{\rm het}$, of a state having variance $V_{0}= V_{X}= V_{Y}$ and covariance $V_{X,Y}=0$.
The outcome of a heterodyne measurement provides an unbiased estimator of the means of system quadratures but with an, inevitably, increased variance due to the joint measurement of non-commuting variables. The amount of excess noise for perfect heterodyne detection is 1/2, while for an inefficient detector it is given by $\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}$~\cite{tomRevAriano}. Thus, the heterodyne measurement yields two Gaussian random variables, $x,y$, with $y$ having variance $V_{Y}+\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}$ (similarly for $x$), with $V_{Y}$ being the variance of the $Y$ quadrature at the time of the measurement. One can see that the measurement result variance is the sum of two components: an initial variance and excess noise. It is this excess noise that makes a heterodyne estimate noisier than a homodyne estimate.
%--- there is no excess noise in \red an idealized implementation of \blk the latter.
The statistics of the heterodyne measurement of a coherent state are given in \erf{eq:POVM}, with the specification that $\sigma_{{\rm X}}^{2}=\sigma_{{\rm Y}}^{2}=1/\eta_{\rm het}$ and $\rho_{c}=0$, however, we emphasize that the POVM associated with a measurement is in one-to-one correspondence with these measurement statistics so that both representations are equivalent and we refer to them interchangeably.
Our purpose in this section is to consider the {\it overall} effectiveness of a two-step protocol, but as yet we have only considered the second, measurement, step. What is the impact of the first, parametric amplification, step? This is modelled by the squeezing Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}, and, for concreteness, we take $\theta=0$, so that the $X$ quadrature is squeezed. The oscillator also resides in a thermal bath, so the dynamics are governed by a Markovian master equation (ME) consisting of a quadratic Hamiltonian and linear Lindblad (decoherence) operators. Although it is true that this ME maintains the Gaussinity of an initial Gaussian state, we note that the dynamics of the quadrature means (denoted by $X,Y$) and variances ($V_{X}, V_{Y}$) are of a closed form for {\it arbitrary} initial states. The reader should take care to be clear concerning the difference between variances of the system state at time t ($V_{X}, V_{Y}$) and the variance in the estimate of the initial state that exists after some period of measurement ($\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2$), with the latter being monotonic decreasing in time, as knowledge is acquired. The equations of motion for the $Y$ quadrature of the mechanical oscillator, in the presence of squeezing and thermal bath, but no measurement, are of a linear form for arbitrary initial state,
\bqa
\dot{Y}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\chi-\gamma\right)Y\label{meanDot}\\
\dot{V}_{Y}&=&\left(\chi-\gamma\right)V_{Y}+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left(1+2n_{{\rm th}}\right),
\eqa
and can be solved using the initial conditions ($X_{0},Y_{0}$ and $V_{Y}(t=0)=V_{0}$) to give
\bqa
Y&=&Y_{0}e^{(\chi-\gamma)\tau/2}\label{meanY}\\
V_{Y}&=&\left(V_{0}+\frac{\gamma(1+2n_{{\rm th}})}{2 (\chi -\gamma )}\right)e^{ (\chi -\gamma )\tau}
-\frac{\gamma(1+2n_{{\rm th}})}{2 (\chi -\gamma )},
\label{varY}
\eqa
where squeezing for a period of time $\tau$ has been considered.
Note that for squeezing aligned with the $X$ quadrature, the equations of motion for $X,Y$ are uncoupled and that if the covariance between $X$ and $Y$ is initially zero then it will stay zero (as for a coherent state). It is clear, from these equations, that if $\chi>\gamma$ then there is exponential growth of the $Y$ quadrature mean and variance. This corresponds to the self oscillation threshold, $\chi_{{\rm osc}} =\gamma $, of a parametric amplifier. The equations for the $X$ quadrature can be obtained with the replacement $\chi\rightarrow -\chi$, so it follows that if $Y$ is exponentially growing, then $X$ is exponentially damped.
Let us now combine the parametric amplification and measurement steps sequentially, and consider an initial coherent state (which is without loss of generality as has been previously discussed).
Although, the measurement step alone can be described in terms of an effective heterodyne efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, the overall protocol can not, as the symmetry between quadratures is broken by the squeezing. The quadrature of most interest is the $Y$ quadrature, as this will contain the bulk of the tomographic information. After a period, $\tau$, of squeezing, the variance of this quadrature is given by \erf{varY}, but the heterodyne measurement step adds excess noise, of size $\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}$, to the measured random variable, $y$ (which will be Gaussian if the initial state is Gaussian).
%\pw{only Gaussian if initial state is Gaussian. Andrews FB}.
The important point is that the value of $y$ is correlated with that of $Y_{0}$ and we use it to obtain the best estimate of the initial coherent state quadrature, $Y_{{\rm est}}=ye^{-(\chi-\gamma)\tau}$, which has the POVM \erf{eq:POVM} and variance
\beq
\sigma_Y^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}}{2(\chi-\gamma)}+
e^{-(\chi-\gamma)\tau}\left(\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}-
\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
\right).
\label{eq:sigYGen}
\eeq
%for an initial coherent state.
The expression for $\sigma_X^2$ is once again obtained from that of $\sigma_Y^2$ by the replacement $\chi\rightarrow -\chi$.
%can invert, using Bayesian inference, the probability distribution for $P(y|Y_{0})$ to obtain another Gaussian distribution for $P(Y_{0}|y)$, which represents the POVM, as per \erf{eq:POVM}. The best estimate of the initial quadrature is given by $y\exp (-(\chi-\gamma)\tau/2)$ and the variance in this estimate is given by
%\beq
%\sigma_Y^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}}{2(\chi-\gamma)}+
%e^{-(\chi-\gamma)\tau}\left(\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}-
%\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
% \right).
%\label{eq:sigYGen}
%\eeq
%To gain quantitative intuition, regarding tomographic performance, we will consider tomography of an initial coherent state. That is, the initial state is of a Gaussian form. The first step of the two-step protocol is to parametrically amplify the state, which is modelled by the squeezing Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}. For concreteness, we take $\theta=0$, so that the $X$ quadrature is squeezed. The oscillator also resides in a thermal bath, so the dynamics are goverened by a Markovian master equation consisting of a quadratic Hamiltonian and linear Lindblad (decoherence) operators. This, in turn, means that an initial Gaussian state will be mapped to a new Gaussian state so that we can track the dynamics using only the quadrature means (denoted by $X_{t},Y_{t}$) and variances ($V_{X},V_{Y}$). The reader should take care to be clear concerning the difference between variances of the system state at time $t$ ($V_{X},V_{Y}$) and the variance in the estimate of the {\it initial} state that exists after some period of measurement ($\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2$), with the latter being monotonic decreasing in time, as knowledge is acquired. The equations of motion for the $Y$ quadrature of the mechanical oscillator, in the presence of squeezing and thermal bath, but no measurement, are of a linear form,
%\bqa
%\dot{Y}_{t}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\chi-\gamma\right)Y_{t}\label{meanDot}\\
%\dot{V}_{Y}&=&\left(\chi-\gamma\right)V_{Y}+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left(2n_{{\rm th}}+1\right),
%\eqa
%and can be solved using the initial conditions of a coherent state ($\alpha_{0}=X_{0}+iY_{0}$ and $V_{Y}(t=0)=1/2$) to give
%\bqa
%Y_{t}&=&Y_{0}e^{(\chi-\gamma)\tau/2}\label{mean}\\
%V_{Y}&=&\frac{(\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}})e^{(\chi-\gamma)\tau}-\gamma(1+2n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)},\label{var}
%\eqa
%where squeezing for a period of time $\tau$ has been considered.
%Note that for squeezing aligned with the $X$ quadrature, the equations of motion for $X,Y$ are uncoupled and that if the covariance between $X$ and $Y$ is initially zero then it will stay zero (as for a coherent state). It is clear, from these equations, that if $\chi>\gamma$ then there is exponential growth of the $Y$ quadrature mean and variance. This corresponds to the self oscillation threshold of a parametric amplifier. The equations for the $X$ quadrature can be obtained with the replacement $\chi\rightarrow -\chi$, so it follows that if $Y$ is exponentially growing, then $X$ is exponentially damped.
%The second step of the protocol is the measurement, which we are modeling as heterodyne detection with efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$. All the details of the measurement are contained in $\eta_{{\rm het}}$. It is well known that the outcome of a heterodyne measurement provides an unbiased estimator of the means of system quadratures at time $t$ but with an, inevitably, increased variance due to the joint measurement of non-commuting variables. The amount of excess noise for perfect heterodyne detection is $1/2$, while for an inefficient detector it is given by $\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}$~\cite{tomRevAriano}.
%Thus, the heterodyne measurement at time $\tau$ yields a Gaussian random variable, $y$, with mean $Y_{\tau}$ and variance $V_{Y}+\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}$. The value of $y$ is correlated with that of $Y_{0}$ and we can invert, using Bayesian inference, the probability distribution for $P(y|Y_{0})$ to obtain another Gaussian distribution for $P(Y_{0}|y)$, which represents the POVM, as per \erf{eq:POVM}. The best estimate of the initial quadrature is given by $y\exp (-(\chi-\gamma)\tau/2)$ and the variance in this estimate is given by
%\beq
%\sigma_Y^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}}{2(\chi-\gamma)}+
%e^{-(\chi-\gamma)\tau}\left(\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}-
%\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
% \right).
%\label{eq:sigYGen}
%\eeq
A number of results are immediately obtained from \erf{eq:sigYGen}. These can be summarized by associating with $\chi$ a hierarchy of thresholds
\beq
\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})\geq\chi_{{\rm del}}=2\gamma\frac{1+n_{{\rm th}}\eta_{{\rm het}} }{2-\eta_{{\rm het}}}\geq\chi_{{\rm osc}}=\gamma. \label{thresholds}
\eeq
The lowest threshold $\chi_{\rm osc}$ is the parametric oscillation threshold. If we are squeezing for a long time with strength $\chi>\chi_{{\rm osc}}=\gamma$ then a non-zero amount of information will be gathered about the $Y$ quadrature, irrespective of the efficiency of the measurement step. In contrast, below this threshold, squeezing for a long time leads to essentially no information being gathered since the system approaches a steady state that is independent of the initial condition. This is illustrated in \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp} by comparison of the red vertical line, representing $\chi_{{\rm osc}}$, and the dashed black line, representing the $Y$ quadrature estimate variance of the two-step protocol. In \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp} the long squeezing duration limit is taken for the two-step protocol. The middle threshold, $\chi_{\rm del}$, is that required to make squeezing worthwhile as compared to immediately performing the heterodyne measurement with no squeezing step. In other words, $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ is the squeezing strength required to justify delaying the measurement by prolonging the squeezing. To see this, note that if $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$, then the second term of \erf{eq:sigYGen} is positive, so that it is then beneficial to exponentially suppress it by squeezing for a long time $\tau$. Alternatively, one can take the partial derivative of \erf{eq:sigYGen} with respect to $\tau$ and note that it is strictly negative for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$, independent of $\tau$. The delay threshold, $\chi_{{\rm del}}$, is seen in \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp} as the cyan line, which marks the squeezing at which the two-step protocol beats inefficient heterodyne detection.
We are now in a position to claim that for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$ and the described two-step protocol, the anti-squeezing of the $Y$ quadrature makes it more resolvable. Conversely, the squeezing of the $X$ quadrature makes it more difficult to probe. The trade-off between the $X$ and $Y$ quadrature information is not a zero-sum exercise with regards to tomographic performance --- we will show later, when performing tomography on simulated data, that imprecision in quadrature estimates can require an exceedingly large number of samples to be overcome. Thus, the improved precision achieved in the anti-squeezed quadrature can be very beneficial.
Just because squeezing is worthwhile does not mean that the heterodyne limit of unity for $\sigma_Y^2$ can be surpassed. It is only when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$ that $\sigma_Y^2\leq 1$. This can be found from the first term of \erf{eq:sigYGen}.
% We term the regime $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ as being `{\it over}-squeezed' and the regime $\chi<\chi_{{\rm het}}$ as being `{\it under}-squeezed'.
For $\chi\gg \chi_{{\rm het}}$, we approach the homodyne limit $\sigma_Y^2\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}$ for a sufficiently long duration of squeezing. A very important point is that any amount of noise introduced by the measurement step, and captured in the parameter $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, can be suppressed by the exponential. The $\chi_{{\rm het}}$ threshold is seen in \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp} as the magenta line and it marks the squeezing at which the two-step protocol enters the homodyne regime.
Note that none of these thresholds depend on the optomechanical coupling $\mu$; all that is required for a lengthy period of squeezing to lead to essentially ideal homodyne measurement is that the parametric drive $\chi$ can be made sufficiently large compared to the rate at which phonons decohere the oscillator $\gamma (n_{\rm th}+1)$.
In practice there will be other competing effects that would preclude waiting indefinitely during the parametric amplification phase before initiating the measurement. One of these is that the parametric amplification phase, $\theta$,
will never be perfectly aligned with the quadrature axes defining the measurement --- this will analysed in a later section. Additionally, there will be mechanical non-linearities not modelled by the parametric amplification Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}. Both of these effects will mean that in practice there will be some optimal length of time to apply the initial squeezing. Squeezing beyond this time becomes deleterious.
%The parametric amplification thresholds are illustrated in \frf{analyticComparison}.
%Note that the two-step protocol is modeling the measurement step as being of a heterodyne type with efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$. Despite this, the homodyne regime is entered above $\chi_{{\rm het}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
% \begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
% \centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{analyticSchem2stepSimp5.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{figure2Revised3.png}
% \caption{Image}\label{fig:image1}
% \end{subfigure} %
% \begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{analyticComparisonCombo11.jpg}
% \caption{Image}\label{fig:image1}
% \end{subfigure} %
\caption{This figure illustrates the three thresholds of parametric amplification with regards to information gathered about the anti-squeezed quadrature. For convenience, $\chi$ is measured in units of $\gamma$. The black dashed curve is the variance in the estimate of the initial $Y$ quadrature of a coherent state for the two-step protocol described in the text. The measurement step is modelled as heterodyne detection of some efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ and the duration of the squeezing step is taken to infinity. The important thresholds for the parametric amplification strength are shown, the expressions for which can be found in \erf{thresholds}. Below $\chi_{{\rm osc}}$ (red dash-dot), no information about the initial value of the $Y$ quadrature is obtained. The parametric drive strength at which a pre-amplification step becomes beneficial is marked by $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ (cyan, dotted). Thus, the horizontal line representing the performance of heterodyne detection with efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ intersects the curve at this point. For $\chi>\chi_{\rm het}$ (magenta, dotted) the two-step protocol outperforms ideal ($\eta_{\rm het}=1$) heterodyne detection and reaches the homodyne limiting variance of $1/2$ for $\chi\gg\chi_{{\rm het}}$. To highlight the asymptotic behaviour a log-log scale plot has been used. The choice of parameters was $n_{{\rm th}}=\eta_{\rm het}=0.3$.
} %but with constant $\chi=2$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ varying.}
\label{analyticComparison2stepSimp}
\end{figure}
As it represents one of the major results of this paper, we pause to emphasize the role of $\chi_{{\rm het}}$. In the absence of a squeezing step, we have explained how the measurement step leads to a heterodyne type measurement of the mechanical oscillator quadratures. We have then incorporated a parametric amplification step and considered the POVM of the overall protocol, which can be summarized by the value of $\sigma_Y^2$, being the variance of an estimate of the initial $Y$ quadrature of a coherent state. To highlight the utility of \erf{eq:sigYGen}, it can be seen that it holds true in the case for which the duration of the squeezing step is taken to zero. In this case, we are returned to $\sigma_{{\rm X}}^{2}=\sigma_{{\rm Y}}^{2}=1/\eta_{\rm het}$. For non-zero $\tau$, as $\chi$ is increased $\sigma_Y^2$ monotonically decreases (and $\sigma_X^2$ monotonically increases). This asymmetry in the amount of information gathered about the $X,Y$ quadratures is indicative of the overall measurement protocol now possessing homodyne characteristics. That is, although the individual measurement step is of a heterodyne type, the composite protocol that includes squeezing has a tomographic performance that has homodyne features. In fact, we can achieve nearly perfect efficiency homodyne limited tomographic performance despite the presence of a finite temperature thermal bath and detector inefficiency. Physically, when the squeezing is large enough --- that is, when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ --- we have found that the amplification dominates the thermal noise and the decohering bath can be effectively frozen out.
% whilst the parametric amplification transforms the measurement into a nearly ideal homodyne measurement of a single quadrature.
%We term the squeezing regime in which it is possible to achieve a variance smaller than the heterodyne detection lower bound `{\it over}-squeezed' and find that it is defined by $\chi>2\gamma(1+n)$. Even when the squeezing cannot overcome the thermal noise, the effect is to reduce the estimate variance of one of the quadratures if an optimal experimental protocol is chosen. This is a central result of our work --- squeezing allows more accurate quadrature estimates and improves tomographic reconstruction.
To assess the tomographic performance of the two-step protocol, which includes squeezing, it is useful to introduce an effective {\it homodyne} efficiency $\eta_{\rm hom}$. This is the efficiency of standard homodyne detection that would lead to a variance in the estimate of an initial coherent state quadrature equal to that of our protocol. The quadrature used in the comparison is that which is probed most closely in our protocol (the $Y$ quadrature in the above discussion) and, of course, the measured homodyne quadrature. Converting \erf{eq:sigYGen} into an expression for the effective homodyne efficiency is done via $\sigma_Y^2=1/2\eta_{\rm hom}$, which, for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm osc}}$ and $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, gives
\beq
\eta_{{\rm hom}}=\frac{\chi-\gamma }{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}}.
\label{homEtaNew}
\eeq
It is clear that perfect efficiency homodyne detection, $\eta_{{\rm hom}}\rightarrow 1$, can be achieved in the large squeezing limit. Also, note that the details of the measurement step are completely absent --- the protocol has removed all dependence upon the effective heterodyne efficiency and the optomechanical coupling. This further justifies an initial analysis bereft of the intra-measurement dynamics.
% A very important point is that any amount of noise introduced by the measurement process, and captured in the parameter $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, can be suppressed by the exponential. We can achieve perfect efficiency homodyne limited tomographic performance in the estimate of an initial Gaussian state, despite the presence of a finite temperature thermal bath and detector inefficiency.
%
%
%We define the distinctive value of squeezing that allows the protocol to achieve a quadrature estimate precision below that of the heterodyne limit, and hence belong in the homodyne regime, as $\chi_{{\rm hom}$. The transformation of the protocol from being completely heterodyne, with $\chi=0$ or $\tau=0$ and $\sigma_Y^2\geq 1$, to totally homodyne occurs when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm hom}$ and $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, leading to $\sigma_Y^2\rightarrow 1/2$.
%
%
%
%A very important point is that any amount of noise introduced by the measurement process, and captured in the parameter $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, can be suppressed by the exponential. We can achieve perfect efficiency homodyne limited tomographic performance in the estimate of an initial Gaussian state, despite the presence of a finite temperature thermal bath and detector inefficiency.
The simplicity of the form of the parametric amplification strength threshold required to beat the heterodyne limit, $\chi_{{\rm het}}$, invites a heuristic interpretation. To provide this, we
note that the heterodyne limit can be considered from the point of view of being able to distinguish two coherent states that have a difference in amplitude of unity, despite an additional unit of ground state noise being added due to the measurement of joint quadratures. Said differently, we can reliably distinguish two equal variance Gaussian distributions when their means differ by more than one standard deviation. Consider the two Gaussians that we wish to distinguish as being subjected to a long period of squeezing via \erfs{meanY}{varY}. The ratio of the difference in their means to their standard deviation is given by $\sqrt{\frac{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}}{2(\chi-\gamma) }}$, which is larger than unity for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$. Thus, the squeezing is making coherent states separated by unity more distinguishable and we can beat the heterodyne limit.
%After a long period of squeezing, the ratio of
%note that to beat the heterodyne limit requires reliably distinguishing between coherent states having a difference in amplitude of unity (the heterodyne limited variance), with a single copy of the state. This can be achieved if the squeezing makes these states more distinguishable. Without loss of generality, consider one of the two states as being the ground state with $\alpha=0$. Then, we take the heuristic as requiring that the standard deviation of the ground state after expansion by the squeezing be less than the quadrature value having a pre-image, under the squeezing step, of unity. Using \erfs{meanY}{varY} under this condition then returns us the threshold $\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$.
%expanded by the squeezing at a rate slower than that at which the mean of an $\alpha=1$ coherent state grows, in the long squeezing duration limit. Using \erf{meanDot}, and equating it to \erf{varY} and then taking $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ returns us the threshold $\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$.
%We term the regime $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ as being `{\it over}-squeezed and the regime $\chi<\chi_{{\rm het}}$ as being `{\it under}-squeezed.
To summarize this section, and prepare for the next, we have considered a two-step protocol in which the measurement step was modelled as being heterodyne detection, of efficiency $\eta_{\rm het}$. A period of parametric amplification constituted the first step and broke the symmetry regarding the variance of estimates of the $X,Y$ quadratures. This asymmetry made it natural to introduce an overall homodyne effective efficiency to describe the two-step protocol in comparison to standard homodyne detection. The main conclusion was that with sufficiently large squeezing it was possible to approach the limit of ideal homodyne measurement of the initial mechanical state. In the following sections we perform a similar analysis, this time including the details of the optomechanical measurement in both the zero and blue-detuned laser regimes. Such a full analysis leads to detailed expressions for $\eta_{\rm het}$ in terms of the parameters of the optomechanical system but doesn't alter the qualitative conclusions of this section.
%Additionally, a one-step protocol in which the squeezing and measurement are concurrent is considered and we also consider the case where the quadrature parametric amplified is not perfectly aligned with that which we wish to obtain an initial estimate for.
However, before proceeding with these specific analyses, let us consider the impact of misaligned parametric amplification within the simplified framework of this section.
\subsection{Misaligned parametric amplification}
Before concluding this section, we investigate the effect of a non-zero value of the parametric drive phase $\theta$, which is inevitable to some extent in practice. In an experiment, this phase corresponds to the difference between mechanical parametric amplification phase and the phase of the signal used to mix-down the measured photocurrent into a quadrature signal. This relative phase must be controlled or chosen in post-processing, which necessarily involves some uncertainty and fluctuations.
%This is because $\theta$ derives from the difference between \red mand these need to be locked together in an experiment.
Given that the squeezed quadrature estimate variance goes to $\infty$ at long times, it is of concern that any finite misalignment may destroy the desired effect. We can study this issue in the framework of our qualitative analysis where the measurement step is modelled as heterodyne detection with efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$.
% For instance, in~\cite{Brawley} a phase instability of beneath $5\times 10^{-3}$ rad is reported.
%We investigate this possibility for both the two and one-step protocols.
The complication, of non-zero $\theta$, couples the equations of motion for the quadrature means and variances, but we can largely avoid this by working in a rotated frame aligned with the squeezing axes. Then it becomes a matter of transforming the bivariate Gaussian distribution back to the frame defined by the measured quadratures, before adding the diagonal covariance due to measurement inefficiency. After some algebra, we obtain the variance in the estimate of the initial $Y$ quadrature (we keep in mind that $\theta$ will be small so that the $Y$ quadrature is of interest):
\bqa
\fl\sigma_Y^2=&\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}}{2(\chi-\gamma)}\cos^{2}\left(\theta/2\right)+
e^{-(\chi-\gamma)\tau}\left(\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}-
\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
\right)\cos^{2}\left(\theta/2\right)\nonumber\\
\fl &+\frac{\chi-2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}}{2(\chi+\gamma)}\sin^{2}\left(\theta/2\right)+
e^{(\chi+\gamma)\tau}\left(\frac{2- \eta_{{\rm het}}}{2\eta_{{\rm het}}}-
\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi+\gamma)}
\right)\sin^{2}\left(\theta/2\right).
\label{eq:sigYGenTheta}
\eqa
From this expression, it is clear that if the squeezing is carried on indefinitely then the variance will exponentially diverge due to the new terms introduced for non-zero $\theta$. There exists an optimal squeezing duration that can be found by differentiating with respect to $\tau$,
%\bqa
%\tau_{{\rm opt}}&=&\frac{1}{ \chi }\log \left[\frac{ (2-\eta_{{\rm het}} ) \chi -2 \gamma (1+\eta_{{\rm het}} n_{{\rm th}})}{(2-\eta_{{\rm het}} ) \chi + 2\gamma (1+\eta_{{\rm het}} n_{{\rm th}})}|\cot\left(\theta /2\right)|\right]\\
%%\xrightarrow{\: \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0 \: }
%%\xrightarrow{\: \chi\infty, \,\theta] 0 \: }
%%\overlim{ \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0}
%\begin{tikzpicture}
%\draw [->] (-0.5,0.1) -- (1.15,0.1);
%\draw [white] (0,0) -- (0,0);
%\node at (0.3,0.3) {\tiny $\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0$};
%\end{tikzpicture}&&
%%{\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0 \above 0pt \Arrow{2cm}}
%%\overset{ \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0}{\Arrow{2cm}}
%%\node at (0.3,2.3) {\tiny $\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0$};
%\frac{1}{ \chi }\log \left[\frac{2}{|\theta |}\right].
%\eqa
\beq
\fl\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\frac{1}{ \chi }\log \left[\frac{ (2-\eta_{{\rm het}} ) \chi -2 \gamma (1+\eta_{{\rm het}} n_{{\rm th}})}{(2-\eta_{{\rm het}} ) \chi + 2\gamma (1+\eta_{{\rm het}} n_{{\rm th}})}|\cot\left(\theta /2\right)|\right]
%\xrightarrow{\: \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0 \: }
%\xrightarrow{\: \chi\infty, \,\theta] 0 \: }
%\overlim{ \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (-0.5,0.1) -- (1.15,0.1);
\draw [white] (0,0) -- (0,0);
\node at (0.3,0.3) {\tiny $\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
%{\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0 \above 0pt \Arrow{2cm}}
%\overset{ \chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0}{\Arrow{2cm}}
%\node at (0.3,2.3) {\tiny $\chi\rightarrow\infty, \,\theta\rightarrow 0$};
\frac{1}{ \chi }\log \left[\frac{2}{|\theta |}\right].
\eeq
This explicitly shows how sensitive the system is to off-axis squeezing as the optimal time only diverges as $\ln(1/\theta)$ --- unless $\theta$ is extremely small, the optimal time will not be large compared to the other system time scales. This effect is exacerbated by the $1/\chi$ scaling, with large $\chi$ being the regime of interest. From \erf{eq:sigYGenTheta}, once this optimal time is exceeded the estimate performance exponentially deteriorates with $\tau$ at a rate $\gamma+\chi$. This makes it a crucial experimental consideration that may not have been treated appropriately without the above analysis. Note that a finite squeezing time is optimal even to zeroth order in the bath coupling, showing that it is unavoidable if squeezing off-axis. If the squeezing is carried out for the optimal duration, $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$, then a term linear in $|\theta |$ is added to the $Y$ quadrature estimate variance.
%for a squeezing step to be productive. If $\chi<\gamma$ then $\sigma_Y^2$ exponentially diverges and squeezing for a long time will lead to no information being gained concerning the $Y$ quadrature, $\sigma_Y^2\rightarrow\infty$. The tighter bound on $\chi$ comes from the coefficient of the exponential being positive and, also, $\sigma_Y^2$ being monotonic in $\tau$. That is, the second term of \erf{a} must be positive for the optimal value of $\tau$ to be $\infty$ rather than zero.
%
%
%if we are above the parametric oscillation threshold, $\chi>\gamma$, then, in the long squeezing limit, a finite amount of information concerning the initial $Y$ quadrature is obtained, while if we are below it then squeezing for a long time is completely unproductive. Secondly, we require that
%\beq
%\chi>\gamma\frac{2+n_{{\rm th}}\eta_{{\rm het}} }{2-\eta_{{\rm het}}}>\gamma
%\eeq
%for a squeezing step to be productive
%
%is an unbiased estimator of the mean of system quadrature at time $t$, but with an increased variance
%
%
%thermal bath that one wants to focus on.
%we can obtain results that are independent of
%
%However, it hides the determination of the effective efficiency --- which will depend on the thermal bath, measurement strength and physical detector efficiency --- from
%
%
%and, also, modeling the measurement . That is, the quantum state that we wish to reconstruct is subjected to a period of parametric amplification before the measurement is turned on. This is schematically illustrated in \frf{schematic}(b). As has been discussed, in the regime of consideration the continuous measurement of mechanical oscillator position obtains information about both quadratures of motion and the composite measurement, without concurrent squeezing, is of a heterodyne type. In fact, the statistics of the measurement are completely equivalent to instantaneous heterodyne detection with some effective efficiency, $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, which is different, in general, to the actual detector efficiency of \frf{schematic}(a), $\eta$. Summarising the second, measurement, step of the two-step protocol by an equivalent instantaneous heterodyne measurement of efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ will allow us to elucidate the impact of the parametric amplification and derive relevant thresholds categorising its utility. In later sections, a more comprehensive analysis is undertaken that allows a more in depth consideration of the interplay between squeezing, thermal bath and weak, inefficient measurement.
%
% We will provide expressions for the estimate variance of the quadratures of an initial coherent state, or, equivalently, an effective heterodyne, or homodyne, detector efficiency is given. In this way, our optomechanical measurement can be compared to these well understood schemes, which are used as a benchmark throughout our work. For simplicity
%
%
%
%The most interesting results in this section concern the use of parametric amplification, for which we derive the relevant thresholds categorising its utility.
%
%
%
%
%By considering linear, idealized, system dynamics, the relevant thresholds that categorise the utility of the parametric amplification are derived. For concreteness, and in order to gain familiarity, we focus on the case of a zero-detuned laser, but it is important to note that we can characterise the various regimes of laser operation
%
%To begin, we consider the measurement of an initial coherent state, using the optomechanical arrangement of \frf{schematic} (with zero-detuned laser), in the {\it absence} of squeezing (parametric amplification), but including a finite temperature thermal bath. As the measurement rate, $\mu$, is not sufficient to resolve the mechanical oscillator position on a time scale of many periods of motion, information is equally gathered about both the $X$ and $Y$ quadratures of motion (squeezing will remove this symmetry). That is, we will have $\sigma_{X}^2 =\sigma_{Y}^2$, making a comparison with heterodyne detection informative. For simplicity, we take the long measurement time limit, which means that we continue to monitor the system until it is completely decorrelated with its initial state and there is no more tomographic information to be garnered. At the end of the measurement, which is performed on a single copy of the state to be reconstructed, the knowledge gained is equivalent to that obtained via heterodyne detection, %(ie could be represented by the same POVM)
%but with an efficiency given by
%\beq
%\eta_{{\rm het}}=\frac{8 \eta\mu}{\gamma +4 \eta\mu+\sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} },
%\label{hetEta}
%\eeq
%where $\eta$ is the efficiency of the actual detector of \frf{schematic}(a) (which we refer to as the `physical' efficiency). This result is obtained from the POVM that describes the composite measurement upon system and the reader is referred to \arf{qtraj} and~\cite{warDoh} for details. In part, details are not provided in the main text as we will soon see that important results regarding a squeezing inclusive protocol can, in fact, be derived using only knowledge of the system master equation (ME) and perfect efficiency heterodyne detection. The estimate variance of both the initial $X$ and $Y$ quadratures is given by $1/\eta_{{\rm het}}$. The effective efficiency lies in the range $0\leq\eta_{{\rm het}}\leq 1$, which corresponds to estimate variances of $\sigma_{X}^2 =\sigma_{Y}^2\geq 1$, as expected for heterodyne detection.
%
%From \erf{hetEta} we can see that the thermal bath, characterised by coupling, $\gamma$, and thermal parameter, $n$, decreases the quality of the performed measurement, with the efficiency going to zero in the large bath limit. The effective efficiency is monotonic increasing in both the actual detector efficiency and the measurement strength. A large measurement strength corresponds to a short time scale upon which most of the information is gathered, so the interpretation is that the state is measured before the thermal bath has time to significantly remove the correlation with the initial state. In the instantaneous measurement limit $\mu\gg \gamma,\gamma n_{\rm th}$ (or expressed in terms of the optomechanical cooperativity $C\gg 1, \gamma n_{\rm th}$) of \erf{hetEta} gives
%\beq
%\eta_{{\rm het}}\xrightarrow{\: \mu\rightarrow\infty \: }\frac{2\eta}{\eta+\sqrt{\eta}},
%\label{instantHet}
%\eeq
%which is, importantly, $\neq\eta$. In other words, the optomechanical arrangement of \frf{schematic}(a) increases the effective heterodyne efficiency of the homodyne detector, as $\eta_{{\rm het}}\geq \eta$\pw{physical explanation required}. When $\eta\rightarrow 1$ we have $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 1$ so that in the limit of very strong optomechanical coupling and ideal detection, the composite optomechanical measurement approaches ideal heterodyne detection, as might be expected. In the opposite limit, of $\mu\rightarrow 0$, the effective efficiency goes to zero.
%
%\subsection{Parametric amplification prior to measurement}
%Having familiarized ourselves with tomographic performance in the absence of parametric amplification, we now investigate a protocol in which the system is subjected to a period of squeezing before the measurement is turned on (which we refer to as a `two-step' protocol). For simplicity, we assume that the measurement step is instantaneous, which we have shown in \erf{instantHet} is achievable with our optomechanical arrangement in the regime of large cooperativity (strong measurement). Although we focus on the zero-detuned regime, with instantaneous measurement clearly separated from squeezing, many of the features observed will appear in other experimental protocols involving blue-detuned laser and/or concurrent weak measurement and squeezing (which we refer to as a `one-step' protocol).
%
%To gain quantitative intuition, regarding tomographic performance, we are considering tomography of an initial coherent state. That is, the initial state is of a Gaussian form. The first step of the two-step protocol is parametrically amplify the state, which is modelled by the squeezing Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}. For concreteness, we take $\theta=0$, so that the $X$ quadrature is squeezed. The oscillator also resides in a thermal bath, so the dynamics are goverened by a Markovian ME consisting of a quadratic Hamiltonian and linear Lindblad (decoherence) operators. This, in turn, means that an initial Gaussian state will be mapped to a new Gaussian state so that we can track the dynamics using only the quadrature means (denoted by $X_{t},Y_{t}$) and variances ($V_{X},V_{Y}$). The reader should take care to be clear concerning the difference between variances of the system state at time $t$ ($V_{X},V_{Y}$) and the variance in the estimate of the {\it initial} state that exists after some period of measurement ($\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2$), with the latter being monotonic decreasing in time as knowledge is acquired. The equations of motion for the $Y$ quadrature of the mechanical oscillator with a zero-detuned laser, in the presence of squeezing and thermal bath, but no measurement, are of a linear form,
%\bqa
%\dot{Y}_{t}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\chi-\gamma\right)Y_{t}\\
%\dot{V}_{Y}&=&\left(\chi-\gamma\right)V_{Y}+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left(2n_{{\rm th}}+1\right),
%\eqa
%and can be solved using the initial conditions of a coherent state ($Y_{0}$ and $V_{Y}(t=0)=1/2$) to give
%\bqa
%Y_{t}&=&Y_{0}e^{(\chi-\gamma)t/2}\\
%V_{Y}&=&\frac{(\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}})e^{(\chi-\gamma)t}-\gamma(1+2n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}.
%\eqa
%Note that for squeezing aligned with the $X$ quadrature, the equations of motion for $X,Y$ are uncoupled and that if the covariance between $X$ and $Y$ is initially zero then it will state zero (as for a coherent state). It is clear, from these equations, that if $\chi>\gamma$ then there is exponential growth of the $Y$ quadrature mean and variance. The equations for the $X$ quadrature can be obtained with the replacement $\chi\rightarrow -\chi$, so it follows that if $Y$ is exponentially growing, then $X$ is exponentially damped.
% and physical detector efficiency $\eta\rightarrow 1$ (equal to effective efficiency in this limit).
%Central to our analysis of optomechanical tomography, is a comparison with the well understood techniques of heterodyne and homodyne detection. In the absence of squeezing, \erf{sigma} is symmetric with respect to quadrature, $\sigma_{X}^2 =\sigma_{Y}^2$, and the POVM for the composite optomechanical measurement is identical to the POVM for heterodyne detection with some efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$. This allows a direct comparison with heterodyne detection. The effect of finite measurement strength, finite temperature thermal bath and detector efficiency are all captured by this effective heterodyne detector efficiency. We find
%\beq
%\eta_{{\rm het}}=\frac{8 \eta\mu}{\gamma +4 \eta\mu+\sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} },
%\label{hetEta}
%\eeq
%where we have made explicit the dependence on detector efficiency by using the parameters $\mu$ and $n_{\rm th}$ rather than $\tilde{\mu}$ and $n$.
%The statistics of our measurement are exactly the same as those for heterodyne detection conducted with this effective efficiency. It is important to note that in the limit of $\gamma, \gamma n_{\rm th}\rightarrow 0$, the effective heterodyne efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})\neq \eta$.
%%In fact, we find that in the absence of a thermal bath and also squeezing, the effective heterodyne efficiency becomes
%%\beq
%%\eta_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm Het}}\xrightarrow{\: \gamma,\chi=0 \: },
%%\label{hetEta}
%%\eeq
%%independent of $\mu$.
%This is because $\eta$ refers to efficiency of the optical homodyne detection in the experimental arrangement of \frf{schematic}(a). Note that in the regime of $\mu\gg \gamma,\gamma n_{\rm th}$ (or expressed in terms of the optomechanical cooperativity $C\gg 1, \gamma n_{\rm th}$) \blk and We observe that this is also exactly the regime required to feedback cool the oscillator to its ground state~\cite{sme,bowMil}. \blk
%
%
%In all of the analysis in this paper, we are concerned with the regime in which $\sigma_{X}^2 =\sigma_{Y}^2$ and equal information
%
%
%
%In later sections we will provide expressions for the estimate variance of the quadratures of an initial coherent state
%
%Our preliminary aim is to identify whether the amplification can be beneficial to tomographic performance, and, if so, how to best utilise it. In later sections, we will provide expressions for the estimate variance of the
\section{Full Analysis of Optomechanical Tomography --- Zero-Detuning}
\label{tomogram}
In this section, we provide explicit POVM expressions for the composite optomechanical measurement that arises in the bad-cavity zero detuning regime and also investigate a number of different protocol variations. Unlike the previous section, the details of the measurement step are examined. We consider both the presence and absence of parametric drive. We are aiming to assess the usefulness of the measurement for tomography,
%and to perform tomography,
for which accurate estimates of the initial state quadratures must be obtained. The tools that we allow the experimentalist are continuous measurement and resonant parametric amplification, as illustrated in \frf{schematic}. In the previous section we found that the effect of the parametric drive was to combat the added noise due to the thermal bath and also to transform the effective measurement for the entire protocol from a heterodyne to homodyne type. However, it is a priori unclear how the squeezing should be optimally applied and a number of obvious questions can be posed. Noise both from measurement backaction and from the thermal bath
%The noise
competes with the squeezing, so should the measurement be performed from the start or delayed until the parametric amplification has taken effect? Do these considerations impact the squeezing threshold $\chi_{\rm het}$ from \erf{thresholds}, that defines when the heterodyne limit can be breached?
%Under what experimental arrangements will it be possible to approach the performance of ideal homodyne detection?
To investigate these questions fully, we consider the following scenarios: a two-step process whereby measurement is delayed until the second step --- this is of the same form as the protocol used in our simplistic analysis in the previous section --- and a one-step process in which both measurement and parametric amplification are turned on concurrently. For the two-step process, we also investigate whether squeezing should be continued in the second of the two steps. The blue-detuned regime is considered later, in \srf{BlueDetuned} --- in this section we consider procedural variations all with zero-detuning. A schematic showing how the measurement strength and amplification is varied over the course of the experiment for the one and two-step procedures is shown in \frf{schematic}(b-d).
In contrast to the previous section, we need a stochastic master equation that describes the statistics of the measurement and the state of the mechanical system conditioned on measurements~\cite{WisMil10}. In this zero-detuning, bad-cavity regime, we use the stochastic master equation model of~\cite{PhysRevLett.107.213603,sme}. The two quadratures of the mechanical quantum state are simultaneously probed, see \frf{schematic}(a). In this regime, the spectral content of the measured signal is concentrated close to $\omega_m$ and the original measurement record, $I(t)=dQ/dt$, is demodulated into quadrature components $I_{X}=dQ_X/dt$ and $I_Y=dQ_Y/dt$~\cite{sme,bowMil} that contain useful information only at low frequencies. The stochastic master equation, as given in \ref{qtraj}, see also~\cite{PhysRevLett.107.213603}, shows that the effect of inefficient detection ($\eta<1$) is to increase the effective temperature of the thermal bath and decrease the effective measurement strength. Therefore certain expressions will be more compact if we define the parameters $n\equiv n_{{\rm th}}+\mu(1-\eta)/\gamma$ and $\tilde{\mu}\equiv \eta\mu$, however, we choose to make the dependence upon $\eta$ explicit in our final expressions, for ease of understanding.
%As might be expected, the conclusions of our investigation will turn out to depend on the parameter regime. When the squeezing is large enough that the amplification dominates the thermal noise, we will find that the decohering bath can be effectively frozen out whilst the parametric amplification transforms the measurement into a nearly ideal homodyne measurement of a single quadrature. We term the squeezing regime in which it is possible to achieve a variance smaller than the heterodyne detection lower bound `{\it over}-squeezed' and find that it is defined by $\chi>2\gamma(1+n)$. Even when the squeezing cannot overcome the thermal noise, the effect is to reduce the estimate variance of one of the quadratures if an optimal experimental protocol is chosen. This is a central result of our work --- squeezing allows more accurate quadrature estimates and improves tomographic reconstruction.
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize,scale=0.5]{oneTwoSchematic2.jpg}
% \caption{ Schematic of the one-step versus two-step measurement procedure. Dashed lines represent the variation of measurement strength over the course of the experiment. Dashed yellow is a the one-step procedure with a lower measurement strength than the dashed green. Dashed black shows how the measurement is turned on after a period of squeezing in the two-step case. The solid curves shows the rate of information gain for each process, with $1$ representing that no more information can be obtained by continuing to measure and that the measurement is `complete'. A larger measurement strength leads to faster measurement completion, but the graph makes no comment on the relative amount of information gained - different experiments will lead to different quality estimates of the initial quadratures.}
% \label{oneTwoSchematic}
%\end{figure}
Our approach in the following subsection is to obtain analytic expressions for the variance of the estimates of the initial quadratures,
%initial quadrature estimates,
$\sigma_X$ and $\sigma_Y$, in the case that the input state is a coherent state.
%, as discussed in the previous section.
We can use this information to determine an effective detector efficiency for the POVM implemented by the composite measurement. For the moment, it is assumed that the tomographic performance of a measurement scheme
improves when it becomes more homodyne-like, as represented by increasing effective homodyne efficiency.
% homodyne effective homodyne efficiency is improved \red (with the physical detector efficiency held fixed) \blk.
This will be confirmed in \srf{sims}, via simulation of experimental data, where we reconstruct the full quantum state for non-Gaussian inputs.
\subsection{Two-step process}
We begin with the two-step protocol, consisting of a squeezing step that is followed by a measurement step, in which the squeezing is turned off, as this will be familiar to the reader from \srf{simple}. This is schematically shown in \frf{schematic}(b), with the duration of the measurement step being $T$. To specify this protocol in detail, all that remains, with regards to the estimate variance of the quadrature of an initial coherent state, is to give the form of $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ that appears in \erf{eq:sigYGenTheta}. From the POVM (see \ref{qtraj} and~\cite{warDoh}) we find
%\bqa
%\eta_{{\rm het}}&=&\frac{8 \eta\mu }{\gamma+4 \eta\mu+\Gamma \coth (\Gamma T/2)}\\
%%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%%\overlim{T\rightarrow\infty}
%\begin{tikzpicture}
%\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
%\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
%\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
%\end{tikzpicture}&&
%\frac{8 \eta\mu}{\gamma +4 \eta\mu+\sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} },
%\label{hetEta}
%\eqa
\beq
\fl\eta_{{\rm het}}=\frac{8 \eta\mu }{\gamma+4 \eta\mu+\Gamma \coth (\Gamma T/2)}
%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{T\rightarrow\infty}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\frac{8 \eta\mu}{\gamma +4 \eta\mu+\sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} },
\label{hetEta}
\eeq
where we have defined the rate $\Gamma = \sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )}$ and then taken the long measurement time limit, $T\rightarrow\infty$. It is important to note that in the limit of $\gamma, \gamma n_{\rm th}\rightarrow 0$, the effective heterodyne efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})\neq \eta$. This is because $\eta$ refers to efficiency of the actual detector
%(not to be confused with the homodyne nature of the overall protocol)
in the experimental arrangement of \frf{schematic}(a), rather than the effective efficiency taking into account the strength of the optomechanical coupling and other imperfections (eg the bath). Note that in the regime of $\mu\gg \gamma,\gamma n_{\rm th}$ (or expressed in terms of the optomechanical cooperativity $C\gg 1, \gamma n_{\rm th}$) and $\eta\rightarrow 1$ we have $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 1$ so that in the limit of very strong optomechanical coupling and ideal detection the optomechanical measurement step approaches ideal heterodyne detection, as might be expected. We observe that this is also exactly the regime required to feedback cool the oscillator to its ground state~\cite{sme,bowMil}. From \erf{hetEta} it can be simply shown that the effective efficiency is a monotonic function of each of $\eta, \mu,T,\gamma,n_{{\rm th}}$; we highlight that $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ is monotonic increasing with the measurement strength, $\mu$. The value of $2/\Gamma$ gives the time scale for the duration of the measurement. The long time limit, $T\rightarrow\infty$, is very important as it represents a complete measurement with regards to the initial system --- there is no more information available and the final state is no longer correlated with the initial state.
For clarity, and to facilitate comparison with future expressions, the variance of the estimate of the initial $Y$ quadrature is provided in the long measurement time limit, $T\rightarrow\infty$:
%\bqa
% \sigma_{Y}^2&=&\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+\nonumber\\*
%&&e^{- (\chi-\gamma ) \tau } \left(\frac{\gamma
%+\sqrt{\gamma ^2+ 8\eta\mu ( \gamma +2 \gamma n+2\eta\mu)}}{8\eta\mu}
%-\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
%\right).
%\label{2step2}
%\eqa
\beq
\fl\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+
e^{- (\chi-\gamma ) \tau } \left(\frac{\gamma
+\sqrt{\gamma ^2+ 8\eta\mu ( \gamma +2 \gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu)}}{8\eta\mu}
-\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
\right).
\label{2step2}
\eeq
%where we have used, as described earlier, the adjusted thermal occupancy $n=n_{{\rm th}}+\frac{\mu}{\gamma}(1-\eta)$ and the effective measurement strength $\tilde{\mu}=\eta\mu$.
This expression for the variance possesses all the properties described in \srf{simple} (we have merely provided the form of $\eta_{{\rm het}}$) and summarized in \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp}; in particular, the heterodyne limit of unity can be breached for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$ for long squeezing times $\tau$. As discussed in \srf{simple}, we wish to compare the total measurement protocol to homodyne detection, and in the regime $\chi>\chi_{{\rm osc}}$ and $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ we obtain an effective homodyne detector efficiency
\beq
\eta_{{\rm hom}}=\frac{\chi-\gamma }{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}},
\label{homEtaNew2}
\eeq
which approaches unity for large $\chi\gg\chi_{{\rm het}}$. The reader will recall that this homodyne efficiency is found by comparing the variance of the anti-squeezed quadrature to that of the measured quadrature in standard homodyne detection. It is the anti-squeezed quadrature that has the improved resolution, while we lose the ability to learn about the squeezed quadrature.
Although our primary concern in this section is to analyse tomographic performance, it is important to identify how one actually arrives at the initial quadrature estimate. That is, we now provide the filter on the measurement results that best estimates the state we wish to reconstruct. For display brevity, we take the long measurement time limit and find
\beq
Y_{\rm est}(T)
%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{text}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\mu \eta }}\left(\gamma +\Gamma\right)
e^{- (\chi-\gamma )\tau/2} \int_{0}^{T}e^{-\Gamma t/2 }dQ_Y (t),
\label{filter}
\eeq
with the expression for $X_{\rm est}$ obtained with $\chi\rightarrow-\chi$. The reader will note that there are two aspects to the filter: the system state at the conclusion of the squeezing is estimated based on the measurement results, $dQ_{Y}$, and, secondly, the deterministic pre-image of this state is found by inverting the squeezing (and thermal bath) evolution of \erf{meanY} (represented by the $e^{- (\chi-\gamma )\tau/2} $ term). This can be compared with \erf{filterGeneral} (using $dQ_{Y}=dtI_{Y}$) to discern the filter function, $h_Y(t)$. We see that the early measurement times (up to a time $2/\Gamma$) contribute the most to our estimate and that the contributions die off exponentially.
We have seen that a squeezing step can be beneficial to the precision of our estimate of the quadrature that is amplified, but only when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$. Below this limit, the noise from the thermal bath overcomes the amplification effect during the pre-measurement phase (squeezing). However, for a fixed squeezing duration, increasing $\chi$ improves performance even below $\chi_{{\rm del}}$. It is logical to then suggest that the squeezing should be maintained during the measurement step also; that is, throughout the entire protocol, as per \frf{schematic}(c). This has the effect of transforming the measurement step away from a purely heterodyne form. It is then no longer sensible to ascribe an effective heterodyne efficiency to the measurement step, but there is no difficulty in determining the POVM, using the techniques of \cite{warDoh}. Assuming that the $X$ quadrature is squeezed with a constant amplitude, with the measurement turned on at time $\tau$ for a duration $T$ leads to the POVM variance
\beq
\fl\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+e^{-(\chi-\gamma ) \tau } \left(
\frac{\Gamma_{-} \coth (\Gamma_{-}T/2)+\gamma- \chi }{8 \eta\mu}
-\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
\right),
\label{2stepmeas2}
\eeq
with the rates defined as $\Gamma_{\pm} = \sqrt{(\gamma\pm \chi)^2+8\mu\eta (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )}$. The expression for $\sigma_{X}^2$ requires $\chi\rightarrow-\chi$ and, resultantly, involves the rate $\Gamma_{+}$. If we set $\chi=0$ then $\Gamma_{\pm}=\Gamma$, which is as expected as this returns us to the previously described protocol of \frf{schematic}(b).
It is clear that we can, once again, breach the heterodyne limited variance of unity, and enter the homodyne paradigm, for $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$, as this allows the exponential to be suppressed, for long squeezing, and the first term to drop below unity. It is straightforward to show, by comparison of \erf{2step2} and \erf{2stepmeas2} in the long measurement time limit, $T\rightarrow\infty$, that maintaining squeezing in the second step leads to a smaller (or equal) estimate variance in all cases. It is therefore evident that the squeezing concurrent with measurement is having a beneficial effect, in addition to the pre-measurement squeezing. Rather than proceeding with the analysis in the context of a two-step protocol, it is more enlightening to isolate its effect further and reduce to a one-step protocol. That is, we remove the pre-measurement squeezing step and consider the protocol of \frf{schematic}(d), where both measurement and squeezing are (always) performed together.
\subsection{One-step process}
The one-step protocol (see \frf{schematic}(d)) POVM variance is most simply obtained by reducing the duration of the squeezing step of the two-step protocol to zero ($\tau\rightarrow 0$ in \erf{2stepmeas2}):
\bqa
\sigma_{Y}^2&\quad=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma -\chi +\Gamma_{-} \coth (\Gamma_{-} T/2)}{8 \mu \eta}\nonumber\\
%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{text}
&\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}&
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma -\chi +\sqrt{(\gamma -\chi)^2+8\mu\eta (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} }{8\mu\eta }.
\label{sigma}
\eqa
%\beq
%\fl\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma -\chi +\Gamma_{-} \coth (\Gamma_{-} T/2)}{8 \mu \eta}
%%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%%\overlim{text}
%\begin{tikzpicture}
%\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
%\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
%\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
%\end{tikzpicture}
%\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma -\chi +\sqrt{(\gamma -\chi)^2+8\mu\eta (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} }{8\mu\eta }.
%\label{sigma}
%\eeq
%where $\Gamma_{-} =\sqrt{(\gamma -\chi)^2+8\tilde{\mu} (\gamma +2\gamma n+2\tilde{\mu} )}=\sqrt{(\gamma-\chi)^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )}$ has been used.
Furthermore, the filter for the single step protocol is
\beq
Y_{\rm est}(T)
%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{text}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\mu \eta }}\left(\gamma - \chi +\Gamma_{-}\right)
\int_{0}^{T}e^{-\Gamma_{-} t/2 }dQ_Y (t),
\label{filter2}
\eeq
which should be compared with \erf{filter}. The new protocol modifies the time scale to $2/\Gamma_{-}$ and makes the multiplicative constant $\chi$ dependent, together with removing the need to obtain the state's pre-image under pre-amplification (ie there is no squeezing only step).
It should come as no surprise to the reader that $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is monotonic decreasing with $\chi$, as can be easily verified by calculating $d\sigma_{Y}^2/d\chi$. In fact, for $\chi\gg\gamma,\gamma n_{{\rm th}},\mu$ the term of ${\cal O}(\chi)$ cancels and we obtain $\sigma_{Y}^2\rightarrow 1/2$. It is therefore possible to reach the homodyne limit with a single step protocol, as long as the squeezing is powerful enough. Another obvious limit to take is $\mu\gg\gamma,\gamma n_{{\rm th}},\chi$, which leads to an instantaneous measurement of a heterodyne type (we are taking the limit in which the squeezing is unimportant). Thus, \erf{hetEta} is applicable and if $\eta\rightarrow 1$ then $\sigma_{Y}^2\rightarrow 1$, with ideal heterodyne detection resulting ($\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 1$).
We have seen that sufficiently large squeezing leads to the homodyne paradigm, whilst very fast measurement returns us to an instantaneous heterodyne measurement. In the two-step protocol, very large squeezing was {\it not} required to breach the heterodyne limit, rather, $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$ was sufficient. The question remains as to whether there is an analogous regime for the one-step protocol. Clearly, $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ with finite $\gamma,n_{{\rm th}},\mu$ will not suffice. We can guess what is required, however, by using the intuition gained from the two-step protocol. In that case, the quadrature needed to be sufficiently amplified before it was measured. If the measurement is applied too soon, then the backaction heating is also amplified, which obscures the information contained in future measurements. With the measurement and squeezing in a single step, how can we delay the measurement? The answer is to use a very weak measurement strength, which postpones the effective wavefunction collapse until the amplification has occured. That is, very weak measurement is a proxy for a delayed measurement, and a pre-measurement amplification is then effectively achieved.
That very weak measurement can be beneficial, and allow the homodyne paradigm to be reached, is confirmed by minimising $\sigma_{Y}^2$ with respect to $\mu$.
%For the moment, we choose to regard $\tilde{\mu}$ and $n$ as separate parameters, as it will allow some simple conclusions to be found for regimes of interest.
%which will be true for $\tilde{\mu}\ll \gamma$ or $\eta\approx1$.
%very weak measurement or high detector efficiency.
We find that the minimum of $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is obtained either by $\mu\rightarrow 0$ or by $\mu\rightarrow\infty$. Depending upon whether we are below or above a squeezing strength threshold, it is better to measure as quickly as possible or to delay as long as possible (indicated here by a very weak measurement). This threshold is found by noting that the derivative of $\sigma_{Y}^2$ with respect to $\mu$ flips sign when $\chi=\chi_{{\rm del}}=2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})+\gamma(\sqrt{\eta}-1)$. That is, $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is monotonic increasing with $\mu$ when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$ and monotonic decreasing when $\chi<\chi_{{\rm del}}$. If we are above this threshold for $\chi$, then it is optimal to choose $\mu\rightarrow 0$.
%However, the limit $\mu\rightarrow 0$ corresponds to $n\rightarrow n_{{\rm th}}$, so we have obtained the same threshold as in the two-step protocol.
%That is, if $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$ then we wish to delay the measurement as much as possible and allow the squeezing to dominate the decoherence. If if $\chi<\chi_{{\rm del}}$ then we turn on the measurement immediately as the squeezing cannot overcome the bath.
The reader will notice that we have used the same nomenclature, $\chi_{{\rm del}}$, as for the two-step protocol when indicating the threshold at which it is best to delay measurement, whether it be by a longer pre-amplification time, $\tau$ (two-step), or by a weaker measurement strength, $\mu$ (one-step). Apart from the conceptual similarity, we note their equality when $\eta_{{\rm het}}=2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})$ is used in the expression for $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ from the two-step protocol ($2\gamma\frac{1+n_{{\rm th}}\eta_{{\rm het}} }{2-\eta_{{\rm het}}}$). This value of $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ corresponds to an instantaneous measurement, in the large $\mu$ limit, for our optomechanical system. The reason for the coincidence of $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ for both protocols arises due to the fact that the same limiting performance is achieved when the measurement strength is optimally chosen.
%In practice there will be other competing effects that would preclude waiting indefinitely while the quadratures were expanded (contracted) to infinity (zero). One of these is that the phase of the local oscillator (LO) illuminating the optical cavity will never be perfectly aligned with mechanical parametric driving --- this will analysed shortly. Additionally, there will be mechanical non-linearities not modelled by the parametric amplification Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}.
%Thus $\chi=2\gamma (1+n)$ is the boundary that determines whether it is better to delay or hasten the measurement. If we were limited to a fixed measurement strength, then the answer to the question `at what time should the measurement be turned on?' follows from the above finding. If $\chi>2\gamma (1+n)$ then we wish to delay the measurement as much as possible and allow the squeezing to dominate the decoherence. If $\chi<2\gamma (1+n)$ then we turn on the measurement immediately as the squeezing cannot overcome the bath. It should be remembered that this threshold includes an implicit dependence on the measurement strength through the effective bath occupancy $n$. \blk
% In practice there will be other competing effects that would preclude waiting indefinitely while the quadratures were expanded (contracted) to infinity (zero). One of these is that the phase of the local oscillator (LO) illuminating the optical cavity will never be perfectly aligned with mechanical parametric driving --- this will analysed shortly. Additionally, there will be mechanical non-linearities not modelled by the parametric amplification Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}.
%DO WE NEED COMMENT ABOUT DEPENDENCE OF N ON MU??????????
%As a finite measurement strength is a practical experimental setup, we analyse it further in the next section.
If the measurement is delayed using an infinitesimal measurement strength then, when we are above $\chi_{{\rm osc}}=\gamma$, the $Y$ quadrature estimate variance is given by
\beq
\sigma_{Y}^2
%\xrightarrow{\: \chi>\gamma \enskip{\rm and}\enskip \mu\rightarrow 0 \: }
%\overlim{text}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (-0.7,0.1) -- (1.34,0.1);
\draw [white] (0,0) -- (1.6,0);
\node at (0.3,0.3) {\tiny $\chi>\gamma \enskip{\rm and}\enskip \mu\rightarrow 0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\frac{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}}{2( \chi-\gamma ) },
\label{yOpt}
\eeq
which is exactly the same as for the two-step protocol. Thus, once again, the regime defined by $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$ corresponds to the minimum $\chi$ required to breach the heterodyne limited variance of unity. In the limit of large $\chi$ the homodyne bound of $\half$ is reached. It is important to note that this is true even when the detector is not perfectly efficient. Finally, if the delayed measurement protocol was chosen for $\chi<\chi_{{\rm osc}}$, then the estimate variance becomes infinite. Consequently we have established a hierarchy of squeezing thresholds for the one-step protocol, just as for the two-step protocol: $\chi_{{\rm het}}\geq\chi_{{\rm del}}\geq\chi_{{\rm osc}}$. These thresholds have the analogous interpretation as for the two-step protocol, but now with the replacement of a long duration pre-amplification step by an infinitesimal measurement strength. That is, $\chi_{{\rm osc}}$ represents the threshold for long duration squeezing leading to a well-defined estimate of the initial state, $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ represents the threshold for it being optimal to delay the measurement and $\chi_{{\rm het}}$ being the squeezing value sufficient to enter the homodyne paradigm. The thresholds for the one-step protocol could be illustrated in a very similar way to \frf{analyticComparison2stepSimp}, as the same threshold structure exists, provided that the infinitesimal measurement strength limit was taken instead of a very long pre-amplification step.
%What happens if the wrong choice of $\mu$ is made, in particular if $ \mu\rightarrow$ when $\chi<\chi_{{\rm het}}$?
%This leads to the following satisfying statement: for the one-step process, the {\it over}-squeezed regime ($\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$) is coincident with the minimum value of $\chi$ necessary to recommend that the measurement should be delayed. In the limit of large $\chi$ the homodyne bound of $\half$ is reached. It is important to note \blk that this is true even when the detector is not perfectly efficient. What happens if the wrong choice of $\mu$ is made, in particular if $ \mu\rightarrow$ when $\chi<\chi_{{\rm het}}$?
We have found that there are two pathways to the homodyne regime with finite squeezing. Either a pre-amplification step can be used (giving a two-step protocol) {\it or} squeezing can be turned on concurrent with measurement. In the former method, long squeezing times are required, while in the latter, very weak measurement is necessary. Both methods need $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$.
%Of course, taking $\chi\rightarrow\infty$ is a third, perhaps impractical, pathway.
Although both one and two-step protocols reach the homodyne limit given freedom to choose $\mu$, which protocol is optimal if the measurement strength is finite and fixed due to experimental reasons? The $\chi_{{\rm del}}$ threshold for the two-step process provides us with the answer to this, essentially by definition, with the two-step (one-step) protocol being preferred when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$ ($\chi<\chi_{{\rm del}}$).
Further comparison between the one and two-step protocols is made in \frf{analyticComparison}, where we compare the analytic expressions for the one and two-step variance (with squeezing maintained throughout) for zero-detuning for some realistic parameters. The blue-detuned variance (to be discussed in \srf{BlueDetuned}) is also plotted. In \frf{analyticComparison}(a) it can be seen that all processes perform better as the squeezing is increased and the threshold squeezing, $\chi_{{\rm het}}$ (magenta line), at which the heterodyne limiting variance of unity is beaten, is approximately confirmed. The small offset from the threshold is due to a finite duration of squeezing.
%of the crossing points of the one and two-step processes relative to the threshold is due to a combination of finite duration of squeezing and non-perfect detector efficiency.
In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), parameters are chosen such that $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$. The main result is that the one-step processes (dashed lines) degrade with increasing measurement strength, as the squeezing has less time to take hold before the state becomes decorrelated with the initial state. This effectively reduces the amount of squeezing and leads to reduced resolution, consistent with \frf{analyticComparison}(a). In the large $\mu$ limit the one-step variance will approach the heterodyne value of approximately one, with a small overshoot due to the finite detector inefficiency. The two-step processes are less affected by the reduced squeezing in the second step as the first step also provides squeezing, so they will asymptote to a sub unity value. All curves in \frf{analyticComparison}(b) meet as $\mu\rightarrow 0$. This is because the variance saturates the bound of $\frac{ \chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }{2( \chi -\gamma )}$ in this limit.
%To complete the zero-detuned section, we provide the estimate variance for the one-step protocol when the parametric amplification is misaligned.
\begin{figure}
\centering
% \begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{analyticSchem2.jpg}
% \caption{Image}\label{fig:image1}
% \end{subfigure} %
% \begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{analyticComparisonCombo14.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{figure3.png}
% \caption{Image}\label{fig:image1}
% \end{subfigure} %
%\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{analyticComparisonCombo11.jpg}
\caption{The one-step (dashed) and two-step (solid) $Y$ quadrature estimate variances of an initial coherent state for the zero-detuned (black) and blue-detuned (blue) cases are compared.
%via their analytic expressions in \erf{2stepmeas2}, \erf{sigma}, \erf{BDsigma2StepNew} and \erf{BDsigmaNew}.
For the two-step protocols, squeezing is maintained in the second step.
{\bf a)} The measurement strength $\mu=1$ is held fixed (shown in brown) while squeezing $\chi$ is varied. Also shown is the threshold to beat the heterodyne limit, $\chi_{{\rm het}}$ (magenta). For both zero and blue-detuning, the two-step processes outperform the one-step processes when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ (to the right of the magenta line). The variances asymptote towards $\frac{1}{2}$ for very large $\chi$. Other parameters are: $\gamma=0.5, \eta=0.9, n_{{\rm th}}=0.3, \tau=0.2, T=5$. % \\\hspace{\textwidth}
{\bf b)} Blue and black lines are defined as per (a) but now with $\chi=8$ held fixed (shown in cyan) and varying measurement strength, $\mu$. As $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ the variance degrades as $\mu$ increases --- there is less time for the squeezing to amplify the quadrature of interest. }
%There is less difference noted in the two-step case as the shortening of the effective measurement duration does not hinder the squeezing in step one. Other parameters are as per (a).} %but with constant $\chi=2$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ varying.}
\label{analyticComparison}
\end{figure}
%Before investigating an imperfectly aligned squeezing, we pause to provide a comparison of the one and two-step protocols.
%\subsection{Comparison of one and two-step protocols}
%
%\subsection{Misaligned parametric amplification}
%
%Before concluding this section, we investigate the effect of a non-zero value of the parametric drive phase \blk $\theta$, which is inevitable in practice to some extent. In an experiment, this phase corresponds to the difference between mechanical parametric amplification phase and the phase of the sinusoid used to mix-down the measured photocurrent into a quadrature signal. This relative phase must be controlled or chosen in post-processing, which necessarily involves some uncertainty and fluctuations. \blk
%%This is because $\theta$ derives from the difference between \red mand these need to be locked together in an experiment.
% Given that the squeezed quadrature estimate variance goes to $\infty$ at long times, it is of concern that any finite misalignment may destroy the sought after anti-squeezing effect.
% % For instance, in~\cite{Brawley} a phase instability of beneath $5\times 10^{-3}$ rad is reported.
%We investigate this possibility for both the two and one-step protocols.
%
% The expression for $\sigma_{Y}^2$ when $\theta\neq 0$ is found from the POVM as before and in the long time limit is
%\bal
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\gamma- \chi \cos (\theta ) +4 \tilde{\mu}+\Gamma_{-} \cos ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)+\Gamma_{+} \sin ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right) }{8 \tilde{\mu} }.
%\label{sigY}
%\eal
%With non-zero $\theta$, the squeezing threshold is shifted to $\chi=2\gamma (1+n)/\cos(\theta)$.
%It is also found that a finite, rather than infinitesimal, measurement strength is optimal in the over-squeezed regime. We expect it to be small, however, when $\theta$ is small.
%%Given that above threshold the estimate variance is no longer monotonic in $\tilde{\mu}$, we define the threshold as being the point below which it is optimal to measure as quickly as possible.
%To find the most effective measurement strength when over-squeezing, we optimise $\sigma_{Y}^2$ over $\tilde{\mu}$. For simplicity we assume that $\eta=1$ (so that $n=n_{{\rm th}}$) and $\tilde{\mu}\ll
%%, but this calculation is stymied by its large non-linearity. To proceed we assume that $\tilde{\mu}\ll
%\chi$, which physically is a proxy for delaying the measurement considerably (but not infinitely) and allowing the anti-squeezing to take effect. The optimal measurement strength in this limit is then given by
%\bal
%%\tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}}=&\frac{\frac{1}{2}(2 \chi -\gamma )^{3/2} (\gamma +2 \chi )^2 \sin %\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)}{\sqrt{-\gamma ^4 (6 n (n+1)+1) \chi -2 \gamma ^2 (4 n (n%+1)+3) \chi ^3-\gamma \cos (\theta ) \left(\gamma ^4 n (n+1)+\gamma ^2 (12 n (n+1)+5) %\chi ^2-4 \chi ^4\right)+8 \chi ^5}}\\
%\tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}}=&\frac{|\theta |}{4}\sqrt{\frac{( \chi-\gamma )^3 ( \chi+\gamma )}{(\chi -2\gamma(1+n_{\rm th})) (\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th})}}+O\left(\theta ^3\right).
%\label{mOpt}
%\eal
%This equation only gives a physical measurement rate
%%to make sense we clearly need to be
%in the over-squeezed regime, which is equivalent to $\chi>2\gamma(1+n_{\rm th})/\cos(\theta)$ to $O\left(\theta\right)$. By substituting it into \eqref{sigY} we obtain the correction to \eqref{yOpt} for small $\theta$ when there is over-squeezing
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2\xrightarrow{\: \tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}} \: }\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+|\theta |\sqrt{\frac{( \chi+\gamma ) (\chi -2\gamma (1+n_{\rm th})) (\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th})}{4( \chi -\gamma )^3}}
%+O\left(\theta ^2\right).
%\eeq
%
%In the under-squeezed regime with non-zero $\theta$ there is still no finite optimal measurement strength --- it is best to measure as quickly as possible with $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$.
%
%
%The expressions for non-zero $\theta$ (misaligned mechanical squeezing and mix-down \blk phase) in the two-step process are readily obtainable but difficult to simplify concisely, so to highlight the interesting physics the approximation $\gamma\ll\chi$ is made. We also assume that the second step can be modelled as an instantaneous measurement, which is not particularly onerous as any contrary effects are suppressed by the exponentials of \erfs{2Step}{2stepmeas}. The opposite regime, $\gamma\gg\chi$, is optimised by beginning measurement immediately, and the results of \srf{oneStepProcess} for under-squeezing and non-zero $\theta$ are therefore applicable. For over-squeezing in the regime of interest,
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma}{2 \chi } (2 n_{{\rm th}}+1) \cos (\theta )+\frac{1}{4\chi} \left(e^{ (\gamma+ \chi ) \tau } ( \chi +\gamma (1+2 n_{{\rm th}})) (1-\cos (\theta ))+(1+\cos (\theta )) e^{ (\gamma - \chi ) \tau \blk} ( \chi -\gamma (1+2 n_{{\rm th}}))\right),
%\label{sig}
%\eeq
%which shows that if $\theta\neq 0$ then there is an exponential term that diverges if the squeezing is continued past an optimal time. The squeezing time $\tau$ that minimises the estimate variance for small $\theta$ is found to be
%\beq
%\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\frac{1}{ \chi}\ln \left(\frac{2-\frac{4\gamma }{\chi }}{|\theta| }\right).
%\label{squeezeTime}
%\eeq
%This explicitly shows how sensitive the system is to off-axis squeezing as the optimal time only diverges as $\ln(1/\theta)$ --- unless $\theta$ is extremely small, the optimal time will not be large compared to the other system time scales. This effect is exacerbated by the $1/\chi$ scaling (which is consistent with \eqref{mOpt}), with large $\chi$ being the regime of interest. From \eqref{sig}, once this optimal time is exceeded the estimate performance exponentially deteriorates with $\tau$ at a rate $\gamma+4\chi$. This makes it a crucial experimental consideration that may not have been treated appropriately without the above analysis. Note that a finite squeezing time is optimal even to zeroth order in the bath coupling, showing that it is unavoidable if squeezing off-axis.
%
%
%
%\subsection{One-Step Process}
%\label{oneStepProcess}
%We first investigate the one-step process in which we concurrently measure and squeeze, see \frf{schematic}(b). Resonant parametric amplification is modelled by squeezing of the $X$ quadrature and amplification (anti-squeezing) of the $Y$ quadrature, with the laser phase and mechanical driving phase perfectly aligned (that is, $\theta=0$). This choice of $Y$-amplification biases the measurement in favour of the $Y$ quadrature. \blk
%From the POVM (see \arf{qtraj} and~\cite{warDoh}) we find expressions for the variances in the estimates of the initial quadratures
%\bal
%\sigma_{X}^2=&\frac{\gamma +\chi +4\tilde{\mu}+2\Gamma_{+} \coth (\Gamma_{+} t/2)}{8 \tilde{\mu} }
%\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }&\frac{\gamma +\chi +4\tilde{\mu}+\sqrt{(\gamma +\chi)^2+8\tilde{\mu} (\gamma +2\gamma n+2\tilde{\mu} )} }{8 \tilde{\mu} }\\
%\sigma_{Y}^2=&\frac{\gamma -\chi +4\tilde{\mu}+2\Gamma_{-} \coth (\Gamma_{-} t/2)}{8 \tilde{\mu} }
%\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }&\frac{\gamma -\chi +4\tilde{\mu}+\sqrt{(\gamma -\chi)^2+8\tilde{\mu} (\gamma +2\gamma n+2\tilde{\mu} )} }{8 \tilde{\mu} }
%\label{sigma...}
%\eal
%and we also display the filters of the measurement records that correspond to the optimal estimate ($X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}$) of the initial quadratures in the long time limit:
%\bal
%X_{\rm est}(t)&\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }
% \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\tilde{\mu} }}\left(\gamma + \chi +\Gamma_{+}\right) \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\Gamma_{+}r /2}dQ_X (r)\\
%Y_{\rm est}(t)&\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\tilde{\mu} }}\left(\gamma - \chi +\Gamma_{-}\right) \int_{0}^{t}e^{-\Gamma_{-}r/2 }dQ_Y (r),
%\label{filter}
%\eal
%where we have defined the rates $\Gamma_{\pm} = \sqrt{(\gamma\pm \chi)^2+8 \tilde{\mu} (\gamma +2\gamma n+2\tilde{\mu} )}$ and, as described earlier, the adjusted thermal occupancy $n=n_{{\rm th}}+\frac{\mu}{\gamma}(1-\eta)$ and the effective measurement strength $\tilde{\mu}=\eta\mu$. This can be compared with \erf{filterGeneral} (using $dQ_{X}=dtI_{X}$) to discern the filter function, $h_X(t)$. We see that the early times (up to a time $2/\Gamma_{\pm}$) contribute the most to our estimate and that the contributions die off exponentially. Also, note that the quadrature of interest, $Y$, has the longer filter time as $\Gamma_{+}>\Gamma_{-}$. The long time limit is very important as it represents a complete measurement with regards to the initial system --- there is no more information available and the `final' state is not correlated with the initial.
%
%Central to our analysis of optomechanical tomography, is a comparison with the well understood techniques of heterodyne and homodyne detection. In the absence of squeezing, \erf{sigma} is symmetric with respect to quadrature, $\sigma_{X}^2 =\sigma_{Y}^2$, and the POVM for the composite optomechanical measurement is identical to the POVM for heterodyne detection with some efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}$. This allows a direct comparison with heterodyne detection. The effect of finite measurement strength, finite temperature thermal bath and detector efficiency are all captured by this effective heterodyne detector efficiency. We find
%\beq
%\eta_{{\rm het}}=\frac{8 \eta\mu}{\gamma +4 \eta\mu+\sqrt{\gamma^2+8\eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )} },
%\label{hetEta}
%\eeq
%where we have made explicit the dependence on detector efficiency by using the parameters $\mu$ and $n_{\rm th}$ rather than $\tilde{\mu}$ and $n$.
%The statistics of our measurement are exactly the same as those for heterodyne detection conducted with this effective efficiency. It is important to note that in the limit of $\gamma, \gamma n_{\rm th}\rightarrow 0$, the effective heterodyne efficiency $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})\neq \eta$.
%%In fact, we find that in the absence of a thermal bath and also squeezing, the effective heterodyne efficiency becomes
%%\beq
%%\eta_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm Het}}\xrightarrow{\: \gamma,\chi=0 \: },
%%\label{hetEta}
%%\eeq
%%independent of $\mu$.
%This is because $\eta$ refers to efficiency of the optical homodyne detection in the experimental arrangement of \frf{schematic}(a). Note that in the regime of $\mu\gg \gamma,\gamma n_{\rm th}$ (or expressed in terms of the optomechanical cooperativity $C\gg 1, \gamma n_{\rm th}$) \blk and $\eta\rightarrow 1$ we have $\eta_{{\rm het}}\rightarrow 1$ so that in the limit of very strong optomechanical coupling and ideal detection the composite optomechanical measurement approaches ideal heterodyne detection, as might be expected. We observe that this is also exactly the regime required to feedback cool the oscillator to its ground state~\cite{sme,bowMil}. \blk
%
% \blk
%It is immediately clear from \eqref{sigma} that when $\gamma>\chi$ the presence of anti-squeezing is beneficial to the estimate of the $Y$ quadrature and squeezing is destructive for the $X$ quadrature. Squeezing reduces the resolution of the $X$ quadrature by shrinking its initial marginal distribution. The relative importance of the thermal noise is also increased and leads to more degradation. Conversely, accuracy is improved in the anti-squeezed quadrature and a more accurate estimate is obtained. To show that anti-squeezing reduces the $Y$ quadrature estimate variance for {\it all} $\chi$ (not merely $\gamma>\chi$)
%we examine the following expression
%\beq
%\frac{d\sigma_{Y}^2}{d\chi}=-\frac{2}{ 4 \tilde{\mu}}\left(1-\frac{ \chi -\gamma }{\sqrt{( \chi -\gamma )^2+8 \tilde{\mu}\left( 2\tilde{\mu}+ \gamma (1 +2 n)\right)}}\right),
%\eeq
%which is manifestly negative, such that increasing $\chi$ monotonically improves the accuracy. %From \eqref{filter} we see that the estimate of the initial quadrature is composed primarily of measurements up to a time $1/\Gamma_{\pm}$, with the quadrature of interest, $Y_0$ having the longer filter time.
%
%%For very weak measurements $\tilde{\mu}\ll 2\chi<\gamma$ both variances blow up.
%To simplify our expressions, let us now assume the thermal phonon number is large $n_{\rm th}\gg 1$ and take the limit $\chi,\tilde{\mu}\gg\gamma n_{\rm th}$, which corresponds to strong parametric drive and an optical measurement rate exceeding the mechanical bath decoherence rate\blk. To first order in $\gamma n_{\rm th}$, and neglecting terms small by a factor $1/n_{\rm th}$ we find
%\bal
%\sigma_{X}^2\xrightarrow{\: \tilde{\mu},\chi\gg\gamma n_{\rm th},\ n_{\rm th} \gg 1 \: }&\frac{\sqrt{16\eta \mu ^2+\chi ^2}+4\eta\mu +\chi }{8\eta \mu }+\frac{\gamma n_{\rm th}}{\sqrt{16\eta\mu ^2+\chi ^2}} \\
%\sigma_{Y}^2\xrightarrow{\: \tilde{\mu},\chi\gg\gamma n_{\rm th},\ n_{\rm th} \gg 1 \: }&\frac{\sqrt{16\eta \mu ^2+\chi ^2}+4\eta\mu -\chi }{8\eta \mu }+\frac{\gamma n_{\rm th}}{\sqrt{16\eta\mu ^2+\chi ^2}}.
%\label{sigSeries}
%\eal
%These expressions have two natural limits. Firstly, when $\tilde{\mu}\gg\chi$ and $\eta\rightarrow 1$ we get $\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2\rightarrow 1$. This is the standard heterodyne limit and in this regime the parametric amplification has no significant effect. The POVM is close to heterodyne detection with an effective efficiency similar to that discussed above in the absence of parametric amplification. More interestingly, when $\gamma n_{\rm th}\ll\tilde{\mu}\ll\chi$ the anti-squeezed quadrature variance $\sigma^2_Y$ is reduced to the {\it homodyne} limit of 1/2 at lowest order in $\tilde{\mu}/\chi$. This indicates that for sufficiently strong parametric drive the composite optomechanical measurement approaches ideal homodyne measurement of the initial mechanical state. In this regime, the strong squeezing has the effect of freezing out the environment, such that the finite duration exposure to the bath does not remove the correlation of the measurement results with the initial state of interest. This is the central observation that we will apply to study tomography of the mechanical state in the rest of the paper.
%
%
%%A surprising consequence of \erf{sigSeries} that if an additional expansion to first order in $\tilde{\mu}$ is made we see that when the bath is turned on the contribution to $\sigma_{Y_0}^2$ is positive. That is, a weaker measurement is still increasingly beneficial despite the {\it weak} bath beginning to randomise the system state, uncorrelating it with the initial state.
%
%A question of interest is, given a parametric drive strength, $\chi$, and a bath coupling, $\gamma$, what is the optimal measurement strength? Notice that, perhaps counter-intuitively, in the regime of most interest $\gamma n_{\rm th}\ll\tilde{\mu}\ll\chi$ the weaker the measurement the more effective it is (we will shortly see that $\gamma n_{\rm th}\ll\tilde{\mu}$ is actually unnecessary with regard to a preference for weaker measurement as long as $\chi$ is large).
%%as long as it remains much stronger than the bath coupling).
%This is understood as being due to measurement induced back-action being delayed until the squeezing has had time to take hold.
%
%To study the optimal measurement strength, we return to the general expression for the quadrature variances given in \erf{sigma} and minimise $\sigma_{Y}^2$ \blk with respect to $\tilde{\mu}$. For the moment, we choose to regard $\tilde{\mu}$ and $n$ as separate parameters, as it will allow some simple conclusions to be found for regimes of interest.
%%which will be true for $\tilde{\mu}\ll \gamma$ or $\eta\approx1$.
%%very weak measurement or high detector efficiency.
%We find that the minimum of $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is obtained either by $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow 0$ or by $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$. Depending upon whether we are above or below a squeezing strength threshold, it is better to measure as quickly as possible or to delay as long as possible (indicated here by a very weak measurement). This threshold is found by noting that the derivative of $\sigma_{Y}^2$ with respect to $\tilde{\mu}$ flips sign when $\chi=2\gamma (1+n)$. (Note that here and in later discussions we are no longer assuming $n_{\rm th}\gg1$.) That is, $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is monotonic increasing with $\tilde{\mu}$ when $\chi>2\gamma (1+n)$ and monotonic decreasing when $\chi<2\gamma (1+n)$. Thus $\chi=2\gamma (1+n)$ is the boundary that determines whether it is better to delay or hasten the measurement. If we were limited to a fixed measurement strength, then the answer to the question `at what time should the measurement be turned on?' follows from the above finding. If $\chi>2\gamma (1+n)$ then we wish to delay the measurement as much as possible and allow the squeezing to dominate the decoherence. If $\chi<2\gamma (1+n)$ then we turn on the measurement immediately as the squeezing cannot overcome the bath. It should be remembered that this threshold includes an implicit dependence on the measurement strength through the effective bath occupancy $n$. \blk
% In practice there will be other competing effects that would preclude waiting indefinitely while the quadratures were expanded (contracted) to infinity (zero). One of these is that the phase of the local oscillator (LO) illuminating the optical cavity will never be perfectly aligned with mechanical parametric driving --- this will analysed shortly. Additionally, there will be mechanical non-linearities not modelled by the parametric amplification Hamiltonian of \erf{hamiltonian}.
% %DO WE NEED COMMENT ABOUT DEPENDENCE OF N ON MU??????????
%
%%As a finite measurement strength is a practical experimental setup, we analyse it further in the next section.
%
%If the optimal measurement strength is chosen (that is $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow0$ when $\chi>2\gamma (1+n)$) then the $Y$ quadrature estimate variance is given by
%\bal
%\sigma_{Y}^2\xrightarrow{\: \chi>2\gamma (1+n) \enskip{\rm and}\enskip \tilde{\mu}\rightarrow 0 \: }&
%\frac{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}}{2( \chi-\gamma ) },
%\label{yOpt}
%\eal
%which shows how close we can get to the homodyne limit in the presence of a bath. In fact, it can be seen that the regime of over-squeezing ($\sigma_Y^2 < 1$) is achieved
%%$\sigma_{Y}^2<1$
% for $\chi>2\gamma (1+n)$. We term the
% %squeezing regime that allows the heterodyne bound to be broken as `{\it over}-squeezed', with the
% opposite regime `{\it under}-squeezed'. \blk This leads to the following satisfying statement: for the one-step process the {\it over}-squeezed regime is coincident with the minimum value of $\chi$ necessary to recommend that the measurement should be delayed. In the limit of large $\chi$ the homodyne bound of $\half$ is reached. It is important to note \blk that this is true even when the detector is not perfectly efficient.
%
%When \erf{yOpt} is applicable, the measurement only obtains information about a single quadrature and this makes a direct comparison with inefficient homodyne detection very relevant. We define $\eta_{{\rm hom}}$ as being the homodyne detector efficiency that gives the same estimate variance for the anti-squeezed quadrature. In the over-squeezed regime with an optimal choice of measurement strength we obtain
%\beq
%\eta_{{\rm Hom}}=\frac{\chi-\gamma }{\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th}}.
%\label{homEta}
%\eeq
%It is clear from this expression that $\eta_{{\rm Hom}}$ becomes independent of the efficiency of the optical homodyne measurement $\eta$, and approaches \blk one for strong enough parametric drive.
%
%Before concluding this section, we investigate the effect of a non-zero value of the parametric drive phase \blk $\theta$, which is inevitable in practice to some extent. In an experiment, this phase corresponds to the difference between mechanical parametric amplification phase and the phase of the sinusoid used to mix-down the measured photocurrent into a quadrature signal. This relative phase must be controlled or chosen in post-processing, which necessarily involves some uncertainty and fluctuations. \blk
%%This is because $\theta$ derives from the difference between \red mand these need to be locked together in an experiment.
% Given that the squeezed quadrature estimate variance goes to $\infty$ at long times \blk it is of concern that any finite misalignment will destroy the sought after anti-squeezing effect.
% % For instance, in~\cite{Brawley} a phase instability of beneath $5\times 10^{-3}$ rad is reported.
% The expression for $\sigma_{Y}^2$ when $\theta\neq 0$ is found from the POVM as before and in the long time limit is
%\bal
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\gamma- \chi \cos (\theta ) +4 \tilde{\mu}+\Gamma_{-} \cos ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)+\Gamma_{+} \sin ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right) }{8 \tilde{\mu} }.
%\label{sigY}
%\eal
%With non-zero $\theta$, the squeezing threshold is shifted to $\chi=2\gamma (1+n)/\cos(\theta)$.
%It is also found that a finite, rather than infinitesimal, measurement strength is optimal in the over-squeezed regime. We expect it to be small, however, when $\theta$ is small.
%%Given that above threshold the estimate variance is no longer monotonic in $\tilde{\mu}$, we define the threshold as being the point below which it is optimal to measure as quickly as possible.
%To find the most effective measurement strength when over-squeezing, we optimise $\sigma_{Y}^2$ over $\tilde{\mu}$. For simplicity we assume that $\eta=1$ (so that $n=n_{{\rm th}}$) and $\tilde{\mu}\ll
%%, but this calculation is stymied by its large non-linearity. To proceed we assume that $\tilde{\mu}\ll
%\chi$, which physically is a proxy for delaying the measurement considerably (but not infinitely) and allowing the anti-squeezing to take effect. The optimal measurement strength in this limit is then given by
%\bal
%%\tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}}=&\frac{\frac{1}{2}(2 \chi -\gamma )^{3/2} (\gamma +2 \chi )^2 \sin %\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)}{\sqrt{-\gamma ^4 (6 n (n+1)+1) \chi -2 \gamma ^2 (4 n (n%+1)+3) \chi ^3-\gamma \cos (\theta ) \left(\gamma ^4 n (n+1)+\gamma ^2 (12 n (n+1)+5) %\chi ^2-4 \chi ^4\right)+8 \chi ^5}}\\
%\tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}}=&\frac{|\theta |}{4}\sqrt{\frac{( \chi-\gamma )^3 ( \chi+\gamma )}{(\chi -2\gamma(1+n_{\rm th})) (\chi +2\gamma n_{\rm th})}}+O\left(\theta ^3\right).
%\label{mOpt}
%\eal
%This equation only gives a physical measurement rate
%%to make sense we clearly need to be
%in the over-squeezed regime, which is equivalent to $\chi>2\gamma(1+n_{\rm th})/\cos(\theta)$ to $O\left(\theta\right)$. By substituting it into \eqref{sigY} we obtain the correction to \eqref{yOpt} for small $\theta$ when there is over-squeezing
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2\xrightarrow{\: \tilde{\mu}_{{\rm opt}} \: }\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+|\theta |\sqrt{\frac{( \chi+\gamma ) (\chi -2\gamma (1+n_{\rm th})) (\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th})}{4( \chi -\gamma )^3}}
%+O\left(\theta ^2\right).
%\eeq
%
%In the under-squeezed regime with non-zero $\theta$ there is still no finite optimal measurement strength --- it is best to measure as quickly as possible with $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$.
%
%\subsection{Two-Step Process}
% \blk
%In this section we consider the alternative process of squeezing first (for a time $\tau$) then measuring second (for a time $T$), see \frf{schematic}(c-d). It is expected that it will be possible to draw a tight comparison with the one-step constant measurement process. When a very weak (strong) measurement is desirable in the one-step process it should be reflected in a very late (early) measurement turn-on time in the two-step process. We also investigate the impact of the squeezing being on or off in the second step. Within the over-squeezed regime, the expectation is that this will prove inconsequential for late measurement start times. \blk
%%once the measurement start time is pushed out very far.
%% if we are in the over-squeezed regime.
%% For the under-squeezed regime, the one-step process tells us that it's beneficial to keep squeezing in the second step. For over-squeezing, the squeezing being on or off in the second step is investigated, with the expectation that once the measurement time is pushed out very far it will be inconsequential.
%Once again, this system is analysable within the theoretical framework of~\cite{warDoh} and we can obtain analytic expressions for the POVM.
%
%%WHAT IS THIS GAMMA minus? is it same as previous but with no chi? No, here constant sq thruout
%
%%ALSO step 2 has a diff mu so diff effective n. This just changes the n in Gamma only to n2.
%
%We focus first on the anti-squeezed quadrature with $\theta=0$ (perfectly aligned squeezing and mix-down \blk phases) and a constant squeezing strength maintained throughout both steps. The estimate variance is given by
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+\frac{e^{(\gamma - \chi) \blk \tau }}{8 \tilde{\mu} ( \chi-\gamma )} \Big(\Gamma_{-} ( \chi -\gamma) \coth (\Gamma_{-}T/2)-( \chi-\gamma) ^2-4 \gamma \tilde{\mu} (1 +2 n_{{\rm th}} )\Big),
%\label{2Step}
%\eeq
%with $n_{{\rm th}}$ being the bath occupancy (equal to $n$ when there is no measurement) and $\Gamma_{-}$ as per the one-step definition (having a measurement adjusted thermal occupancy, $n$). Note that in the limit $\tau\rightarrow 0$, which corresponds to the one-step process, \eqref{sigma} is regained. Of course it is simple to convert \erf{2Step} into an expression for an effective heterodyne efficiency, $\eta_{{\rm het}}$, (which would be sensible in the limit $\chi=0$) or an effective homodyne efficiency, $\eta_{{\rm Hom}}$, just by equating $\sigma_{Y}^2$ to $1/\eta_{{\rm het}}$ and $1/2\eta_{{\rm Hom}}$ respectively.
%
%Since \blk \erf{2Step} is monotonic in the duration of the first (squeezing-only) \blk step, $\tau$, a simple observation is that the optimal duration of this step \blk is either zero or infinity. When $\chi<\gamma$, the second term is always positive, such that zero duration should be chosen to minimise the exponential.
%%Therefore, it is clear that when $2 \chi<\gamma$ there should be no first squeezing step and $\tau=0$ should be chosen.
%When $\chi>\gamma$ the sign of the second term can be positive or negative depending on the system parameters. In regimes where it is positive, since the sign of the exponent of the exponential is negative for $\chi>\gamma$, an infinite duration should be chosen and the second term in \erf{2Step} goes to zero. In regimes where it is negative, on the other hand, the best strategy is to skip the squeezing-only step, setting the exponential to unity by choosing $\tau=0$.
%\blk
%%choice is dependent upon the sign of the second term of \erf{2Step}: if positive then squeeze indefinitely (the exponential term then goes to zero), but if negative then skip the squeezing step (and set the exponential to unity by $\tau=0$).
% Working in the long measurement time limit $T\rightarrow\infty$ (which sends $\coth\left(\Gamma_{-}T/2\right)\rightarrow 1$), an expression for the minimum parametric drive strength, $\chi$, \blk that makes the initial squeezing-only step \blk beneficial can be found, independent of $\tilde{\mu}$, and it lies in the region $\gamma< \chi < 2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})$, with its relative placement in this range determined by detector efficiency $\eta$ and $n_{{\rm th}}$.
%
%In the case where the squeezing-only step is beneficial, and the second term in \erf{2Step} can be set to zero,
%\blk
%%In a regime where the second term of \erf{2Step} is negligible,
%the noise level $\sigma^2_Y$ is the same as for the one-step protocol \erf{yOpt}, evaluating to \blk the range $[\frac{1}{2},1)$ when $\chi > 2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})$. This range is bounded by the homodyne and heterodyne limits. This implies that the over-squeezed regime, in which the heterodyne limit can be beaten, is defined analogously for the two-step process as for the one-step process but with $n\rightarrow n_{{\rm th}}$. This replacement of the measurement backaction-modified effective bath occupancy with the actual bath occupancy makes sense, since no measurement is being performed during the initial squeezing-only step. \blk As $n\geq n_{{\rm th}}$, with equality only existing for perfect detector efficiency, it is possible to get closer to the homodyne limit using a two-step process with other parameters fixed. Physically, this is due to the elimination of quantum back-action heating during the squeezing-only period in which no measurement is made, and in which the $Y$-quadrature of the mechanical oscillator has still not necessarily been sufficiently amplified to provide an observable signal on the optical field. \blk
%
%
%It is worth noting that the second term of \erf{2Step} can also be neglected in a different regime, even when the exponential is finite, by making the measurement rate infinitesimal, $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow 0$ and taking the measurement time $T$ to infinity. In this case, a strong measurement of the mechanical $Y$-quadrature can still be made due to the exponential amplification it experiences from the parametric process during the second step (measurement and squeezing). This increases the effective measurement strength at long times even for an arbitrarily low measurement rate. This can be seen by taking the limit $T \rightarrow \infty$ in \erf{2Step} and substituting in for $\Gamma_-$:
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+\frac{e^{ (\gamma - \chi) \blk \tau }}{8 \tilde{\mu} ( \chi-\gamma )} \left ( \left ( \sqrt{1 + \frac{8 \tilde{\mu} (\gamma + 2 \gamma n + \tilde{\mu})}{( \chi - \gamma)^2}}-1 \right )( \chi-\gamma) ^2-4 \gamma \tilde{\mu} (1 +2 n_{{\rm th}} )\right).
%\label{2Step_limit}
%\eeq
%If the square-root in this expression is Taylor expanded with respect to $\tilde{\mu}$, all terms of $O(\tilde{\mu}^{-1})$ cancel, so that the precision of the estimate $\sigma_Y^2$ does not blow up towards infinity in the limit $\tilde{\mu} \rightarrow 0$, as would usually be expected. Taking this limit
%%$\tilde{\mu} \ll (\gamma-\chi)^2 / \gamma (1 + 2 n), \gamma(1+ 2n)$
%%$\tilde{\mu} \rightarrow 0$,
%(which also implies $n \rightarrow n_{\rm th}$) the terms of $O(\tilde{\mu}^0)$ in the second part of the expression also cancel, such that the precision of the estimate $\sigma_Y^2$ again matches that of the one step protocol (\erf{yOpt}). This might be expected, since in this limit the second step can be understood as a self-contained one-step process.
%\blk
%%This is understood as the second step being a self-contained one-step process.
%Thus, there are two pathways to the homodyne limit: a long squeezing time $\tau$, or a long measurement time $T$ combined with a very weak measurement strength\blk.
%%Practically, however, \blu a long squeezing time $\tau$ may be expected to be superior, since \blk the optimal result is achieved exponentially faster.
%%\wpb{I decided I didn't agree with the argument that long squeezing time should be expected to be superior to long measurement. It will depend on circumstances: if you have a very linear oscillator and a weak measurement strength, you would go for the weak measurement case; if you had an oscillator that exhibited nonlinearities at a relatively low amplitude and had access to a strong measurement you'd to the other. If you'd like a discussion of this I'm happy to add one. }
%
%
%%
%%
%%and the performance of the one (provided the measurement strength is optimally chosen) and two-step processes converge
%%
%%As the variance has a finite lower bound ($\half$) it must be that $\tau$
%%
%%Secondly, that the second term, of the two terms present in \eqref{2Step}, has a contribution in the long measurement limit ($T\rightarrow\infty$) being positive or negative determined by ${\rm Sign}\left[\frac{\chi-\gamma(1+n)}{(2 \chi -\gamma)}\right]$.
%%
%%Let us first consider $\chi>\gamma(1+n)\geq\frac{\gamma}{2}$, for which the second term is positive and so must be minimised. That $\chi$ as large as possible is advantageous is a given, but with control then limited to $\tilde{\mu}$ and $\tau$ there are two ways in which an experimentalist could minimise the second term. Most obviously, $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ kills the exponential as $\chi>\gamma(1+n)\geq\frac{\gamma}{2}$, but also $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow 0$ sets the second term to zero. The conclusion is that either the duration of step one (squeezing only) or the duration of the effective quadrature measurement (determined by $\tilde{\mu}$) needs to go to $\infty$ for optimality (minimal estimate variance of $\sigma_{Y_0}^2$). Practically, however, long squeezing time $\tau$ rather than very weak measurement $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow 0$ may be vastly superior as the optimal result is achieved exponentially faster. Note that $T\rightarrow\infty$ (which sends $\coth[\Gamma_{-}T]\rightarrow 1$) with finite $\tilde{\mu}$ does not extend the {\it effective} quadrature measurement time to $\infty$ as the measurement becomes (almost) complete with regard to the state of tomographic interest in finite time. That is, $T$ doesn't effect the relevant timescales during which the squeezing can act, it is with $\tilde{\mu}$ that this is changed. Once the second term has been killed, $\eqref{yOpt}$ is obtained which is in the range $[\frac{1}{2},1]$ for over-squeezing and the performance of the one (provided the measurement strength is optimally chosen) and two-step processes converge. The ends of the range $[\frac{1}{2},1]$ represent the homodyne bound and the heterodyne bound respectively.
%%
%%Now consider $\gamma(1+n)>\chi>\frac{\gamma}{2}$, for which the second term of \eqref{2Step} is negative and should then be made as large as possible for optimality. One way to achieve this is to take $\tau\rightarrow 0$ - but this returns us to the one-step process for which the heterodyne limit cannot be beaten when $\gamma(1+n)>\chi$. In fact, we know that the optimal choice when the system is under-squeezed ($\gamma(1+n)>\chi$) is a very strong, effectively instantaneous, measurement which saturates the heterodyne limit. If the exponential is set to zero by taking $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, which is still possible as $2\chi>\gamma$, then \eqref{yOpt} is regained, but is now bounded below by unity as we are in the regime $\gamma(1+n)>\chi>\frac{\gamma}{2}$.
%%
%% Finally, if $2\chi<\gamma$ the second term of \eqref{2Step} becomes positive again so it should be minimised. The exponential can no longer be killed so the optimal choice is also $\tau\rightarrow 0$, for which the instantaneous measurement ($\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$) is optimal. In summary, the squeezing threshold of $\chi=\gamma(1+n)$ determines whether the heterodyne limit can be beaten and thus infers whether a squeezing step is pertinent.
%
%As an alternative experimental arrangement, we take $\chi=0$ in the second step, so that squeezing-only \blk (step one) is followed by measurement-only \blk (step two). The estimate variance of the anti-squeezed quadrature once the measurement is complete, $T\rightarrow\infty$, is then
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{\rm th} }{ 2(\chi- \gamma) }+\frac{e^{ (\gamma - \chi ) \tau }}{8\tilde{\mu} } \left(\gamma-4 \gamma \tilde{\mu}\frac{ (2 n_{{\rm th}} +1)}{( \chi -\gamma ) } +\sqrt{\gamma ^2+ 8 \tilde{\mu} (2\tilde{\mu}+ \gamma +2 \gamma n)}\right).
%\label{2stepmeas}
%\eeq
%It can be shown that \eqref{2stepmeas} is strictly larger than \eqref{2Step}, as the presence of (continued) squeezing, when $\theta=0$, is beneficial --- however, the difference goes to zero if step one is performed for a sufficiently long time.
%When $\tau=0$ (a one-step measurement-only process) \eqref{2stepmeas} reduces to the same form as \eqref{sigma}. In this regime, the protocol constitutes a heterodyne measurement, which approaches perfect heterodyne as $\tilde{\mu} \rightarrow \infty$.
%%when both $\tau=0$ (a one-step process with no squeezing).
%%\wpb{This must reduce to \eqref{sigma} in general when $\tau=0$ as this will mean there is no parametric amplification, so $\chi$ is irrelevant. I'm assuming this in the below text...}
%%\blu which also reduces to the same form as \eqref{sigma}
%%when $\tau=0$ (a one-step measurement-only process).
%The other potentially optimal choice for $\tau$ is, of course, $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ which suppresses the second term when $\chi>\gamma$.
%%When $\tau=0$ we can approach the heterodyne limit (with $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$),
%So long as there is over-squeezing ($\chi>2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})$) this allows the heterodyne limit to be surpassed; where again since no measurement is performed during the parametric amplification period, \blk it is $n_{{\rm th}}$ rather than $n$ that, is used in defining \blk the over-squeezed regime. It is worth noting is that the filter decay rate of the optimal estimate of $Y_{\rm est}$ (see \eqref{filter}) is decreased when there is no squeezing concurrent with measurement and can be found from $\Gamma_{-}$ just by setting $\chi\rightarrow 0$.
%
%
%%In this regime, the protocol constitutes a heterodyne measurement, which approaches perfect heterodyne as $\tilde{\mu} \rightarrow \infty$. \blk
% %Note that, once again, it is $n_{{\rm th}}$ rather than $n$ that is defining the over-squeezed regime.
%% The other potentially optimal choice for $\tau$ is, of course, $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ which suppresses the second term when $\chi>2\gamma$.
%%When $\tau=0$ we can approach the heterodyne limit (with $\tilde{\mu}\rightarrow\infty$),
%%So long as there is over-squeezing ($\chi>\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})$) this allows the heterodyne limit to be surpassed; where again since no measurement is performed during the parametric amplification period, \blk it is $n_{{\rm th}}$ rather than $n$ that, is used in defining \blk the over-squeezed regime.
%%whilst with $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ we can do better than this.
%% It can be shown that \eqref{2stepmeas} is strictly larger than \eqref{2Step}, as the presence of (continued) squeezing, when $\theta=0$, is beneficial --- however, the difference goes to zero if step one is performed for a sufficiently long time \wpb{I've run out of time. Is this a general result in all regimes or just when you have over-squeezing? If it's a general result I'd put it directly after the equation, then I'd start considering limits. At the moment the order of information in this paragraph - I think - makes it quite difficult for the reader to follow the gist easily}. Also worth noting is that the filter decay rate of the optimal estimate of $Y_{\rm est}$ (see \eqref{filter}) is decreased when there is no squeezing concurrent with measurement and can be found from $\Gamma_{-}$ just by setting $\chi\rightarrow 0$.
%
% %\blu Since no measurement is performed during the parametric amplification period, \blk it is $n_{{\rm th}}$ rather than $n$ \blu that, again is used in defining \blk the over-squeezed regime.
%
%
%The expressions for non-zero $\theta$ (misaligned mechanical squeezing and mix-down \blk phase) in the two-step process are readily obtainable but difficult to simplify concisely, so to highlight the interesting physics the approximation $\gamma\ll\chi$ is made. We also assume that the second step can be modelled as an instantaneous measurement, which is not particularly onerous as any contrary effects are suppressed by the exponentials of \erfs{2Step}{2stepmeas}. The opposite regime, $\gamma\gg\chi$, is optimised by beginning measurement immediately, and the results of \srf{oneStepProcess} for under-squeezing and non-zero $\theta$ are therefore applicable. For over-squeezing in the regime of interest,
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma}{2 \chi } (2 n_{{\rm th}}+1) \cos (\theta )+\frac{1}{4\chi} \left(e^{ (\gamma+ \chi ) \tau } ( \chi +\gamma (1+2 n_{{\rm th}})) (1-\cos (\theta ))+(1+\cos (\theta )) e^{ (\gamma - \chi ) \tau \blk} ( \chi -\gamma (1+2 n_{{\rm th}}))\right),
%\label{sig}
%\eeq
%which shows that if $\theta\neq 0$ then there is an exponential term that diverges if the squeezing is continued past an optimal time. The squeezing time $\tau$ that minimises the estimate variance for small $\theta$ is found to be
%\beq
%\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\frac{1}{ \chi}\ln \left(\frac{2-\frac{4\gamma }{\chi }}{|\theta| }\right).
%\label{squeezeTime}
%\eeq
%This explicitly shows how sensitive the system is to off-axis squeezing as the optimal time only diverges as $\ln(1/\theta)$ --- unless $\theta$ is extremely small, the optimal time will not be large compared to the other system time scales. This effect is exacerbated by the $1/\chi$ scaling (which is consistent with \eqref{mOpt}), with large $\chi$ being the regime of interest. From \eqref{sig}, once this optimal time is exceeded the estimate performance exponentially deteriorates with $\tau$ at a rate $\gamma+4\chi$. This makes it a crucial experimental consideration that may not have been treated appropriately without the above analysis. Note that a finite squeezing time is optimal even to zeroth order in the bath coupling, showing that it is unavoidable if squeezing off-axis.
%\subsection{Comparison and summary}
%
%To reiterate and summarize our results, we phrase them in terms of the optimal protocol choice when the measurement strength, $\tilde{\mu}$, is finite and inflexible, with the options being a one-step process with squeezing, a two-step process with squeezing throughout or a two-step process with squeezing only in the first step. If $\chi<\gamma$ then measurement should be commenced immediately (a one-step process). For $\chi>\gamma$,
%%upon noting that if a two-step process is optimal then
% it is also optimal to take the duration of the first step \blk $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ as $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is monotonic in $\tau$. When the parametric drive phase is correctly chosen (\blk $\theta=0$)\blk, the composite optomechanical measurement in each case \blk then corresponds to homodyne detection with efficiency
%\bal
%{}_{{\rm 1step}}\eta_{{\rm Hom}}=&\frac{4\eta \mu }{ \gamma -\chi +4\eta\mu +\sqrt{(\gamma -\chi)^2+8 \eta\mu (\gamma +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+2\mu )}}\\
%{}_{{\rm 2step}}\eta_{{\rm Hom}}=&\frac{ \chi -\gamma}{ \chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }.
%\label{comp}
%\eal
%The performance of both \blk two-step processes is independent, in principle, \blk of the measurement strength (as long as the measurement is performed of course!) and independent of whether squeezing is performed in the second step. By equating the two expressions of \erf{comp} we find that the two-step process is superior throughout the over-squeezed regime, $\chi>2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$. In the under-squeezed regime, in which the heterodyne limit cannot be exceeded\blk, the one-step process is superior in the case of perfect detector efficiency. However, for imperfect detectors ($\eta<1$). In that case, the range of parametric drive strengths over which the two-step procedure outperforms the one-step procedure extends some way into the under-squeezed regime ($\chi<2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$), with the one-step procedure only superior when the drive strength is sufficiently low.
%\blk
%%For $\eta<1$ the value of $\chi$ for which the two-step procedure outperforms is lower than the over-squeezed regime threshold.
%Defining the squeezing strength \blk that sets the boundary between one-step and two-step outperformance as $\bar{\chi}$ we have
%\beq
%%\bar{\chi}=\gamma\frac{1+\sqrt{\eta}-\eta+(1+2n_{{\rm th}})\eta^{1/4}
%%\sqrt{1+\sqrt{\eta}-\eta}}{2(1+\sqrt{\eta}-\eta)},
%\bar{\chi}=\gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\eta}(1+2n_{{\rm th}})\right)
%\eeq
%which has the property $\gamma\leq\bar{\chi}\leq 2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$, with the bounds being saturated when $\eta=0$ or $1$.
%
%In \frf{analyticComparison} we compare the analytic expressions for the one and two-step variance for zero-detuning for some realistic parameters. The blue-detuned variance (to be discussed in \srf{BlueDetuned}) is also plotted. In \frf{analyticComparison}(a) it can be seen that all processes perform better as the squeezing is increased and the threshold squeezing is approximately confirmed. The small offset of the crossing points of the one and two-step processes relative to the threshold is due to a combination of finite duration of squeezing and non-perfect detector efficiency. In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), parameters are chosen such that the system is over-squeezed. The main result is that the one-step processes (dashed lines) degrade with increasing measurement strength as the squeezing has less time to take hold before the state is decorrelated with the initial state. The effective reduction of squeezing leads to reduced resolution, consistent with \frf{analyticComparison}(a). In the large $\mu$ limit the one-step variance will approach the heterodyne value of approximately one, with a small overshoot due to the finite detector inefficiency. The two-step processes are less affected by the reduced step two squeezing as step one also provides squeezing, so they will asymptote to a sub unity value. All curves in \frf{analyticComparison}(b) meet as $\mu\rightarrow 0$. This is because the variance saturates the bound of $\frac{ \chi+2\gamma n }{2( \chi -\gamma )}$, with $n=n_{{\rm th}}$ in this limit.
%When $\theta\neq 0$, there is a significant change to the system dynamics, by which squeezing becomes detrimental if carried on too long. This is true even in the absence of a bath and is especially important because the effect only logarithmically approaches the ideal as $\theta\rightarrow 0$.
%
%
%For various experimental configurations, the variance in the initial $Y$-quadrature estimate is shown as a function of $\chi$ (with $\tilde{\mu}$ fixed) and $\tilde{\mu}$ (with $\chi$ fixed). For a fixed measurement strength (solid lines) the two-step process (`black') is superior in the over-squeezed regime, while one-step (`green') is preferred when the system is under-squeezed. The cross-over point of the one and two-step zero-detuning solid curves is slightly offset from the threshold squeezing as a finite squeezing duration is considered, which allows differences to be seen with respect to the Blue-detuned variance (to be discussed in \srf{BlueDetuned}). When $\chi$ is held fixed and $\tilde{\mu}$ varied, we see that the one-step process is degraded as $\tilde{\mu}$ increases due to an over-squeezed regime being applicable. Chosen parameters are: $\gamma=0.25, \eta=0.9,\chi=2,n_{{\rm th}}=0.3,\tau=0.557, T=0.124,\tilde{\mu}=1$, with the values of $\chi$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ only being applicable when considering them fixed.
%TTD:
%IS 2step ALWAYS BETTER (ANDREW SAID SO IN TALK)?
%some approx was required for one of the eqtns
\section{Analysis of Optomechanical Tomography --- Blue-Detuned Laser}
\label{BlueDetuned}
In this section, we repeat the analysis of section~\ref{tomogram}, but now in the blue-detuned resolved sideband limit. As noted previously, this regime can also be described, approximately, using a single mode stochastic master equation.
The derivation of the effective single-mode system involves a rotating wave approximation in the frame of the driving laser, which is blue-detuned by approximately the mechanical oscillator frequency, $\Delta\sim\omega_{m}$~\cite{revCavOptMech}. We work in a regime where $g\ll\kappa\ll\omega_{{\rm m}}$, which has been experimentally implemented~\cite{BDexpI,BDexpII,bdexperiment}.
%\eqref{sme} included a RWA into the frame of the driving laser, which was then subsequently taken to be on resonance with the cavity.
%The optical cavity can be adiabatically eliminated to obtain a master equation for the mechanical mode dynamics only.
This regime is of particular relevance because of the amplification provided by the resultant two-mode squeezing interaction between cavity and mechanical oscillator. The impact of this new source of amplification should be compared with the mechanical squeezing previously considered.
%An important difference to the zero-detuned system is that information concerning one quadrature only is obtained, which we will take to be the $Y$ quadrature by an appropriate choice of laser phase.
Further details of the the quantum trajectory methods involved in obtaining the POVM for the blue-detuned system are provided in \ref{qtraj}.
%Proceeding as before and adiabatically eliminating the cavity leads to the modified linear SME
%\beq
%d\rho = \chi\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+2\gamma(n_{{\rm th}}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+(2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+\tilde{\mu})\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt\\
%+\sqrt{\tilde{\mu}\eta}\left(a^\dag \rho+\rho a\right)dQ.
%\label{BDsme}
%\eeq
%The reader will note several differences to the zero-detuned SME. The measurement is now providing information concerning a single quadrature (taken to be $X$ by setting the laser phase for homodyne detection to zero) and the measurement back action appears only in the dissipation term for $a^\dag$. Also the detector efficiency, $\eta$, has been explicitly included as it cannot be absorbed into the other parameters.
\subsection{Two-step process}
\label{BlueDetunedTomography}
To investigate the POVM implemented by the composite optomechanical measurement, we again consider the variance of the quadrature estimate of an initial coherent state amplitude and the corresponding effective homodyne efficiency. That this figure of merit is strongly tied to the ability to reconstruct states will be shown in \srf{sims}. Consistent with the previous sections, we choose to squeeze the $X$ quadrature in order that the $Y$ quadrature becomes more resolvable. The first protocol we discuss is the two-step process of \frf{schematic}(b) (no squeezing in the second step), as then the only missing piece from \erf{eq:sigYGen} is the $\eta_{{\rm het}}$ appropriate for the blue-detuned resolved sideband measurement step.
Before providing a general expression that is also a function of the thermal bath, it is illuminating to consider just the effect of detector inefficiency and finite measurement strength, as this exposes differences due to the blue-detuned regime. That is, we make the simplification $\gamma,n_{{\rm th}}=0$, and isolate the amplifying effect of the detuned laser adding energy to both the optical and mechanical modes. Considering an incomplete measurement that lasts for time $T$ we find that the effective heterodyne efficiency for the measurement step is
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm het} = \frac{2\eta}{2\eta + \coth \left(\mu T/2\right)-1}.
\end{equation}
Notice that in the limit $T\rightarrow \infty$ the efficiency approaches 1, independent of $\eta$. This is a result of the intrinsic amplification that is available in the blue-detuned case, and should be compared to the zero-detuned case where we obtained $\eta_{\rm het} = 2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})$. However, the optical efficiency $\eta$ does still result in a slower rate of information gain, meaning that the time required to achieve a given efficiency $\eta_{\rm het}$ grows as $\eta$ is decreased. Although the detector losses are overcome by the blue-detuning, this does not transform the protocol into being of an effective homodyne type --- parametric amplification is still required for that.
We now show a heterodyne efficiency for a completed measurement, $T\rightarrow\infty$, with no squeezing applied, but with non-zero $\gamma,n_{{\rm th}}$:
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm het} = \frac{2\eta\mu}{\gamma+\mu(2\eta-1)+\sqrt{(\mu-\gamma)^2+4\eta\mu\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)}},
\end{equation}
which can be directly compared to the corresponding expression for the zero-detuned case~(\ref{hetEta}). This can be substituted into \erf{eq:sigYGen} to obtain an estimate variance for the two-step protocol. It is clear that the effective {\it homodyne} efficiency for the overall two-step protocol, above parametric oscillation threshold and for long squeezing times, is given by
\beq
\eta_{\rm hom}
% \xrightarrow{\: \chi>\gamma, \, \tau\rightarrow\infty \: }&
%\overlim{text}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (-0.5,0.1) -- (1.34,0.1);
\draw [white] (0,0) -- (1.6,0);
\node at (0.35,0.3) {\tiny $\chi>\gamma, \, \tau\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\frac{\chi-\gamma }{\chi +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} },
\label{BluexOpt}
\eeq
exactly the same as the zero-detuned case~(\ref{homEtaNew2}). Ideal homodyne detection is achieved by the two-step protocol in the blue-detuned regime when, as before, $\chi\gg \chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$.
We now consider maintaining the squeezing amplitude throughout the measurement step (as illustrated in \frf{schematic}(c)). This leads to a $Y$ quadrature estimate variance of
%\bqa
%% \hspace*{-2.5cm}
%\sigma_{Y}^2&=&\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }{2( \chi -\gamma) }+
%\nonumber\\*
%&&e^{- ( \chi-\gamma) \blk \tau } \left(\frac{{\it \Gamma}_{-} \coth \left({\it \Gamma}_{-} T/2\right)+\gamma-\chi+\mu (\eta-1 )}{2 \eta \mu}
%-\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
%\right)
%\label{BDsigma2StepNew}
%\eqa
\beq
% \hspace*{-2.5cm}
\fl\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }{2( \chi -\gamma) }+
e^{- ( \chi-\gamma) \blk \tau } \left(\frac{{\it \Gamma}_{-} \coth \left({\it \Gamma}_{-} T/2\right)+\gamma-\chi+\mu (\eta-1 )}{2 \eta \mu}
-\frac{\gamma(1+2 n_{{\rm th}})}{2(\chi-\gamma)}
\right)
\label{BDsigma2StepNew}
\eeq
where we have defined the rates ${\it \Gamma}_{\pm} = \sqrt{(\gamma \pm \chi )^2\mp 2 \mu \chi( 1-\eta) +\mu ^2+2\gamma \mu (2 \eta (n_{{\rm th}}+1)-1)}$, which are of the same order as the zero-detuned rates $\Gamma_{\pm}$. The filter for this protocol is given by
\beq
Y_{\rm est}(T)
%\xrightarrow{\: T\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{text}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}
c e^{- (\chi-\gamma )\tau/2}
\int_{0}^{T}e^{-{\it \Gamma}_{-}t /2}dQ_{Y} (t),
\label{BDfilterNew}
\eeq
where the rather lengthy multiplicative constant, $c$, is defined in the footnote \cite{constantBD}.
In \frf{analyticComparison}(a), the estimate variance of the $Y$ quadrature for the two-step blue-detuned protocol, with squeezing maintained throughout, is plotted against squeezing strength, $\chi$ (solid blue). Compared with the zero-detuned two-step process, blue-detuning performs better when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$ but worse otherwise. This is due to the additional amplification that blue-detuning provides. When $\chi<\chi_{{\rm het}}$ the noise is dominating the squeezing, so that amplification decreases the signal (the initial state) to noise (the amplified contribution). When $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$, amplification is desired as it makes the signal more resolvable, so that blue-detuning is superior. This effect is strong enough that the one-step blue-detuned variance (to be given shortly) is less than the two-step zero-detuned variance for much of the parameter range displayed. In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), the variation against measurement strength, $\mu$ is shown. As $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$, blue-detuning outperforms zero-detuning. The composite measurement degrades when the measurement strength increases as this reduces the effective squeezing provided in the second step.
Although slower than the zero-detuned case, the variance will approach approximately unity for very large $\mu$.
%\pw{dont read past here, Andrew}
\subsection{One-step process}
\label{BlueDetunedTomography2}
For completeness, we provide the variance of the $Y$ quadrature estimate for the one-step protocol (see \frf{schematic}(d)), by taking the $\tau\rightarrow 0$ in \erf{BDsigma2StepNew}, to obtain
\bqa
\sigma_{Y}^2&\quad=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma-\chi +\mu(\eta-1)+{\it \Gamma}_{-} \coth ({\it \Gamma}_{-} T/2)}{2 \eta\mu }\nonumber\\
%\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\overlim{text}
&\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [->] (0.0,0.1) -- (1,0.1);
\draw [white] (-0.2,0) -- (1.3,0);
\node at (0.5,0.3) {\tiny $T\rightarrow\infty$};
\end{tikzpicture}&
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma - \chi +\mu(\eta -1) + {\it \Gamma}_{-} }{2 \eta\mu },
\label{BDsigmaNew}
\eqa
with ${\it \Gamma}_{-}$ as per the blue-detuned two-step protocol. The filter is also obtained from \erf{BDfilterNew} with $\tau\rightarrow 0$. There is much similarity with previous protocols, in particular the thresholds $\chi_{{\rm osc}}=\gamma$ and $\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}})$ are the same and are once again achieved via weak measurement, $\mu\rightarrow 0$, delaying the decorrelation of the initial system state until the squeezing has had time to take effect. As for the other protocols we have considered, it it possible to approach ideal homodyne detection with $\eta_{\rm hom}\rightarrow 1$. A difference worth mentioning is that the threshold at which it is best to delay the measurement is the same as that required to enter the homodyne regime; that is, $\chi_{{\rm del}}=\chi_{{\rm het}}$. The one-step blue-detuned estimate variance is plotted (dashed blue), for comparison, in \frf{analyticComparison}.
%
% indicating that the homodyne regime can be entered
%
% squeezing for desiring a very weak measurement, $\chi_{{\rm osc}}$, and the
%
%To investigate the POVM implemented by the composite optomechanical measurement, we again consider the variance of the quadrature estimate of an initial coherent state amplitude and the corresponding effective homodyne efficiency. That this figure of merit is strongly tied to the ability to reconstruct states will be shown in \srf{sims}. Consistent with the previous sections, we choose to squeeze the $X$ quadrature in order that the $Y$ quadratures become more resolvable.
%%In order for the resonant parametric amplification to be correctly utilised, the phase of the parametric drive of the mechanics is chosen so that measured quadrature (the $Y$ quadrature) is amplified and made more resolvable.
%In this `one-step' subsection, the measurement is taken to be concurrent with the parametric amplification. From the POVM and some simple analysis we obtain
%\bal
%\sigma_{Y}^2=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma-\chi +\mu(\eta-1)+{\it \Gamma}_{-} \coth ({\it \Gamma}_{-} t/2)}{2 \eta\mu }
%\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\gamma - \chi +\mu(\eta -1) + {\it \Gamma}_{-} }{2 \eta\mu },
%\label{BDsigma}
%\eal
%where we have defined the rates ${\it \Gamma}_{\pm} = \sqrt{(\gamma \pm \chi )^2\mp 2 \mu \chi( 1-\eta) +\mu ^2+2\gamma \mu (2 \eta (n_{{\rm th}}+1)-1)}$, which are of the same order as the zero-detuned rates $\Gamma_{\pm}$. Note that the dependence upon detector efficiency, $\eta$, has been made explicit as its effect cannot be included via an effective measurement strength and thermal occupation (so we use $\mu$ and $n_{{\rm th}}$ also).
%The expression for $\sigma_{X}^2$ is obtained from \erf{BDsigma} with the substitution $\chi\rightarrow -\chi$, which highlights that when there is no squeezing an equal amount of information is gathered about both quadratures. The filter of the measurement record that corresponds to the optimal estimate ($Y_{\rm est}$) of the initial quadrature in the long time limit is
%%\bal
%%Y_{\rm est}(t)&\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }
%% \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\eta\mu }}\left(\gamma-2 \chi -\half\mu +\Gamma\right) \int_{0}^{t}e^{-{\it \Gamma}_{-} r }dQ_{Y} (r),
%%\label{BDfilter}
%%\eal
%\bal
%Y_{\rm est}(t)&\xrightarrow{\: t\rightarrow\infty \: }
%\frac{(\gamma (2 n_{{\rm th}}+1)+\mu- {\it \Gamma}_{-}) ( \gamma -\mu(1-2 \eta) -4\chi + {\it \Gamma}_{-})}{2 \sqrt{\eta \mu } (2(1-\eta ) \mu +2 \gamma n_{{\rm th}}+ \chi )} \int_{0}^{t}e^{-{\it \Gamma}_{-} r /2}dQ_{Y} (r),
%\label{BDfilter}
%\eal
%The reader is reminded that any of the expressions for the estimate variances can be converted into an effective heterodyne or homodyne efficiency, as per \erf{hetEta} and \erf{homEta}, just by equating them with $1/\eta_{{\rm het}}$ and $1/2\eta_{{\rm hom}}$ respectively.
%
%Before analysing \eqref{BDsigma} as a function of the thermal bath and parametric amplification, it is illuminating to consider just the effect of detector inefficiency. That is, we make the simplification $\gamma,n_{{\rm th}},\chi=0$, and isolate the amplifying effect of the detuned laser adding energy to the optical and mechanical modes. Since $\chi=0$, the composite optomechanical measurement is a heterodyne measurement that can be described by an effective efficiency. Considering an incomplete measurement that lasts for time $t$ we find
%\begin{equation}
%\eta_{\rm het} = \frac{2\eta}{2\eta + \coth \left(\mu t/2\right)-1}
%\end{equation}
%Notice that in the limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ the efficiency approaches 1, independent of $\eta$. This is a result of the intrinsic amplification that is available in the blue detuned case, and should be compared to the zero detuned case where we obtained $\eta_{\rm het} = 2\eta/(\eta+\sqrt{\eta})$. However, the optical efficiency $\eta$ does still result in a slower rate of information gain, meaning that the time required to achieve a given efficiency $\eta_{\rm hom}$ grows as $\eta$ is decreased.
%
%
%We now show an expression for a completed measurement $t\rightarrow \infty$ with no squeezing applied, but with non-zero $\gamma,n_{{\rm th}}$. The composite optomechanical measurement corresponds to heterodyne measurement of the initial mechanical state with efficiency
%\begin{equation}
%\eta_{\rm het} = \frac{2\eta\mu}{\gamma+\mu(2\eta-1)+\sqrt{(\mu-\gamma)^2+4\eta\mu\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)}},
%\end{equation}
%which can be directly compared to the corresponding expression for the zero-detuned case~(\ref{hetEta}).
%
%Next, we analyse whether a non-zero $\chi$ can lead to more precise measurement of the initial state. Coming back to \eqref{BDsigma}, it is simple to show that $\sigma_{Y}^2$ is monotonic decreasing with $\chi$. Thus, we have the same type of benefit as in the zero-detuned case: anti-squeezing of the quadrature by parametric amplification improves its resolution. The limit $\chi\rightarrow\infty$ reduces $\sigma_{Y}^2\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}$ as the reader will have anticipated. This means that the parametric drive $\chi$ can convert the composite optomechanical measurement into ideal homodyne detection of the initial mechanical state, just as in the zero-detuned case.
%
%By calculating the derivative of $\sigma_{Y}^2$ with respect to $\mu$ it can be shown that the derivative flips sign when $\chi=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$. When $\chi$ is above this over-squeezing threshold, the measurement strength should be made as small as possible, delaying the effective measurement. In this limit the squeezing can overcome the thermal bath and, in principle, the information about the initial state can be extracted at any time. In this regime we get a homodyne measurement with effective efficiency
%\bal
%\eta_{\rm hom} \xrightarrow{\: \chi>2\gamma (1+n_{{\rm th}}) \enskip{\rm and}\enskip \mu\rightarrow 0 \: }&
%\frac{\chi-\gamma }{\chi +2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} },
%\label{BluexOpt}
%\eal
%exactly the same as the zero-detuned case~(\ref{homEtaNew2}). Otherwise, when $\chi <2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$, it is optimal to choose $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ and we find $\sigma_Y\rightarrow 1$ which corresponds to an instantaneous heterodyne measurement.
%
%In \frf{analyticComparison}(a), the blue-detuned estimate variance of the $Y$ quadrature is plotted against squeezing strength, $\chi$ (dashed blue). Compared with all other processes, the blue-detuned two-step protocol performs better when the system is over-squeezed but worse when it is under-squeezed. This is due to the additional amplification that the two-step blue-detuning provides, both due to the blue-detuning (in comparison with the zero-detuning) and the pre-amplification stage (in comparison with the one-step process). When the system is under-squeezed, the noise is dominating the squeezing, so that amplification decreases the signal (the initial state) to noise (the amplified contribution) ratio. With over-squeezing, amplification is desired as it makes the signal more resolvable, so that blue-detuning is superior. %This effect is strong enough that the one-step blue-detuned variance is less than the two-step zero-detuned variance for much of the over-squeezed parameter range displayed.
%In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), the variation against measurement strength, $\mu$ is shown. As the over-squeezed regime is applicable, blue-detuning outperforms zero-detuning for the respective one-step and two-step processes. The composite measurement degrades as the measurement strength increases as this reduces the effect of the beneficial squeezing. The two-step estimate variance once again asymptotes to a sub unity value as it retains the step one squeezing benefit while losing that in step two due to the quickly completed measurement.
%
%%To aid comparison with the other experimental procedures, we can refer to \frf{analyticComparison}. Looking at the plot with varying $\chi$, we see the that the two-step blue-detuned process, shown in solid blue, outperforms (underperforms) all other processes when the system is over (under) squeezed. This can be understood as the blue-detuning amplification leveraging the state produced by step one, whether it contains relatively less (over-squeezed) or more (under-squeezed) noise than the initial state of interest. In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), the estimate variance once again asymptotes to a sub unity value as it retains the step one squeezing benefit while losing that in step two due to the quickly completed measurement.
%
%\subsection{Two-step process}
%Similarly to the zero-detuned case, we now suppose that the experimentalist delays the measurement until after a period of initial squeezing (duration $\tau$) has taken place. Measurement of strength $\mu$ is then performed for a time $T$, while the squeezing is maintained throughout. The resulting estimate variance is
%%\bal
%%%\sigma_{X_0}^2=&\frac{\chi+\gamma n }{2 \chi -\gamma }+\frac{e^{-2 (2 \chi -\gamma ) \tau }}{4 \eta \mu} \left(2 (\gamma-2\chi) +2 \eta \mu -\mu +\frac{2 \gamma \eta \mu (2 n+1)}{\gamma -2 \chi }+2\Gamma \coth \left(\Gamma T\right)\right),
%%\sigma_{Y}^2=&\frac{\chi+\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }{2 \chi -\gamma }+\frac{e^{-2 (2 \chi -\gamma ) \tau }}{2 \eta \mu(2\chi-\gamma)} \left({\it \Gamma}_{-}(2\chi-\gamma) \coth \left({\it \Gamma}_{-} T\right)- (2\chi-\gamma)^2 - \gamma \eta \mu (1+2 n)+\mu\left( \frac{1}{2}-\eta\right)(2\chi-\gamma)\right),
%%\label{BDsigma2Step}
%%\eal
%\bal
%%\sigma_{X_0}^2=&\frac{\chi+\gamma n }{2 \chi -\gamma }+\frac{e^{-2 (2 \chi -\gamma ) \tau }}{4 \eta \mu} \left(2 (\gamma-2\chi) +2 \eta \mu -\mu +\frac{2 \gamma \eta \mu (2 n+1)}{\gamma -2 \chi }+2\Gamma \coth \left(\Gamma T\right)\right),
%\sigma_{Y}^2=&\frac{\chi+2\gamma n_{{\rm th}} }{2( \chi -\gamma) }+\frac{e^{ (\gamma - \chi) \blk \tau }}{4 \eta \mu(\chi-\gamma)} \left({\it \Gamma}_{-}(\chi-\gamma) \coth \left({\it \Gamma}_{-} T/2\right)- (\chi-\gamma)^2-2\mu ( ( \chi -\gamma )(1-\eta )+\gamma \eta (1+2 n_{\rm th}))\right),
%\label{BDsigma2Step}
%\eal
%with ${\it \Gamma}_{-}$ defined as per the one-step process. It is clear that in the large $\chi$ limit it is possible to achieve the homodyne limit, whilst when squeezing is absent we are returned to the one-step process that is limited as per the heterodyne paradigm. The first term of \erf{BDsigma2Step} indicates that the over-squeezing threshold, in which the heterodyne limit is breached, is given by $\chi=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$ as before.
%
%To aid comparison with the other experimental procedures, we can refer to \frf{analyticComparison}. Looking at the plot with varying $\chi$, we see the that the two-step blue-detuned process, shown in solid blue, outperforms (underperforms) all other processes when the system is over (under) squeezed. This can be understood as the blue-detuning amplification leveraging the state produced by step one, whether it contains relatively less (over-squeezed) or more (under-squeezed) noise than the initial state of interest. In \frf{analyticComparison}(b), the estimate variance once again asymptotes to a sub unity value as it retains the step one squeezing benefit while losing that in step two due to the quickly completed measurement.
%
%Finally, the effect of parametric amplification misalignment is considered (that is, small non-zero $\theta$) for the two-step process. Once again we make the approximation of an instantaneous measurement for display convenience. The misalignment makes it more difficult to resolve the anti-squeezed quadrature and an additive contribution to the estimate variance is found:
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\sigma_{Y}^2\big\rvert_{\theta=0}+\frac{e^{ (\gamma - \chi) \tau\blk } (\chi+\gamma ) (2\gamma +2\gamma n_{\rm th}-\chi )+e^{ (\gamma + \chi )\tau}( \chi-\gamma ) (2\gamma +2\gamma n_{\rm th}+\chi )+ 2\gamma \chi (2 n_{\rm th}+1) }{ 4 \left( \chi ^2-\gamma ^2\right)}\left(1-\cos(\theta)\right).
%\eeq
%From this is it clear that if the squeezing duration is too long then the variance will exponentially diverge, even when the thermal bath is absent. The sensitivity to non-zero $\theta$ is large, consistent with zero-detuning, and the optimal squeezing duration only increases logarithmically with the alignment accuracy.
%There is richer behaviour than the zero-detuned case and the full expressions are very complicated, so we illustrate our points in various limits. Firstly, it is assumed that the measurement is continued until the system has lost its correlation to the initial state, which occurs on a timescale of $1/\Gamma$. The estimate variance is then calculated to ${\cal O}(\gamma)$ and we obtain (here stated in the case that squeezing is turned off in the second step)
%\beq
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{1}{1+\cos (\theta)\tanh (2\tau\chi)}\left(
%1+\gamma\left(
%\frac{\mu(2n_{{\rm th}}+1)}{2\chi}+\frac{\chi(\mu\tau+2n_{{\rm th}}+2)\sech^2(2\tau\chi)}
%{\mu(1+\cos(\theta)\tanh(2\tau\chi))}
%\right)
%\right),
%\eeq
%which has an interesting form. Let us first set the thermal bath to zero and only consider the zeroth order term in $\gamma$. Significantly, there is no exponential blow-up in estimate variance for finite $\theta$ when the squeezing is carried on indefinitely. The variance lower bound that can be achieved with arbitrary squeezing is just raised to $1/(1+\cos(\theta))$ which is qualitatively different behaviour than the zero-detuned case found in \erfa{sigY}{sig}. It is remarkable that the heterodyne limit can be breached as long as the squeezing angle is not past the midpoint of the $X$ and $Y$ quadratures, which provides an increased robustness to misalignment.
%
%These features do not disappear when the bath is turned on, as the first order term in $\gamma$ (which is strictly positive) saturates to a finite contribution. Note that the exponential in $\gamma\tau$ has also been expanded here, but this is not concealing an exponential multiplicative effect as it is exponentially suppressed by the $\sech^2(2\tau\chi)$ term. The suppressed term goes to zero in the long duration squeezing limit.
%
%Similarly to the zero-detuned case, the estimate variance is not necessarily monotonic in the squeezing duration $\tau$, but it is only when the full (unstated) expression is utilised that this can be seen (in the regime $\chi\sim\gamma$). However, it does become monotonic once we enter a regime in which the heterodyne limit can be breached. Importantly, the optimal $\tau$ is either zero or infinity as opposed to zero-detuning where it was finite when $\theta$ was finite.
\section{Tomographic Reconstruction From Simulated Data}
\label{sims}
Up until this point, we have calculated the POVM implemented by the composite optomechanical measurement, and assumed that the tomographic performance of a measurement scheme improves when the effective homodyne efficiency of the measurement is increased. In converting the optomechanical measurement to an effective homodyne measurement, we have sacrificed accuracy in the squeezed quadrature in order to beat the heterodyne limit in the anti-squeezed quadrature. Motivating this construction is the idea that tomography will become much more difficult as the accuracy of the quadrature estimate decreases, while reduction in the effective number of data samples (information is gained about one quadrature only) can be overcome with a doubling only of the number of trials. Similar concepts are discussed in~\cite{tomRevAriano} where detector inefficiency introduces an anti-Gaussianity into estimators for tomography that cause a much slower statistical convergence. In this section, we justify this assumption by simulating the system of interest. This produces artificial experimental data that can be used as the input to a tomography reconstruction algorithm.
Not all states are equally difficult to reconstruct --- our scheme will be of greatest benefit when high resolution is important. For example, the Wigner function of a coherent state can be well approximated from the results of a coarse-grained phase space probe, but the Wigner function of a superposition of coherent states (a `cat' state) requires a finer probe to observe the faster oscillations. This amounts to an expectation that homodyne rather than heterodyne detection is preferred as it provides more accurate quadrature estimates. In this section we will investigate this claim by performing Maximum Likelihood (MaxLik) tomography~\cite{tomRevLvovsky} on simulated experimental data. As we have analytic expressions for the POVM that represent the composite measurement on the system, MaxLik tomography can readily be implemented. This is a standard procedure that is widely implemented in the experimental literature and also has the advantage of producing physical density matrices in contrast to Wigner function tomography~\cite{tomRevLvovsky}. A study of alternative approaches to state reconstruction is beyond the scope of this paper. From our previous analysis, and also \frf{analyticComparison}, it is clear that the (experimentally accessible) two-step procedure outperforms the one-step when $\chi>\chi_{{\rm het}}$, so for this reason it is the focus of the simulations. The zero-detuned case is considered as the results are expected to carry over to the blue-detuned case, which is of greater difficulty to simulate due to the laser amplification necessitating much larger basis size. %\red (MaxLik tomography utilizes Fock space, which is truncated at some phonon number beyond which the system state of interest is assumed to have no support) \blk .
%\acd{i feel like the above proposed comment confuses the issue, as i understand it the issue with these simulations is that you need to have more fock basis states in your simulation that produces samples from the experimental data, since the quantum state is amplified. not that the concern is the number of basis elements required in MakLik which is not affected by whether we are in on resonance or detuned case.}
To highlight the difficulties faced by heterodyne detection, and how these can be overcome with resonant parametric amplification, the input state that we choose to reconstruct is a cat state of the form $\ket{{\rm cat}}\propto\left(\ket{\alpha}+\ket{-\alpha}\right)$.
The experimental procedure that we simulate is the collection of the measurement data $dQ_{X,Y}(t)$ for a large number of repeated trials. Each trial in the laboratory would consist of state preparation followed by a period of electromechanical driving with a particular phase (step one) and finally the measurement is turned on (step two) and the $dQ_{X,Y}(t)$ are recorded. The distribution of squeezing phases should be sufficient to measure a representative sample from the continuum of quadratures. Here we choose to simulate an equal number of trials at each of $50$ uniformly distributed phases. The measurement results are then filtered (data analysis) to determine the POVM element relevant for that trial (see \ref{qtraj}). The collection of POVM elements, one for each trial, is then fed into the MaxLik algorithm. The output of the algorithm is the initial state most likely to have produced the set of recorded measurement results. This state is taken as the best estimate of the initial state.
The first result that we provide, see \frf{wignerReconstruction}, is a comparison of the Wigner functions of density matrices reconstructed with realistic choices of parameters (see figure caption). First we show the target state (a), then a reconstruction with no squeezing (b) and progressively more squeezing (c),(d). It is striking that in the absence of squeezing, no Wigner function negativity is detected for the cat state, $\propto\left(\ket{\alpha=3}+\ket{\alpha=-3}\right)$. This is not a general feature. A $2$ phonon Fock state for example --- which has Wigner function negativity --- can be well reconstructed with no squeezing due to its slower oscillations. Our chosen benchmark for comparing the performance of our scheme is optomechanical measurement with no squeezing. In this case it is not sensible to have a step one, which would just be a waiting period during which the initial mechanical state would decohere. Consequently, such a wait period is omitted and the optomechanical measurement amounts to heterodyne measurement of the initial state. As squeezing is progressively added, the oscillatory features become better resolved. With the largest simulated value of squeezing, in subplot (d), the features are quite accurately placed, which is not the case in subplot (c).
\begin{figure}
\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{wignerReconstructions5.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{figure4.png}
\caption{{\bf a)} Wigner function of the cat state ($\propto\left(\ket{\alpha=3}+\ket{\alpha=-3}\right)$). {\bf b)} Tomographic reconstruction of the state in (a) using inefficient heterodyne detection corresponding to optomechanical position measurement with no squeezing. In {\bf c)} and {\bf d)} squeezing is added using the two-step protocol and zero-detuning position measurement. In (c) $\chi=8.4$ and in (d) $\chi=40$. Although subplot (d) has some very low amplitude noise it resolves all features clearly and has a fidelity of $0.97$. Parameters used for the simulations are: $\gamma=0.5, \eta=0.9,n_{{\rm th}}=0.3,\mu=50, \tau=2, T=2$, where $\tau$ and $T$ are quoted in units of the characteristic time scale, $2/\Gamma_{-}$. 4000 trials are used for each reconstruction, with the trials spread evenly across $50$ uniformly spaced squeezing angles (where relevant).
}
\label{wignerReconstruction}
\end{figure}
Motivated by the qualitative nature of the Wigner function comparisons, a more detailed investigation of the fidelity metric is completed for an amplitude $\alpha=2$ cat state (note the differing amplitude to the \frf{wignerReconstruction} simulation). In \frf{fidPlot}, the fidelity of the reconstructed state with respect to the initial cat state is determined as a function of the number of trials, for a range of different squeezing amplitudes. We also perform tomography with several benchmarks for comparison. The benchmarks are perfect efficiency homodyne and heterodyne detection, and also, inefficient homodyne ($\eta_{\rm hom}=0.9$) and heterodyne detection ($\eta_{\rm het}=0.97$, which is equivalent to a detector efficiency of $\eta=0.9$ in the experimental arrangement of \frf{schematic} without squeezing, i.e. a heterodyne measurement). We observe that homodyne detection outperforms heterodyne detection as expected, although not by as much as \frf{wignerReconstruction} would indicate. This is because an easier to reconstruct state is being probed: an amplitude $2$ (versus $3$) cat state, which has less severe Wigner oscillations.
The central theme of our paper is confirmed in \frf{fidPlot}, as we see that with sufficient squeezing the perfect efficiency homodyne limit is approached, within statistical error, for a moderate number of trials. Detector inefficiency, finite temperature bath coupling and the intrinsic limitations of heterodyne detection are all overcome
by improving the resolution of the measured quadrature via resonant parametric amplification.
%can be overcome by improving the resolution of the measured quadrature via resonant parametric amplification. It is very important to note that the intrinsic limitations of heterodyne detection are also sidestepped by the transformation of the measurement into a homodyne type one.
In \frf{fidPlot}, the analytical variance in the estimate of the amplified quadrature for an input coherent state can be used as an approximate proxy for the cat state reconstruction performance as measured by fidelity. However, the reader will note that the two-step fidelity with $\chi=10$ is approximately equal to that of inefficient homodyne detection despite the quadrature estimate variance being higher. We believe that this is due the small amount of information still present in the squeezed quadrature, which is utilized in the MaxLik algorithm.
Here we give some further details on the simulations. Each trial for the two-step configuration represents a simulation of the stochastic master equation (SME, see \ref{qtraj}) for finite time to produce measurement currents $dQ_X(t),dQ_Y(t)$. The currents are then filtered and integrated similarly to \erf{filter} in order to find the POVM parameters. The set of POVM operators representing the set of trials is then fed into the MaxLik algorithm, which iteratively moves the initial guess for the density matrix towards a more likely density matrix, as judged by the likelihood of the set of measurement currents being realized. Once the iteration shows a change below a defined tolerance (as measured by the trace distance between the density matrices of successive iterations), the final density matrix is deemed to be the best available reconstruction of the initial state and the fidelity is calculated.
The direct simulation of the SME is quite computationally expensive for a number of reasons: the size of the density matrix grows as the square of the used basis size, the stochastic term is of ${\cal O}(\sqrt{dt})$, the squeezing amplifies the state and, finally, the simulated measurement strength is quite strong and must be tracked carefully. To avoid having to track the density matrix, a stochastic Schroedinger equation (SSE) is used rather than the SME. Although the experimentalist does not have access to the specific realisation of the oscillator bath, all that is of relevance for our simulations is the production of simulated measurement currents. We can generate such currents using an SSE that simulates a measurement on the oscillator bath that will not be performed by the experimentalist. To combat the quickly fluctuating noise, a Milstein algorithm is implemented to integrate the SSE. To handle the amplification of the state along the anti-squeezed quadrature, an adaptively growing Fock basis is used which expands when significant probability reaches the outermost Fock states of the basis. This is much more efficient than simulating the maximum required basis at all times. The large measurement strength ($\mu=50$) in the final step requires the use of small time steps (about $dt=10^{-7}$). We also use our knowledge of the time scales of the squeezing and measurement collapse from \srf{tomogram} (in particular \erf{2stepmeas2}) to determine parameters in the simulation. Firstly we select the length of time that squeezing must be carried out to achieve a large fraction of the available benefit. Secondly, most of the information in the measurement is gathered at early measurement times, so that measuring for an indefinitely long time is not necessary. Based on these considerations, the system is squeezed and measured for $2$ units of the respective characteristic times, thus reducing the simulation duration. Despite these techniques, the simulations would be prohibitively lengthy on a single desktop computer, so a cluster~\cite{artemis} of several hundred computing cores was used.
The purpose of simulating the SME is to obtain an integrated measurement current for each quantum trajectory. There is an alternative method of obtaining these currents by using the POVM defined in \erf{eq:POVM}. Given the POVM, \erf{POVMprob} then defines the probability distribution of integrated currents. This distribution will be non-Gaussian for non-Gaussian initial states, despite the POVM itself being Gaussian. It should then be possible to numerically sample this distribution to obtain a set of POVM operators describing the conducted trials. This promises to be a less computationally demanding method of simulating experiments.
It is worth emphasising that the particular computational difficulty of the simulations discussed above relates to the production of artificial experimental data, not to the reconstruction procedure itself. In an actual experiment, the measurement of the currents $I_{X,Y}$ take the place of the system simulations. The maxLik reconstruction algorithm then needs to be performed, but its difficulty is dependent upon the basis size which is needed to estimate the unknown initial state. This is in contrast to the simulation basis which must expand to a larger basis as the input state is amplified. The blue-detuned system has additional intrinsic amplification so we simulated the zero-detuned system only.
\begin{figure}
\centering
%\includegraphics[width=1\hsize]{fidelityPlot14.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=1\hsize]{figure5.png}
%\includegraphics[width=10cm]{figure5.eps}
\caption{The average fidelity of the tomographic reconstruction of an $\alpha=2$ cat state as the number of experimental measurements is increased. The two-step protocol and zero-detuned optomechanical position measurement were used. We also include homodyne and heterodyne measurements as benchmarks, with inefficient heterodyne detection representing no use of parametric amplification in our experiment. The two-step protocol curves have $\gamma=0.25, \eta=0.9,n_{{\rm th}}=0.3,\mu=50, \tau=2, T=2$, where $\tau$ and $T$ are quoted in units of the characteristic time scale (see text). Inefficient homodyne has $\eta=0.9$ while inefficient heterodyne detection has $\eta_{\rm het}=0.97$ (which corresponds to an actual detector efficiency of $\eta=0.9$ in our optomechanical arrangement of \frf{schematic}), showing the high sensitivity to imperfections for heterodyne. 50 uniformly spaced squeezing angles are used for homodyne and two-step detection. The error bars reflect statistical errors and are calculated using the standard deviation of the fidelity of the reconstructions in our simulation. In the legend, the analytical variance of the estimate of an initial coherent quadrature is given as per the formulas in \srf{tomogram}. A conversion to an effective heterodyne or homodyne efficiency has also been provided, with the latter only applying to the anti-squeezed quadrature.
}
\label{fidPlot}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conc}
In this paper we have shown that parametric amplification can significantly contribute to the important goal of tomographic reconstruction of non-classical states of motion in optomechanical systems. Optomechanical measurements monitor the position of the oscillator though homodyne detection of light leaking from a coupled optical cavity. Due to the weakness of the measurement in typical experimental configurations, information is built up over many periods of motion, and thus both mechanical quadratures are obtained and the measurement is similar to optical heterodyne detection. However, as we have shown analytically, by applying resonant parametric amplification to the oscillator, the measurement is transformed into a hybrid homodyne-heterodyne one, with the homodyne paradigm reached in the large squeezing limit. This allows a single quadrature to be measured with variance equal to that of homodyne detection, even when there is a thermal bath and finite detector efficiency. By placing the appropriate filter on the measurement results, the initial quadrature of the mechanical oscillator can be estimated with homodyne limited accuracy, and thus tomography performed.
%We showed that our transformed measurement could approach the perfect efficiency homodyne limit even in the presence of detector inefficiencies and a thermal bath.
We have also shown, numerically, that homodyne, as compared to heterodyne, limited quadrature variances allow superior tomographic reconstruction of non-classical states with fast oscillating Wigner functions. In such situations, the inclusion of parametric amplification in the experimental protocol is desirable and, as found in our simulations, leads to increased fidelity of the reconstructed state relative to the target state.
%These conclusions apply
%were reached by considering
%to all of the different experimental protocols whose variation related to the timing of the parametric oscillation relative to the physical measurement. Protocols consisting of squeezing followed by measurement (with squeezing alternatively turned off or maintained) or squeezing concurrent with measurement were analysed.
To establish the important theoretical features that provide intuition to the analysis of all of the protocols, we began our investigation by performing (in \srf{simple}) a simplified analysis of a two-step experimental protocol (first squeezing and then measurement). The simplification consisted of modelling the measurement step dynamics only broadly --- the finite duration measurement was replaced by an instantaneous measurement possessing some new effective detector efficiency. Using this approach, an expression for the variance in the estimate of the anti-squeezed quadrature of a coherent state was obtained.
%(that is, the coherent state formed the tomographic state of interest).
As expected, it is the anti-squeezed quadrature that becomes more resolved in the presence of parametric amplification. By inspection of the anti-squeezed quadrature estimate variance, three important thresholds of parametric amplification strength, $\chi$, were identified. The first, and least demanding, of these, $\chi_{{\rm osc}}$, is the minimum parametric drive required to obtain a well-defined estimate of the initial state in the long squeezing-time limit. The second threshold, $\chi_{{\rm del}}$, tells us the minimum squeezing strength at which a two-step protocol is preferred, in the sense that a lower estimate variance can be achieved by including a duration of squeezing prior to optomechanical measurement. The third threshold was found to be $\chi=\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$, which depends on the coupling to, and temperature of, the thermal bath, but is not dependent at all on the physical detector efficiency. For $\chi\gg\chi_{{\rm het}}$, the anti-squeezed quadrature estimate variance approaches $1/2$, and the composite measurement protocol (consisting of both squeezing and measurement) is as effective as an ideal homodyne measurement. Within this same simplified framework, we also analysed misaligned parametric amplification. This was shown to be a consideration of practical importance, with the outcome being that the squeezing should not be carried on indefinitely.
%In the case of a one-step protocol, the measurement is effectively delayed by taking the measurement strength towards zero.
After identification of the important parametric oscillation strength thresholds, we then performed (in \srf{tomogram}) a detailed analysis of various experimental protocols with the full measurement dynamics included. Protocols consisting of squeezing followed by measurement (with squeezing alternatively turned off or maintained) or squeezing concurrent with measurement were analysed. Compared with \srf{simple}, the measurement dynamics were included by giving the expressions for the effective measurement efficiency applicable to the measurement step. These expressions take into account the measurement strength, physical detector efficiency, measurement duration, bath coupling and, finally, bath temperature. Also provided in our analyses were the filters upon the measurement results that provide the actual quadrature estimates.
%A general conclusion was that if the experiment is being conducted with $\chi>\chi_{{\rm del}}$ then a squeezing-step preceding measurement is preferred.
Whilst \srf{tomogram} investigated the bad-cavity zero-detuning regime, \srf{BlueDetuned} looked at what happens in the blue-detuned resolved sideband limit. It was of interest to compare the amplification resulting from the blue-detuning to that of the parametric amplification. We found that blue-detuning in the absence of parametric oscillation can overcome detector inefficiency but cannot improve on an ideal heterodyne measurement. Once parametric amplification is added to the measurement protocol, it is again possible to approach the performance of an ideal homodyne measurement. The additional amplification provided by blue-detuning manifests in a lower estimate variance than zero-detuning when subjected to the same levels of squeezing, provided that the squeezing is sufficient to dominate the decohering effect of the thermal bath.
Having provided a theoretical analysis of the estimation of coherent state amplitudes in the presence of parametric amplification, we then performed (in \srf{sims}) numerical quantum state tomography for non-gaussian states. Above the threshold $\chi_{\rm del}$, the improved resolution of the anti-squeezed quadrature with parametric amplification allows more complicated states to be reconstructed than would otherwise be possible. We showed this explicitly by simulating experimental data for the cat state $\propto \left(\ket{\alpha=3}+\ket{\alpha=-3}\right)$ with realistic optomechanical parameters. The improved reconstruction was evidenced by the Wigner functions of the reconstructions and also the fidelity with respect to the target state.
In summary, we have shown how the inclusion of parametric amplification in tomographic experimental protocols allows optomechanical measurement to be transformed from a heterodyne to homodyne type. We have established threshold values of amplification that classify the behaviour of the variance of the estimate of an initial coherent state quadrature. Above the largest threshold, $\chi_{{\rm het}}=2\gamma(1+n_{{\rm th}})$, the quadrature estimate variance can be made lower than that of ideal heterodyne detection. Numerically, we then showed that this is indeed desirable for the tomography of non-classical states having fast oscillating Wigner functions.
As creating and verifying non-classical states of motion is a major experimental goal, parametric amplification should be considered in the design of future optomechanical experiments in order to provide a greater effective homodyne efficiency. This will lead to a reduced number of experimental trials being required. In the circumstance of limited experimental resources, the question of how best to trade off the number of trials, the number of choices of phase of parametric drive and other parameters in the tomography experiment deserves further attention and will be the subject of future work.
Throughout this work we have assumed that the experimental parameters are such that the dynamics of the optical cavity can be adiabatically eliminated. This choice was made because it corresponds to the regime of many experiments and because it allows for a simpler analytic treatment that helps to build intuition about the physics of optomechanical measurement enhanced by parametric amplification. We considered two parameter regimes where this was possible and found qualitiatively similar results in each case. We do not expect that our conclusions will be materially altered if this adiabatic condition does not hold. However, both our analytic and our numerical approach could be extended to the more general case and this might be interesting to investigate further.
%For finite measurement strength, we have shown that it is better to delay the measurement whilst the squeezing is amplifying the anti-squeezed quadrature, so that the two-step process is preferred. This is true in the over-squeezed regime where $\chi>2\gamma(1+n)$, which is the threshold at which the heterodyne limit can be beaten. An infinitesimal measurement strength limit in the one-step process is optimal as this is a proxy for delaying the measurement as long as possible.
%Above the threshold $\chi_{\rm del}$, the improved resolution of the measurement with parametric amplification allows more complicated states to be reconstructed than would otherwise be possible. We showed this explicitly by simulating experimental data for the cat state $\left(\red\propto \blk \ket{\alpha=3}+\ket{\alpha=-3}\right)$ with realistic optomechanical parameters. The improved reconstruction was evidenced by the Wigner functions of the reconstructions and also the fidelity with respect to the target state.
%The practical concern of whether the squeezing is perfectly aligned with the measurement (local oscillator) phase was also investigated. It was found, for both zero and blue-detuning, that unless the alignment is extremely good then this will need to be factored into the duration of the squeezing.
%The blue-detuned model of position measurement was found to be more robust to this and could be squeezed indefinitely.
%In future work, we expect to apply our techniques to other optomechanical systems that require stochastic master equation treatments, such as thin-film superfluid optomechanics. We also wish to further investigate the relationship between homodyne and heterodyne tomography in Gaussian bosonic systems. We hope to obtain general scaling results for the number of trials and homodyne phases required to obtain reconstructions of a certain quality.
%\begin{acknowledgments}
%\section*{Acknowledgements}
\ack
The authors acknowledge the HPC service at The University of Sydney for providing cluster computing resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. We also acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (ARC) via a Discovery Project (DP130103715), the Centre of Excellence in Engineered Quantum Systems (CE110001013 and CE170100009), and the University of Sydney Faculty of Science via a Postgraduate Scholarship. W.P.B. was supported by an ARC Future Fellowship (FT140100650).
%\end{acknowledgments}
\appendix
\section{Quantum Trajectories}
\label{qtraj}
In this paper, we have modelled a composite open quantum system consisting of an optical cavity coupled to a mechanical oscillator (referred to just as `oscillator'), both of which are separately in contact with the environment. This is indicated in \frf{schematic}(a) by the cavity damping, $\kappa$, and the oscillator thermal bath, $\gamma$. As the light exiting the cavity is correlated with the state of the oscillator, the observation of the homodyne photocurrent $I=dQ/dt$ allows its state, represented by the density matrix $\rho(t)$, to be tracked with greater accuracy than if the measurements were not made. Note that we are considering the large $\kappa$ limit in which it is possible, both in the zero-detuned and blue-detuned regimes, to adiabatically eliminate the cavity dynamics.
%The interaction of the optical cavity with the environment, as described by the damping rate $\kappa$ in \frf{schematic}(a), implies that the quantum system is open. The observation of the currents $I_{X,Y}=dQ_{X,Y}/dt$ allows the state of the oscillator, represented by the density matrix $\rho(t)$, to be tracked with greater accuracy than if the measurements were not made.
The evolution of $\rho$ is conditioned upon the values that are obtained for $dQ$ and, resultantly, $\rho$ traverses a {\it quantum trajectory} in each run of the experiment. Quantum trajectory theory has become a ubiquitous analysis tool of monitored open quantum systems and the reader is referred to a standard text for background~\cite{WisMil10}. The analytic core of our model is the stochastic master equation (SME) which describes how the density matrix is updated based on measurement results, $dQ$.
The Hamiltonian for the full optomechanical system in an interaction picture with respect to the cavity drive frequency and the oscillator resonance frequency is as follows
\beq
H=\omega_ma^\dagger a+\frac{\chi}{2}\sin(2\omega_mt-\theta)\left(a+ a^{\dagger }\right)^2 -\Delta b^\dagger b + g\left(a+a^\dagger\right)\left(b+b^\dagger\right),
\eeq
where $a$ is the lowering operator for the mechanical oscillator and $b$ is the lowering operator for optical cavity and we are using units where $\hbar=1$. As discussed in the main text, $\omega_m$ is the angular frequency of the mechanical oscillation, $\chi$ is the strength of the mechanical parametric drive modulating the oscillator spring constant at twice $\omega_m$, $\Delta$ is the detuning of the laser drive away from the optical cavity resonance frequency and $g$ is the optomechanical coupling. The SME describing this optomechanical interaction along with mechanical dissipation, cavity decay and homodyne detection of the output light of the cavity is as follows:
%\bqa
%\fl d\rho& =& -i[H,\rho]dt +\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+\gamma n_{\rm th}\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt +
%\kappa \mathcal{D}[b]\rho dt \nonumber\\
%\fl&&
%+\sqrt{\eta \kappa}\left(ib \rho-i\rho b^\dagger\right)dQ,
%\label{sme0}
%\eqa
\beq
\fl d\rho = -i[H,\rho]dt +\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+\gamma n_{\rm th}\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt +
\kappa \mathcal{D}[b]\rho dt
+\sqrt{\eta \kappa}\left(ib \rho-i\rho b^\dagger\right)dQ,
\label{sme0}
\eeq
where the increments $dQ$ are stochastic in that they model the noisy measurement results which have a white noise background. The normalization of the measurement record is such that $dQ^2=dt$. This is the linear form of the stochastic master equation, in which the trace of $\rho$ is not preserved~\cite{GoeGra,wisQTraj,WisMil10}. In the solution to the quantum trajectory equations, $\rm{Tr}[\rho]$ evolves and, together with the statistics of the $dQ$'s, encodes the probability density of obtaining the sequence of measurement results. The linear form of the SME has the advantage of being easier to analytically solve in order to find an explicit time evolution operator corresponding to the measurement results $dQ$. The superoperator, $\mathcal{D}$, has the action $\mathcal{D}[a]\rho=a\rho a\dg-\frac{1}{2}(a\dg a\rho+\rho a\dg a)$. Inefficient optical homodyne detection is described by $\eta$ and the phase of the local oscillator is here chosen so that information about the mechanical oscillator position is imprinted onto the measured quadrature of the output field. The coupling of the mechanics to a thermal bath (of thermal phonon occupancy $n_{{\rm th}}$) assumes a rotating wave and Markov approximation that requires $\gamma \ll \omega_m$.
As discussed in the main text, the information about the mechanical oscillation will be contained in the homodyne photocurrent $I(t)=dQ/dt$ at frequencies close to $\omega_m$. In practice, in both theoretical analysis and in experimental protocols, it is useful to demodulate this photocurrent to obtain two real demodulated photocurrents that track the quadratures of the mechanical motion. We can imagine implementing this demodulation by averaging $I(t)$ over a time $\Delta t$ as follows~\cite{WisMil10}
\begin{equation}
\Delta Q_X =\sqrt{2} \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t} \cos (\omega_m t')dQ.
\end{equation}
The normalization is chosen such that
\begin{equation}
\langle \Delta Q_X^2\rangle = 2 \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \cos^2(\omega_m t') dt'= \Delta t ,
\end{equation}
where we have assumed that $\Delta t$ is a multiple of the oscillation period. We can regard the demodulated photocurrent as a measurement of the mechanical quadrature in a normalized white noise background, with the noise cut off at frequencies above $\omega_m$. In the adiabatically eliminated descriptions of the oscillator dynamics that follow, we will work in an interaction picture where the rate of change of $\rho$ is very slow compared to $\omega_m$ and in that case it becomes sensible to take the limit $\Delta t\rightarrow 0$ in which $\Delta Q_X$ approaches a Wiener increment $dQ_X$. We can define $dQ_Y$ in the same way as $dQ_X$ by replacing $\cos$ with $\sin$ in the above formulae. For more details of this analysis of the optomechanical measurement see Ref.~\cite{sme}.
We can simplify the description of the optomechanical measurement in two regimes of interest as discussed in the main text. The first of the these is the bad-cavity regime at zero detuning. In the limit where $\kappa\gg \omega_m,g,\gamma (n_{\rm th}+1),\chi$ and $\Delta =0$, it is straightforward to adiabatically eliminate the cavity from the SME (\ref{sme0}) to obtain an SME for the quantum state of the mechanics alone, see for example~\cite{doherty1999feedback}. The key parameter in this SME is the effective measurement rate $\mu=4g^2/\kappa$. To further simplify the master equation, we move into an interaction picture with respect to the oscillation frequency $\omega_m$ and make a new rotating wave approximation that requires $\mu, \gamma (n_{\rm th}+1),\chi \ll \omega_m$ to obtain the following master equation~\cite{PhysRevLett.107.213603,sme}:
%\begin{eqnarray}
%d\rho &=& \frac{\chi}{4}\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+[\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)+\mu]\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt\nonumber \\
%&&+(\gamma n_{\rm th}+\mu)\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt
%+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(X \rho+\rho X\right)dQ_X\nonumber \\
%&&+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(Y \rho +\rho Y\right)dQ_Y,
%\label{sme1}
%\end{eqnarray}
\bqa
\fl d\rho &=& \frac{\chi}{4}\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+[\gamma(n_{\rm th}+1)+\mu]\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt
+(\gamma n_{\rm th}+\mu)\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt
\nonumber \\
\fl&&+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(X \rho+\rho X\right)dQ_X\
+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(Y \rho +\rho Y\right)dQ_Y.
\label{sme1}
\eqa
It will frequently be convenient to note that we can absorb the parameter $\eta$ that describes the inefficient detection by defining the measurement strength $\tilde{\mu}=\eta\mu$ and the effective bath temperature, $n=n_{{\rm th}}+\mu(1-\eta)/\gamma$. In terms of these parameters we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl d\rho &=& \frac{\chi}{4}\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+[\gamma(n+1)+\tilde{\mu}]\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+(\gamma n+\tilde{\mu})\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt \nonumber \\
\fl &&+\sqrt{\tilde{\mu}}\left(X \rho+\rho X\right)dQ_X+\sqrt{\tilde{\mu}}\left(Y \rho +\rho Y\right)dQ_Y.
\label{sme}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to determine the optimal filter for the measurement current, and also analyse the tomographic performance of various experimental procedures, the POVM element describing the composite measurement up to the time $t$ is required. This operator, which allows the statistics of the measurement to be found, follows straightforwardly from the analytic solution of \erf{sme}. Recently, two of the authors have given a general method of solution for Gaussian bosonic linear stochastic master equations such as this~\cite{warDoh}. The solution is a generalisation of methods that have been used to find solutions to linear stochastic Schroedinger equations in the past~\cite{jacLin,wisQTraj,herkommer1996localization}.
If $\rho_0$ is the initial state of the system, we find a solution having the general form
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)=e^{Z} \mathcal{E}_{X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}}[\rho_0], \label{eq:smesoln}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}_{X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}}$ is a Gaussian completely positive map that depends on only two real-valued functions of the measurement record, $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$ as defined in equation (\ref{filter2}). $Z$ is a functional of the measurement currents $I_X$ and $I_Y$ that determines a numerical prefactor in (\ref{eq:smesoln}). We are interested in the statistics of the measurement outcomes $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$ and can neglect $Z$ since it provides no information (that is not contained in $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$) about the initial state. The probability density for these initial state estimates is proportional to ${\rm Tr}[\rho(t)]$. Specifically, the general theory~\cite{wisQTraj} implies that
\begin{equation}
P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\rho_0) = {\rm Tr}[\mathcal{E}_{X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}}[\rho_0] ]\int e^Z P_{\rm ost}(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est},Z) dZ
\end{equation}
where the \emph{ostensible probability distribution} $P_{\rm ost}(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est},Z) $ is the joint probability distribution that $X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est},$ and $Z$ would have if the measurement records $I_X(t)$ and $I_Y(t)$ were both mean zero white noise processes. $Z$ is a non-Gaussian random variable in the ostensible distribution and is correlated with $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$, so the integral here may appear complicated. However it can be shown that $Z$ is the sum of squares of random variables that have Gaussian distributions under the ostensible distribution and consequently the above integral can be evaluated in the usual way for Gaussian integrals and evaluates to a Gaussian function of $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$.
The probability density $P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\rho_0)$ determines the POVM for the composite measurement $W_I$ through the formula
\beq
P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\rho_0) = {\rm Tr}[W_I\rho_0].
\label{POVMprob}
\eeq
In the main text we specify the POVM by considering the case where $\rho_0=|\alpha_0\rangle\langle \alpha_0|$ so that $P(X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}|\rho_0)$ is a Gaussian distribution (\ref{eq:POVM}) for $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$. As mentioned in the main text, this uniquely specifies the POVM just as the Q-function uniquely specifies a density matrix. The method of obtaining expressions for the parameters of this Gaussian in terms of the system parameters is detailed in~\cite{warDoh}, to which we refer the interested reader.
%It emerges from this analysis that only two functions of the measurement record, $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$ as defined in equation (\ref{sigma}), are required to optimally obtain information regarding the initial system state.
%%depend on the initial state of the oscillator.
%Consequently, we can consider the measurement outcomes of the composite measurement to be these two \red (real-valued) \blk numbers, rather than the full demodulated photocurrents $I_X(t)$ and $I_Y(t)$. The corresponding POVM elements $W_I$ can be found as follows
%\begin{equation}
%W_{I}=N e^{\beta_{I}^{*} a\dg+\epsilon e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2}}e^{\ln \left(1-\zeta\right) a^\dagger a }e^{\epsilon e^{-i \theta}a^2+\beta_{I}a},
%\label{POVM}
%\end{equation}
%with $\theta$ being the angle of squeezing and the real coefficients $\epsilon,\zeta$ depending upon system parameters $\gamma,n,\chi,\tilde{\mu}$ but not on the measurement record. $ N$ is a normalization that also does not depend on the measurement record. We note that $\epsilon=0$ if there is no squeezing performed. The complex linear coefficient, $\beta_{I}$, is the only part of the solution that depends on the measurement record.
%%CAN WE WRITE IN TERMS OF $X_{\rm est}$ and $Y_{\rm est}$?
%This is a general feature of a quadratic system with linear Lindblad operators --- if we formed equations of motion for the expectation values of the quadrature variances they would form Riccati equations and, together with the equation of motion for the means, are known as a Kalman filter. The method of obtaining expressions for $\epsilon,\zeta,\beta_I$ in terms of the system parameters is detailed in~\cite{warDoh}, to which we refer the interested reader. In the main text we give expressions
%for the variances ($\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2$) of the estimates ($X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}$) of the initial coherent state amplitude $\alpha_{0}=X_{0}+iY_{0}$. These Gaussian statistics are determined by $\langle \alpha_0|W_I|\alpha_0\rangle$ and provide an equivalent representation of the POVM. The relationships between the POVM parameters and $\sigma_{X}^2,\sigma_{Y}^2,X_{\rm est},Y_{\rm est}$ are
%\bqa
%\sigma_{X}^2=\frac{\zeta +2 \epsilon \cos (\theta )}{\zeta ^2-4 \epsilon ^2}
%, \quad\quad\quad
%\sigma_{Y}^2=\frac{\zeta -2 \epsilon \cos (\theta )}{\zeta ^2-4 \epsilon ^2}
%\quad{\rm and}\\
%\beta_I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\zeta-2\epsilon \cos(\theta )\right)X_{\rm est}-i\left(\zeta+2\epsilon \cos(\theta )\right)Y_{\rm est}\right].
%\eqa
%is a coherent state, in preference for this operator representation of the POVM. This calculation is just an application of standard operator identities, particularly since the POVM is provided in
In the second regime of interest, being the blue-detuned resolved-sideband regime in which $\Delta=\omega_m$ and $\omega_m\gg \kappa \gg g,\chi$, we can go into an interaction picture with respect to $\omega_m$ and $\Delta$ prior to the adiabatic elimination, and make a rotating wave approximation that removes the fast rotating terms in the Hamiltonian. The resulting optomechanical coupling is of the form $g(ab+a^\dagger b^\dagger)$. Making the adiabatic approximation as before, we now find the modified linear SME
%\beq
%d\rho = \chi\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+2\gamma(n_{{\rm th}}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+(2\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+\mu)\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt\\
%+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(a^\dag \rho+\rho a\right)(dQ_X+idQ_Y)/\sqrt{2}.
%\label{BDsme}
%\eeq
\bqa
\fl d\rho &=&\frac{\chi}{4}\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+\gamma(n_{{\rm th}}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+(\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+\mu)\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt\nonumber\\
\fl &&+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(dZ a^\dag \rho+dZ^{*}\rho a\right),
\label{BDsme}
\eqa
%\beq
%\fl d\rho =\frac{\chi}{4}\left[e^{-i \theta}a^2-e^{i \theta}a^{\dagger 2},\rho\right]dt+\gamma(n_{{\rm th}}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho dt+(\gamma n_{{\rm th}}+\mu)\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho dt+\sqrt{\eta\mu}\left(dZ a^\dag \rho+dZ^{*}\rho a\right),
%\label{BDsme}
%\eeq
where we have introduced the complex combination of measurement increments $dZ=\left(dQ_X+idQ_Y\right)/\sqrt{2}$ for convenience. The reader will note several differences to the zero-detuned SME. The measurement back action appears only in the dissipation term for $a^\dag$. The details of the measurement update terms proportional to $dQ_X$ and $dQ_Y$ are also different. They have the same form as the usual heterodyne detection stochastic master equation~\cite{WisMil10} but with $a$ replaced by $a^\dagger$. This distinction relates to the fact that the position measurement signal from the mechanics is amplified by the optomechanical coupling, improving the signal to noise with which the initial mechanical state can be inferred from the results of the optical homodyne measurement. As is the case for heterodyne detection, the two demodulated currents $I_X$ and $I_Y$ carry information about the corresponding mechanical quadratures. Also the detector efficiency, $\eta$, has been explicitly included as it cannot be absorbed into the other parameters. The POVM for blue-detuning is found using the same methods as for zero-detuning and is also of the form \erf{eq:POVM}.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
\bibliography{bibliographyNJPandrew}
\end{document}
\providecommand{\newblock}{}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
\def\url#1{{\tt #1}}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
\providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
% Bibliography created with iopart-num v2.1
% /biblio/bibtex/contrib/iopart-num
\bibitem{revCavOptMech}
Aspelmeyer M, Kippenberg T~J and Marquardt F 2014 {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.\/} {\bf
86}(4) 1391--1452
\bibitem{teufel2011sideband}
Teufel J, Donner T, Li D, Harlow J, Allman M, Cicak K, Sirois A, Whittaker J~D,
Lehnert K and Simmonds R~W 2011 {\em Nature\/} {\bf 475} 359--363
\bibitem{schliesser2008resolved}
Schliesser A, Rivi{\`e}re R, Anetsberger G, Arcizet O and Kippenberg T~J 2008
{\em Nat. Phys.\/} {\bf 4} 415--419
\bibitem{o2010quantum}
O’Connell A~D, Hofheinz M, Ansmann M, Bialczak R~C, Lenander M, Lucero E,
Neeley M, Sank D, Wang H, Weides M {\em et~al.\/} 2010 {\em Nature\/} {\bf
464} 697--703
\bibitem{PhysRevA.82.061804}
Anetsberger G, Gavartin E, Arcizet O, Unterreithmeier Q~P, Weig E~M, Gorodetsky
M~L, Kotthaus J~P and Kippenberg T~J 2010 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 82}(6)
061804
\bibitem{PhysRevA.79.063819}
J\"ahne K, Genes C, Hammerer K, Wallquist M, Polzik E~S and Zoller P 2009 {\em
Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 79}(6) 063819
\bibitem{purdy2013strong}
Purdy T, Yu P~L, Peterson R, Kampel N and Regal C 2013 {\em Phys. Rev. X\/}
{\bf 3} 031012
\bibitem{wollman2015quantum}
Wollman E~E, Lei C, Weinstein A, Suh J, Kronwald A, Marquardt F, Clerk A and
Schwab K 2015 {\em Science\/} {\bf 349} 952--955
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.107.020405}
Romero-Isart O, Pflanzer A~C, Blaser F, Kaltenbaek R, Kiesel N, Aspelmeyer M
and Cirac J~I 2011 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 107}(2) 020405
\bibitem{ludwig2012enhanced}
Ludwig M, Safavi-Naeini A~H, Painter O and Marquardt F 2012 {\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.\/} {\bf 109} 063601
\bibitem{Schreppler1486}
Schreppler S, Spethmann N, Brahms N, Botter T, Barrios M and Stamper-Kurn D~M
2014 {\em Science\/} {\bf 344} 1486--1489
\bibitem{schmidt2012optomechanical}
Schmidt M, Ludwig M and Marquardt F 2012 {\em New J. Phys.\/} {\bf 14} 125005
\bibitem{1402.1195}
Rogers B, Gullo N~L, Chiara G~D, Palma G~M and Paternostro M 2014 {\em Quantum
Meas. Quantum Metrol.\/} {\bf 2} 11
\bibitem{tomRevLvovsky}
Lvovsky A~I and Raymer M~G 2009 {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.\/} {\bf 81} 299
\bibitem{tomRevAriano}
D'Ariano G~M, Paris M~G and Sacchi M~F 2003 {\em Adv. Imag. Elect. Phys.\/}
{\bf 128} 206--309
\bibitem{fano}
Fano U 1957 {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.\/} {\bf 29}(1) 74--93
\bibitem{silberfarb2005quantum}
Silberfarb A, Jessen P~S and Deutsch I~H 2005 {\em Physical Review Letters\/}
{\bf 95} 030402
\bibitem{riofrio2011quantum}
Riofr{\'\i}o C~A, Jessen P~S and Deutsch I~H 2011 {\em J. Phys. B\/} {\bf 44}
154007
\bibitem{cook2014single}
Cook R~L, Riofr{\'\i}o C~A and Deutsch I~H 2014 {\em Physical Review A\/} {\bf
90} 032113
\bibitem{smith2004continuous}
Smith G~A, Chaudhury S, Silberfarb A, Deutsch I~H and Jessen P~S 2004 {\em
Physical Review Letters\/} {\bf 93} 163602
\bibitem{smith2013quantum}
Smith A, Riofr{\'\i}o C, Anderson B, Sosa-Martinez H, Deutsch I and Jessen P
2013 {\em Physical Review A\/} {\bf 87} 030102
\bibitem{WisMil10}
Wiseman H~M and Milburn G~J 2014 {\em Quantum Measurement and Control\/} 1st ed
(Cambridge University Press)
\bibitem{six2016quantum}
Six P, Campagne-Ibarcq P, Dotsenko I, Sarlette A, Huard B and Rouchon P 2016
{\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 93} 012109
\bibitem{chantasri2018quantum}
Chantasri A, Pang S, Chalermpusitarak T and Jordan A~N 2018 {\em Quantum state
tomography with time-continuous measurements: reconstruction with resource
limitations arXiv:1805.11807\/}
\bibitem{jacLin}
Jacobs K and Knight P 1998 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 57} 2301
\bibitem{wisQTraj}
Wiseman H~M 1996 {\em Quant. Semiclass. Opt.\/} {\bf 8} 205
\bibitem{herkommer1996localization}
Herkommer A, Carmichael H and Schleich W 1996 {\em Quantum and Semiclassical
Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B\/} {\bf 8} 189
\bibitem{gammelmark2013past}
Gammelmark S, Julsgaard B and M{\o}lmer K 2013 {\em Physical review letters\/}
{\bf 111} 160401
\bibitem{guevara2015quantum}
Guevara I and Wiseman H 2015 {\em Physical review letters\/} {\bf 115} 180407
\bibitem{tan2015prediction}
Tan D, Weber S, Siddiqi I, M{\o}lmer K and Murch K 2015 {\em Physical review
letters\/} {\bf 114} 090403
\bibitem{hacohen2016quantum}
Hacohen-Gourgy S, Martin L~S, Flurin E, Ramasesh V~V, Whaley K~B and Siddiqi I
2016 {\em Nature\/} {\bf 538} 491
\bibitem{shojaee2018optimal}
Shojaee E, Jackson C~S, Riofr\'{\i}o C~A, Kalev A and Deutsch I~H 2018 {\em
Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 121}(13) 130404
\bibitem{sme}
Doherty A~C, Szorkovszky A, Harris G~I and Bowen W~P 2012 {\em Philos. Trans.
Royal Soc. A\/} {\bf 370} 5338--5353
\bibitem{Suh1253258}
Suh J, Weinstein A~J, Lei C~U, Wollman E~E, Steinke S~K, Meystre P, Clerk A~A
and Schwab K~C 2014 {\em Science\/} {\bf 344} 1262--1265
\bibitem{Vasilakis2015}
Vasilakis G, Shen H, Jensen K, Balabas M, Salart D, Chen B and Polzik E~S 2015
{\em Nat. Phys.\/} {\bf 11} 389--392
\bibitem{bowMil}
Bowen W~P and Milburn G~J 2015 {\em Quantum Optomechanics\/} (CRC Press)
\bibitem{Shahandeh}
Shahandeh F and Ringbauer M 2017 {\em Optomechanical state reconstruction and
nonclassicality verification beyond the resolved-sideband regime.
arXiv:1709.01135\/}
\bibitem{szorkovszky2014detuned}
Szorkovszky A, Clerk A~A, Doherty A~C and Bowen W~P 2014 {\em New J. Phys.\/}
{\bf 16} 043023
\bibitem{unterreithmeier2009universal}
Unterreithmeier Q~P, Weig E~M and Kotthaus J~P 2009 {\em Nature\/} {\bf 458}
1001--1004
\bibitem{suh2010parametric}
Suh J, LaHaye M~D, Echternach P~M, Schwab K~C and Roukes M~L 2010 {\em Nano
Lett.\/} {\bf 10} 3990--3994
\bibitem{castellanos2008amplification}
Castellanos-Beltran M, Irwin K, Hilton G, Vale L and Lehnert K 2008 {\em Nat.
Phys.\/} {\bf 4} 929--931
\bibitem{rugar1991mechanical}
Rugar D and Gr{\"u}tter P 1991 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 67} 699
\bibitem{szorkovszky2012position}
Szorkovszky A, Doherty A~C, Harris G~I and Bowen W~P 2012 {\em New J. Phys.\/}
{\bf 14} 095026
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.107.213603}
Szorkovszky A, Doherty A~C, Harris G~I and Bowen W~P 2011 {\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.\/} {\bf 107}(21) 213603
\bibitem{szorkovszky2013strong}
Szorkovszky A, Brawley G~A, Doherty A~C and Bowen W~P 2013 {\em Phys. Rev.
Lett.\/} {\bf 110} 184301
\bibitem{eddins2018high}
Eddins A, Kreikebaum J~M, Toyli D~M, Levenson-Falk E~M, Dove A, Livingston W~P,
Levitan B~A, Govia L~C~G, Clerk A~A and Siddiqi I 2019 {\em Phys. Rev. X\/}
{\bf 9}(1) 011004
\bibitem{leonhardt1994high}
Leonhardt U and Paul H 1994 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 72} 4086
\bibitem{1367-2630-20-1-013005}
Knyazev E, Spasibko K~Y, Chekhova M~V and Khalili F~Y 2018 {\em New Journal of
Physics\/} {\bf 20} 013005
\bibitem{warDoh}
Warszawski P and Doherty A~C Solution of gaussian stochastic master equations.
{I}n preparation.
\bibitem{Toth2017}
Toth L~D, Bernier N~R, Nunnenkamp A, Feofanov A~K and Kippenberg T~J 2017 {\em
Nat. Phys.\/} {\bf 13} 787--793
\bibitem{zdexperiment}
Purdy T~P, Peterson R~W and Regal C~A 2013 {\em Science\/} {\bf 339} 801--804
\bibitem{BDexpI}
Hofer S~G, Wieczorek W, Aspelmeyer M and Hammerer K 2011 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/}
{\bf 84} 052327
\bibitem{BDexpII}
Palomaki T~A, Teufel J~D, Simmonds R~W and Lehnert K~W 2013 {\em Science\/}
{\bf 342} 710--713
\bibitem{bdexperiment}
Anetsberger G, Arcizet O, Unterreithmeier Q~P, Rivi{\`e}re R, Schliesser A,
Weig E~M, Kotthaus J~P and Kippenberg T~J 2009 {\em Nat. Phys.\/} {\bf 5}
909--914
\bibitem{jacSteck}
Jacobs K and Steck D~A 2006 {\em Contemp. Phys.\/} {\bf 47} 279--303
\bibitem{ORIGINALmaxLik}
Hradil Z 1997 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 55} R1561
\bibitem{constantBD}
The constant of the blue-detuned filter is $c=[\gamma (2 n_{{\rm th}}+1)+\mu-
{\it \Gamma}_{-}] [ \gamma -\mu(1-2 \eta) -4\chi + {\it \Gamma}_{-}]/2
\sqrt{\eta \mu } [2(1-\eta ) \mu +2 \gamma n_{{\rm th}}+ \chi ]$
\bibitem{artemis}
The University of Sydney HPC Service
\bibitem{GoeGra}
Goetsch P and Graham R 1994 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 50} 5242
\bibitem{doherty1999feedback}
Doherty A~C and Jacobs K 1999 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 60} 2700
\end{thebibliography}