## Ghost imaging: from quantum to classical to computational |

Advances in Optics and Photonics, Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp. 405-450 (2010)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AOP.2.000405

Acrobat PDF (712 KB)

### Abstract

Ghost-imaging experiments correlate the outputs from two photodetectors: a high-spatial-resolution (scanning pinhole or CCD array) detector that measures a field that has not interacted with the object to be imaged, and a bucket (single-pixel) detector that collects a field that has interacted with the object. We give a comprehensive review of ghost imaging—within a unified Gaussian-state framework—presenting detailed analyses of its resolution, field of view, image contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio behavior. We consider three classes of illumination: thermal-state (classical), biphoton-state (quantum), and classical-state phase-sensitive light. The first two have been employed in a variety of ghost-imaging demonstrations. The third is the classical Gaussian state that produces ghost images that most closely mimic those obtained from biphoton illumination. The insights we develop lead naturally to a new, single-beam approach to ghost imaging, called computational ghost imaging, in which only the bucket detector is required. We provide quantitative results while simultaneously emphasizing the underlying physics of ghost imaging. The key to developing the latter understanding lies in the coherence behavior of a pair of Gaussian-state light beams with either phase-insensitive or phase-sensitive cross correlation.

© 2010 Optical Society of America

**OCIS Codes**

(030.1640) Coherence and statistical optics : Coherence

(110.4980) Imaging systems : Partial coherence in imaging

(270.5290) Quantum optics : Photon statistics

(110.1758) Imaging systems : Computational imaging

**ToC Category:**

Imaging Systems

**History**

Original Manuscript: March 29, 2010

Revised Manuscript: July 19, 2010

Manuscript Accepted: July 27, 2010

Published: August 20, 2010

**Virtual Issues**

(2010) *Advances in Optics and Photonics*

**Citation**

Baris I. Erkmen and Jeffrey H. Shapiro, "Ghost imaging: from quantum to classical to computational," Adv. Opt. Photon. **2**, 405-450 (2010)

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/aop/abstract.cfm?URI=aop-2-4-405

Sort: Year | Journal | Reset

### References

- T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, “Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429–R3432 (1995). [CrossRef]
- R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, ““Two-photon” coincidence imaging with a classical source,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 113601 (2002). [CrossRef]
- M. D’Angelo and Y. Shih, “Can quantum imaging be classically simulated?,” arXiv.org, arXiv:quant-ph0302146v2 (2003).
- A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, “Entangled imaging and wave-particle duality: from the microscopic to the macroscopic realm,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 133603 (2003). [CrossRef]
- R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, “Quantum and classical coincidence imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 033601 (2004). [CrossRef]
- B. E. A. Saleh, A. F. Abouraddy, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, “Duality between partial coherence and partial entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 043816 (2000). [CrossRef]
- A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, “Role of entanglement in two-photon imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 123602 (2001). [CrossRef]
- A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, “Entangled-photon Fourier optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 19, 1174–1184 (2002). [CrossRef]
- A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, “Correlated imaging, quantum and classical,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 013802 (2004). [CrossRef]
- A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, “Ghost imaging with thermal light: comparing entanglement and classical correlation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 093602 (2004). [CrossRef]
- Y. Cai and S.-Y. Zhu, “Ghost imaging with incoherent and partially coherent light radiation,” Phys. Rev. E 71, 056607 (2005). [CrossRef]
- Y. Cai and S.-Y. Zhu, “Ghost interference with partially coherent light radiation,” Opt. Lett. 29, 2716–2718 (2004). [CrossRef]
- A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, M. D’Angelo, and Y. Shih, “Two-photon imaging with thermal light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 063601 (2005). [CrossRef]
- F. Ferri, D. Magatti, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, “High-resolution ghost image and ghost diffraction experiments with thermal light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 183602 (2005). [CrossRef]
- G. Scarcelli, V. Berardi, and Y. Shih, “Can two-photon correlation of chaotic light be considered as correlation of intensity fluctuations?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 063602 (2006). [CrossRef]
- L. Basano and P. Ottonello, “A conceptual experiment on single-beam coincidence detection with pseudothermal light,” Opt. Express 19, 12386–12394 (2009).
- B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Unified theory of ghost imaging with Gaussian-state light,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 043809 (2008). [CrossRef]
- J. H. Shapiro, “Computational ghost imaging,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 061802(R) (2008). [CrossRef]
- Y. Bromberg, O. Katz, and Y. Silberberg, “Ghost imaging with a single detector,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 053840 (2009). [CrossRef]
- O. Katz, Y. Bromberg, and Y. Silberberg, “Compressive ghost imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 113110 (2009). [CrossRef]
- A. Gatti, M. Bache, D. Magatti, E. Brambilla, F. Ferri, and L. A. Lugiato, “Coherent imaging with pseudo-thermal incoherent light,” J. Mod. Opt. 53, 739–760 (2006). [CrossRef]
- B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Noise in Classical and Quantum Photon-Correlation Imaging (SPIE, 2008), Vol. 183, Chap. 21.
- J. Cheng and S.-S. Han, “Theoretical analysis of quantum noise in ghost imaging,” Chin. Phys. Lett. 22, 1676–1679 (2005). [CrossRef]
- B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Signal-to-noise ratio of Gaussian-state ghost imaging,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 023833 (2009). [CrossRef]
- M. Bache, E. Brambilla, A. Gatti, and L. A. Lugiato, “Ghost imaging using homodyne detection,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 023823 (2004). [CrossRef]
- A. F. Abouraddy, P. R. Stone, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Entangled-photon imaging of a pure phase object,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 213903 (2004). [CrossRef]
- X.-H. Chen, Q. Liu, K.-H. Luo, and L.-A. Wu, “Lensless ghost imaging with true thermal light,” Opt. Lett. 34, 695–697 (2009). [CrossRef]
- M. Bache, D. Magatti, F. Ferri, A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, “Coherent imaging of a pure phase object with classical incoherent light,” Phys. Rev. A 73, 053802 (2006). [CrossRef]
- M. Zhang, Q. Wei, X. Shen, Y. Liu, H. Liu, J. Cheng, and S. Han, “Lensless Fourier-transform ghost imaging with classical incoherent light,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 021803(R) (2007). [CrossRef]
- J. Cheng, “Transfer functions in lensless ghost-imaging systems,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 043823 (2008). [CrossRef]
- R. Meyers, K. S. Deacon, and Y. Shih, “Ghost-imaging experiment by measuring reflected photons,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 041801(R) (2008). [CrossRef]
- R. E. Meyers, K. S. Deacon, and Y. Shih, “Quantum imaging of an obscured object by measurement of reflected photons,” Proc. SPIE 7092, 70920E (2008). [CrossRef]
- J. Cheng, “Ghost imaging through turbulent atmosphere,” Opt. Express 17, 7916–7921 (2009). [CrossRef]
- L. Wang, S. Qamar, S.-Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, “Hanbury Brown-Twiss effect and thermal light ghost imaging: a unified approach,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 033835 (2009). [CrossRef]
- M. H. Rubin and Y. Shih, “Resolution of ghost imaging for nondegenerate spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 033836 (2008). [CrossRef]
- K. Chan, M. N. O’Sullivan, and R. W. Boyd, “Two-color ghost imaging,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 033808 (2009). [CrossRef]
- Q. Liu, X.-H. Chen, K.-H. Luo, W. Wu, and L.-A. Wu, “Role of multiphoton bunching in high-order ghost imaging with thermal light sources,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 053844 (2009). [CrossRef]
- L.-H. Ou and L.-M. Kuang, “Ghost imaging with third-order correlated thermal light,” J. Phys. B 40, 1833–1844 (2007). [CrossRef]
- K. W. C. Chan, M. N. O’Sullivan, and R. W. Boyd, “High-order thermal ghost imaging,” in Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics/International Quantum Electronics Conference, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optical Society of America, 2009), paper JTuD100.
- I. Agafonov, M. Chekhova, T. S. Iskhakov, and L.-A. Wu, “High-visibility intensity interference and ghost imaging with pseudo-thermal light,” J. Mod. Opt. 56, 422–431 (2009). [CrossRef]
- X.-H. Chen, I. N. Agafonov, K.-H. Luo, Q. Liu, R. Xian, M. V. Chekhova, and L.-A. Wu, “Arbitrary-order lensless ghost imaging with thermal light,” arXiv.org, arXiv:0902.3713v1 [quant-ph] (2009).
- The positive-frequency electric field operator is non-Hermitian; so both its phase-insensitive and phase-sensitive correlation functions must be specified in order to fully describe a zero-mean Gaussian state. This is discussed further in Section .
- R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
- L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).
- R. J. Glauber, “The quantum theory of optical coherence,” Phys. Rev. 130, 2529–2539 (1963). [CrossRef]
- R. M. Gagliardi and S. Karp, Optical Communications (Wiley, 1976).
- J. H. Shapiro, “The quantum theory of optical communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15, 1547–1569 (2009). [CrossRef]
- J. H. Shapiro, “Corrections to “The Quantum Theory of Optical Communications” [Nov/Dec 09 1547-1569],” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16, 698 (2010). [CrossRef]
- We are assuming polarized light sources and targets that do not depolarize, so that scalar-wave theory suffices. The extension of our treatment to vector-wave sources and depolarizing targets is straightforward.
- R. G. Gallager, Discrete Stochastic Processes (Kluwer Academic, 1996).
- J. H. Shapiro, “Quantum Gaussian noise,” in Proc. SPIE 5111, 382–395 (2003). [CrossRef]
- J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics, Classics ed. (Wiley, 2000).
- H. P. Yuen and J. H. Shapiro, “Optical communication with two-photon coherent states—Part III: quantum measurements realizable with photoemissive detectors,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 26, 78–92 (1980). [CrossRef]
- J. H. Shapiro, “Quantum measurement eigenkets for continuous-time direct detection,” Quantum Semiclassic. Opt. 10, 567–578 (1998). [CrossRef]
- J. H. Shapiro and K.-X. Sun, “Semiclassical versus quantum behavior in fourth-order interference,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 11, 1130–1141 (1994). [CrossRef]
- J. H. Shapiro, H. P. Yuen, and J. A. Machado Mata, “Optical communication with two-photon coherent states—Part II: photoemissive detection and structured receiver performance,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 25, 179–192 (1979). [CrossRef]
- Strictly speaking, the quasi-monochromatic and paraxial conditions refer to the excited modes of the quantized field, i.e., all non-vacuum-state modes of the field operators ÊS(ρ,t)e−iω0t and ÊR(ρ,t)e−iω0t are confined to a temporal-frequency bandwidth much smaller than ω0 and a spatial-frequency bandwidth much smaller than ω0∕c.
- H. P. Yuen and J. H. Shapiro, “Optical communication with two-photon coherent states—Part I: quantum state propagation and quantum noise reduction,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24, 657–668 (1978). [CrossRef]
- J. M. Wozencraft and I. M. Jacobs, Principles of Communication Engineering (Wiley, 1965).
- In writing Eq. , we have used Eq. to eliminate the temporal correlation terms.
- Here ⋆ denotes convolution.
- Because Ê(ρ,t) is a baseband field operator, Ω is the frequency detuning of the plane-wave component Â(k,Ω) from the wave’s center frequency ω0.
- B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Optical coherence theory for phase-sensitive light,” Proc. SPIE 6305, 63050G (2006). [CrossRef]
- Although it is more common to express the field of view as a solid angle, here we use the mean-square radius at the transverse target plane as our field-of-view measure.
- F. N. C. Wong, T. Kim, and J. H. Shapiro, “Efficient generation of polarization-entangled photons in a nonlinear crystal,” Laser Phys. 16, 1517–1524 (2006). [CrossRef]
- E. Brambilla, A. Gatti, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, “Simultaneous near-field and far-field spatial quantum correlations in the high-gain regime of parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 023802 (2004). [CrossRef]
- The SPDC output field operators presented herein are derived from quantized coupled-mode equations using the typical nondepleting plane-wave pump approximation. The transverse boundary effects within the crystal have been ignored, and unimportant global phase factors have been omitted.
- Although the exact solution of the coupled-mode equations and the boundary conditions at the input facet of the nonlinear crystal does not lead to a Gaussian ν(k,Ω), this assumption facilitates an analytic treatment without compromising the fundamental physics we are after.
- Excess noise refers to fluctuations on the light illuminating the photodetectors that is transferred to the resulting photocurrents.
- The filter HB(Ω), including its AC coupling, will be assumed to be within the photodetector blocks shown in Fig. , so that ⟨ı̂m(t)⟩=0 for m=1,2 for all the field states we shall consider.
- Because the maximally entangled phase-sensitive cross-correlation function is not coherence separable, but rather a sum of two coherence-separable terms [see Eq. ], some extra steps are needed in evaluating the integrals in this case.
- This is the same parametric dependence reported earlier in , without derivation.
- It is necessary to utilize photon-number-resolving detectors in order to reap the advantages ascribed to this high-flux, low-brightness regime.
- A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1991).
- Recall that Cn is defined in Eq. .
- The classical photocurrent measured by the bucket detector is a random process with shot-noise fluctuations. In deriving Eq. we have used the ensemble average (mean) of the measured photocurrent, as we have done in all of the previous sections.
- Y. Shih, “Quantum imaging,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 13, 1016–1030 (2007). [CrossRef]
- J. F. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969). [CrossRef]
- In our view, the interpretation of computational ghost imaging that suggests nonlocal interference between a physical photon in a light beam and a “virtual photon” arising from numerical computations on a computer processor—see M. H. Rubin, “Comment on ghost imaging with a single detector [arXiv0812.2633v2],” arXiv.org, arXiv:0902.1940v1 [quant-ph] (2009)—is far from being convincing, and is highly speculative.
- B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Phase-conjugate optical coherence tomography,” Phys. Rev. A 74, 041601(R) (2006). [CrossRef]
- B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Gaussian-state theory of two-photon imaging,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 023835 (2008). [CrossRef]

## Cited By |
Alert me when this paper is cited |

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

OSA is a member of CrossRef.