Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Variational-State Quantum Metrology

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Variational metrology finds asymmetric entangled probe states that outperform every symmetric state under noise by up to a factor of 2.

desk verdict Solid variational metrology paper with a real finding—symmetry-broken states beat symmetric ones under amplitude damping—but the headline claim rests on a non-global optimizer for the symmetric baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08904 v3 pith:ROHVA6GX submitted 2019-08-23 quant-ph

Bálint Koczor , Suguru Endo , Tyson Jones , Yuichiro Matsuzaki , Simon C. Benjamin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords variationalquantummetrologyFisherinformationnoise-robustprobestatespermutationsymmetrybreakingamplitudedampingnon-symmetricentanglednear-termhardwareRamseyinterferometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a variational algorithm that prepares a parameterized probe state on a quantum circuit and optimizes its metrological precision directly, without assuming a particular noise model. Simulating systems of up to 9 qubits under dephasing, amplitude damping, inhomogeneous Pauli errors, and non-Markovian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise, it finds that the best states are not always permutation-symmetric. For amplitude damping and inhomogeneous Pauli errors, non-symmetric highly entangled states outperform every symmetric state the authors optimized, improving the dimensionless precision by up to a factor of 2. This matters because previously known metrology states such as GHZ, squeezed, and symmetric Dicke states are permutation-symmetric, and the paper gives an analytical model for why breaking that symmetry helps: it lets the measurement resolve individual first-order decay events. The result is a practical, device-tailored route to noise-robust quantum sensing on near-term hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is a shallow variational encoder circuit $U_E(\theta)$ with a linear number of rotation parameters, together with a cost function built from the quantum Fisher information via the fidelity formula $F_Q = 8\lim_{\delta\omega\to 0}[1 - \mathrm{Fid}(\rho_0, \rho_1)]/(\delta\omega)^2$. The optimizer maximizes the dimensionless precision $\gamma/T\,(\Delta\omega)^{-2}$ over both circuit parameters and sensing time $t$. The load-bearing mechanism is the symmetry-breaking component $|D\rangle$ in Eq. (19): unlike the symmetric Dicke state $|J,J-2\rangle$, $|D\rangle$ contains only paired excitations on specific qubit pairs, so after amplitude damping the optimal measurement includes $N$ distinguishable bases $|A_j\rangle = T_+^{(j)}(b_1|11\cdots 1\rangle \pm b_2\sqrt{N/2}|D\rangle)$. Each such basis carries a first-order relaxation event, giving a sum of $N$ comparable Fisher-information contributions instead of one, which is the analytical reason for the superior performance.

What would settle it

Run a certified global search over the permutation-symmetric subspace, i.e., Dicke-state superpositions, for $N = 6$ and $N = 8$ under amplitude damping with $p(t) = 1 - e^{-\gamma t}$, optimizing $\gamma/T\,(\Delta\omega)^{-2}$ over $t$ and the coefficients $c_m$, and compare with the best symmetry-broken ansatz state reported. If any symmetric state reaches or exceeds the ansatz value, the claimed symmetry-breaking advantage is refuted for that $N$; equivalently, the explicit state $|\psi_a\rangle$ in Eq. (19) can be tested against the best symmetric state through the classical-Fisher decomposition in Appendix C.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that under amplitude damping and inhomogeneous Pauli errors, optimal metrological probe states for 3 to 9 qubits are not symmetric under permutations, and that these symmetry-broken states achieve up to twice the precision of the best permutation-symmetric states, including GHZ states, one-axis twisted squeezed states, and general symmetric Dicke superpositions. The advantage comes from an additional component $|D\rangle = \sqrt{2/N}(|1100\cdots 000\rangle + |0011\cdots 000\rangle + \cdots + |0000\cdots 011\rangle)$ added to a superposition of $|00\cdots 0\rangle$ and $|11\cdots 1\rangle$, which allows first-order $T_1$ decay events on individual qubits to be resolved in $2N$ separate measurement bases rather than one collective basis. The paper also confirms in the dephasing and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck cases that its variational search reproduces known optimal states, so the non-symmetric finding is presented as a genuine exception to the usual symmetric ansatz rather than a failure of the optimizer.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the randomized coordinate-descent search reached the true global optimum within both the shallow ansatz family and the symmetric subspace for $N$ up to 9 under amplitude damping and Pauli errors, and that the shallow ansatz is expressive enough to contain the optimal state; the paper explicitly states it cannot guarantee global optimality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A near-term quantum device can run the variational loop directly with encoder and decoder circuits, and the resulting probe state is tailored to the device's own dominant noise without separate process tomography.
  • For amplitude damping the symmetry-breaking advantage appears for $N \geq 5$ and persists when preparation circuits are subject to depolarizing gate noise at realistic rates, so it is compatible with imperfect hardware.
  • Under dephasing and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise the same ansatz reproduces known optimal behavior, squeezed-like states and GHZ states respectively, showing the method recovers established results where symmetry is not broken.
  • The gain over symmetric states is a constant factor, not a new scaling: the precision remains linear in $N$ under Markovian noise, consistent with asymptotic no-go bounds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Appendix C mechanism, $N$ distinguishable first-order error-resolving measurement bases, persists for larger $N$, the constant-factor advantage may grow with qubit number even though the asymptotic scaling stays linear; the paper only claims the advantage for $N \leq 9$.
  • A testable heuristic follows: any noise model with a non-rotationally-symmetric error axis and distinguishable single-qubit decay sectors should show a similar symmetry-breaking benefit, while rotationally symmetric dephasing should not.
  • The same cost function could be extended to include active error correction or pulse-control parameters, potentially combining passive first-order correction with active protection; this extends the paper's variational scheme beyond passive probe states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational quantum algorithm for finding near-optimal probe states for quantum metrology in the presence of noise. The probe state is prepared by a parameterized shallow circuit, allowed to evolve under a field Hamiltonian together with a continuous noisy channel, and the precision is quantified by the quantum Fisher information computed via a fidelity-based finite-difference approximation. The authors simulate systems of up to 9 qubits exactly with QuEST for dephasing, amplitude damping, inhomogeneous Pauli errors, and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise, optimizing both the circuit parameters and the sensing time. Their central numerical finding is that, for amplitude damping and inhomogeneous Pauli errors, permutation-non-symmetric ansatz states outperform the permutation-symmetric states they optimized (GHZ, squeezed, and general symmetric Dicke mixtures) by up to a constant factor of about 2. For amplitude damping, they provide an analytical model in which a broken-symmetry component permits first-order T1 decay events to be individually resolved, yielding additional Fisher information. They also outline an experimental implementation with encoder and decoder circuits and analyze the effect of imperfect preparation gates in an appendix.

Significance. If the central numerical claim holds, the paper makes a useful and somewhat counterintuitive contribution to noisy quantum metrology: it shows, for small numbers of qubits, that relaxing permutation symmetry can yield a constant-factor advantage over the symmetric states that have dominated the literature, and it gives an intuitive analytical explanation for the amplitude-damping case. The work is strengthened by exact numerical simulations using QuEST, by validation against known analytic optima for dephasing and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise, and by the public release of the simulation code. The analytical model in Appendix C, while heuristic, is a concrete falsifiable description of the mechanism. The main weakness is that the 'outperforms any symmetric state' claim depends on the completeness of a randomized optimization over the symmetric subspace, which the authors explicitly do not guarantee; this tempers the strength of the headline claim but does not undermine the existence of the explicit ansatz states themselves.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Sec. 7, Fig. 4(a)(mid/right)] The central claim that the ansatz states 'outperform any symmetric state' is not established by the reported numerics, because the symmetric baseline is produced by the same randomized adaptive coordinate descent routine whose global optimality the authors explicitly disclaim ('we cannot guarantee global optimality in general', Sec. 5.2; 'verifying global optimality of the symmetry-breaking states is beyond the scope of the current work', Sec. 7). Since the symmetric subspace has dimension N+1, for N up to 9 a substantially more exhaustive search (dense grid plus local refinement, or a certified global optimizer) is feasible and would make the comparison conclusive; alternatively, the claim should be weakened to 'outperform all symmetric states found by our optimizer and all previously known explicit state families'.
  2. [Sec. 5.3 and Fig. 4] The optimizer is validated only for dephasing and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise, where analytic optima are known and the ansatz, symmetric, and squeezed curves essentially coincide. No independent validation is supplied for amplitude damping or inhomogeneous Pauli errors, which are precisely the two channels where the symmetry-breaking advantage is claimed. A concrete test would be to compare the optimized symmetric curve against known asymptotic upper bounds for these channels, or to repeat the symmetric-subspace optimization for N up to 9 with a qualitatively different global search method, to confirm that the brown curve in Fig. 4 is not a local optimum.
  3. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C.1)–(C.5)] The analytical argument that the non-symmetric scheme gains a factor proportional to N relies on the ratios in Eqs. (C.4) and (C.5) being O(N^0) for every j, but the derivation only states this asymptotic order without showing the constants or the range of N for which the individual contributions remain comparable to the symmetric single-basis contribution. Since the claimed advantage is a constant factor at finite N (not an asymptotic scaling), the argument would be more convincing if the authors provided the explicit expressions for prob(Aj) and its derivative, or a plot of the ratio F_a/F_s versus N for the optimized coefficients.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and OCR artifacts, including 'Winger' in the Fig. 1 caption, 'follwing' in the introduction, 'its its' in the Fig. 7 caption, and garbled author names in Ref. [40]; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The squeezed-state definition contains an extraneous time variable t in the exponents e^{-iθ3 t Jz}, e^{-iθ2 t Jx}, and e^{-iθ1 t Jz^2}; since t is the sensing time and is optimized separately, the formula should use the rotation angles θ_i alone or define the effective angles explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix C] The text refers both to 'all 2N bases' and to 'N distinguishable measurement bases'; because each j contributes two bases (the ± signs), the counting in Eqs. (C.1)–(C.3) should be clarified, and the sum index should be explicit.
  4. [Sec. 5.4] The phrase 'passively correct first-order decay events' may overstate the mechanism; the analysis in Appendix C describes extracting additional Fisher information from first-order decay outcomes, not correcting the state, so consider rewording to 'extract additional Fisher information from first-order decay events'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the metrological state search is a numerical optimization over a physically defined objective, with self-citations only contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the output of a numerical optimization of the quantum Fisher information for an explicit variational ansatz under explicit noise models. The objective function is the physically defined estimation precision, and the baselines (GHZ, product, squeezed, general symmetric states) are independently parameterized and externally known; nothing in the cost function is defined in terms of the target result. The non-symmetric advantage is therefore an optimization finding, not an assumption containing the conclusion. The paper explicitly disclaims global optimality in Sec. 5.2 ('we cannot guarantee global optimality in general') and Sec. 7 ('verifying global optimality of the symmetry-breaking states is beyond the scope of the current work'), which is an honest completeness caveat about the search rather than a circular reduction. Appendix C is a post hoc explanatory model: the coefficients c1, c2, c3 are read off the optimized states, and the manuscript presents it as an analysis of why the found states perform well, not as an independent prediction. The self-citations are not load-bearing: [26] supplies a previously known asymptotic scaling expectation for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck case, which the paper independently reproduces numerically, and [61] is mentioned only as a possible future optimization technique. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claimed result reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main numerical claim requires the expressibility of the chosen ansatz and global optimality of the optimizer, neither of which is proven. The analytical model introduces fitted coefficients (c1,c2,c3) but no new physical entities. The noise models and QFI formulas are standard inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • c1, c2, c3 (coefficients of |ψ_a>) = c1≈0.77, c2≈0.55, c3≈0.33 for N=8
    Extracted from the numerically optimized ansatz states in the amplitude damping case (Sec. 5.4, Eq. (19)). They parameterize the conjectured near-optimal non-symmetric state and are used in Appendix C to explain the advantage; they are not independently predicted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The sensing-and-noise process is an infinitesimal divisible CPTP map with generator -iωJ_z + γL acting as Φ_ωt = e^{-iωtJ_z + γtL} (Eq. 8).
    Assumes the external field and the noise generator add in the exponent, valid for Markovian or time-continuous divisible channels. The non-Markovian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck case is handled with a time-dependent decay rate f(t), still within this framework.
  • standard math The quantum Fisher information is computed via the fidelity limit F_Q[ρ(ω)] = 8 lim_{δω→0} [1-Fid(ρ(ω),ρ(ω+δω))]/δω^2 (Eq. 6) and the finite-difference approximation Eq. (9) with δωt much less than 1.
    Standard result connecting QFI to fidelity (see Refs. [12,45]); the finite-difference evaluation is a numerical approximation, not an extra physical assumption.
  • domain assumption The encoder and analysis stages are perfect and take negligible time compared with the sensing time t (Sec. 4), so the only error during preparation is neglected except in Appendix D.
    The paper assumes γt_enc much less than 1; Appendix D relaxes this for state-of-the-art gate error rates and finds the advantage persists.
  • domain assumption For dephasing, amplitude damping, and Pauli error models, the noise acts independently and identically on each qubit with the Kraus maps in Eqs. (14)-(16).
    Standard uncorrelated noise models; the inhomogeneous Pauli model fixes the probabilities 2p_x = 2p_y = 4p_z, a modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed ansatz circuit B2B2B1B2B2B1 (Fig. 3) is expressive enough to approximate the metrologically optimal states for N up to 9.
    The circuit has a linear number of parameters and cannot represent arbitrary states; the paper validates it numerically against known optimal states for dephasing and OU noise, but for amplitude damping and Pauli cases the approximation error is not estimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational-State Quantum Metrology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROHVA6GX

@misc{pith2026190808904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational-State Quantum Metrology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROHVA6GX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08904}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum technologies exploit entanglement to enhance various tasks beyond their classical limits including computation, communication and measurements. Quantum metrology aims to increase the precision of a measured quantity that is estimated in the presence of statistical errors using entangled quantum states. We present a novel approach for finding (near) optimal states for metrology in the presence of noise, using variational techniques as a tool for efficiently searching the classically intractable high-dimensional space of quantum states. We comprehensively explore systems consisting of up to 9 qubits and find new highly entangled states that are not symmetric under permutations and non-trivially outperform previously known states up to a constant factor 2. We consider a range of environmental noise models; while passive quantum states cannot achieve a fundamentally superior scaling (as established by prior asymptotic results) we do observe a significant absolute quantum advantage. We finally outline a possible experimental setup for variational quantum metrology which can be implemented in near-term hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wigner functions of permutation-symmetric 9-qubit quantum states that evolve under dephasing noise. Time increases left-to-right and γt is the dimensionless time expressed in units of the decay time γ −1 . GHZ (upper) states are the most sensitive to an external magnetic field, but their coherences rapidly deteriorate due to fluctuations of the external field (as can be inferred from the rapidly fading coherences in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Circuit that potentially finds the quantum state ψ(θ) that gives the best precision when estimating the parameter as the external field strength ω. that models the evolution under both the external field and under a non-unitary noise process, and depends on both time t and the parameter ω. We assume that this process is continuous in time. Adapting results on infinitesimal divisible channels [49, 50], we define the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of the ansatz circuit for N = 8 qubits. This circuit has a linear number of parameters in the number of qubits and can sufficiently well approximate states that are optimal for metrology under various different error models. remark that controlled-Y rotations in our construction can easily be replaced by specific hardware-native gates such as XX-gates. 5.2. Optimisation of the ansatz parameters For the optim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) scaling of the optimised dimensionless precision as a function of the number of qubits calculated for a variety of probe states and noise models. Optimal ansatz states (green) obtained via the encoder circuit from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimised dimensionless precision a) and probing time b) for a variety of probe states in case if noise is dominated by a random fluctuation of the external field parameter ω. We assume that this random fluctuation is described by the Ornstein￾Uhlenbeck process in the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) Linear entanglement of the optimised probe states which quantifies the average entanglement between a single qubit and the rest of the system, i.e., N − 1 qubits. b) average indistinguishability of the qubits that form the optimal probe state. Only ansatz states can…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) Wigner functions of permutation symmetric 9-qubit states optimised against different error models from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Circuit that potentially finds the quantum state ψ(θ) that gives the best precision when estimating the parameter ω from projective measurements. ωt optimally into probabilities of measuring the classical registers |ni at the end of the circuit. These classical registe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An atomic array optical clock with single-atom readout

    physics.atom-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An optical clock made from a 40-atom strontium tweezer array with single-atom readout reaches 2.5×10^-15/√τ stability and agrees with a detailed Monte Carlo simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L Obrien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Comm., 5:4213, 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549(7671):242, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices

    Nikolaj Moll, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Lev S Bishop, Jerry M Chow, Andrew Cross, Daniel J Egger, Stefan Filipp, Andreas Fuhrer, Jay M Gambetta, Marc Ganzhorn, et al. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Sci. Technol., 3(3):030503, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New J. Phys. , 18(2):023023, 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization

    Ying Li and Simon C Benjamin. Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization. Phys. Rev. X , 7(2):021050, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum circuit learning

    Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Phys. Rev. A , 98(3):032309, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Physical-Layer Supervised Learning Assisted by an Entangled Sensor Network

    Quntao Zhuang and Zheshen Zhang. Supervised Learning Enhanced by an Entangled Sensor Network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09566 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1901

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum compilation and circuit optimisation via energy dissipation

    Tyson Jones and Simon C Benjamin. Quantum compilation and circuit optimisation via energy dissipation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03147 , 2018. Variational-State Quantum Metrology 28

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Variational Quantum Gate Optimization

    Kentaro Heya, Yasunari Suzuki, Yasunobu Nakamura, and Keisuke Fujii. Variational Quantum Gate Optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12745 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Oberthaler, Roman Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein

    Luca Pezz` e, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K. Oberthaler, Roman Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:035005, Sep 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Advances in quantum metrology

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quantum metrology. Nat. Phot., 5(4):222, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective

    G´ eza T´ oth and Iagoba Apellaniz. Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 47(42):424006, oct 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Spin dynamics: basics of nuclear magnetic resonance

    Malcolm H Levitt. Spin dynamics: basics of nuclear magnetic resonance . John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Optical magnetic imaging of living cells

    David Le Sage, Koji Arai, David R Glenn, Stephen J DeVience, Linh M Pham, Lilah Rahn-Lee, Mikhail D Lukin, Amir Yacoby, Arash Komeili, and Ronald L Walsworth. Optical magnetic imaging of living cells. Nature, 496(7446):486, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Hall-effect sensors: theory and application

    Edward Ramsden. Hall-effect sensors: theory and application . Elsevier, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Gradiometric micro-SQUID susceptometer for scanning measurements of mesoscopic samples

    Martin E Huber, Nicholas C Koshnick, Hendrik Bluhm, Leonard J Archuleta, Tommy Azua, Per G Bj¨ ornsson, Brian W Gardner, Sean T Halloran, Erik A Lucero, and Kathryn A Moler. Gradiometric micro-SQUID susceptometer for scanning measurements of mesoscopic samples. Rev. Sci. Instr...

    2008

  11. [19]

    Force-detected nuclear magnetic resonance: recent advances and future challenges

    Martino Poggio and Christian L Degen. Force-detected nuclear magnetic resonance: recent advances and future challenges. Nanotech., 21(34):342001, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom

    Mustafa Bal, Chunqing Deng, Jean-Luc Orgiazzi, FR Ong, and Adrian Lupascu. Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom. Nat. Comm., 3:1324, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Subpicotesla diamond magnetometry

    Thomas Wolf, Philipp Neumann, Kazuo Nakamura, Hitoshi Sumiya, Takeshi Ohshima, Junichi Isoya, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. Subpicotesla diamond magnetometry. Phys. Rev. X , 5(4):041001, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Optical and spin coherence properties of nitrogen-vacancy centers placed in a 100 nm thick isotopically purified diamond layer

    Toyofumi Ishikawa, Kai-Mei C Fu, Charles Santori, Victor M Acosta, Raymond G Beausoleil, Hideyuki Watanabe, Shinichi Shikata, and Kohei M Itoh. Optical and spin coherence properties of nitrogen-vacancy centers placed in a 100 nm thick isotopically purified diamond layer. Nano L...

    2012

  15. [23]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac. Improvement of Frequency Standards with Quantum Entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:3865– 3868, Nov 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Efficient tools for quantum metrology with uncorrelated noise

    Jan Ko lody´ nski and Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski. Efficient tools for quantum metrology with uncorrelated noise. New J. Phys. , 15(7):073043, jul 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology

    Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Jan Ko lody´ nski, and M˘ ad˘ alin Gut ¸˘ a. The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology. Nat. Comm., 3:1063, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Benjamin, and Joseph Fitzsimons

    Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Simon C. Benjamin, and Joseph Fitzsimons. Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence. Phys. Rev. A, 84:012103, Jul 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Chin, Susana F

    Alex W. Chin, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. Quantum Metrology in Non-Markovian Environments. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:233601, Dec 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes

    Roee Ozeri. Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.3432, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arrad, Y

    G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker. Increasing Sensing Resolution with Error Correction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:150801, Apr 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fr¨ owis, and B. Kraus. Improved Quantum Metrology Using Quantum Error Correction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:080801, Feb 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin. Quantum Error Correction for Metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:150802, Apr 2014. Variational-State Quantum Metrology 29

    2014

  24. [32]

    Herrera-Mart´ ı, Tuvia Gefen, Dorit Aharonov, Nadav Katz, and Alex Retzker

    David A. Herrera-Mart´ ı, Tuvia Gefen, Dorit Aharonov, Nadav Katz, and Alex Retzker. Quantum Error-Correction-Enhanced Magnetometer Overcoming the Limit Imposed by Relaxation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:200501, Nov 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Plenio and Susana F

    Martin B. Plenio and Susana F. Huelga. Sensing in the presence of an observed environment. Phys. Rev. A , 93:032123, Mar 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Leung, M

    Debbie W. Leung, M. A. Nielsen, Isaac L. Chuang, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto. Approximate quantum error correction can lead to better codes. Phys. Rev. A , 56:2567–2573, Oct 1997

    1997

  27. [35]

    Taghavi, R

    S. Taghavi, R. L. Kosut, and D. A. Lidar. Channel-Optimized Quantum Error Correction. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 56(3):1461–1473, March 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    QVECTOR: an algorithm for device-tailored quantum error correction

    Peter D Johnson, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan Olson, Yudong Cao, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. QVECTOR: an algorithm for device-tailored quantum error correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.02249, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Anil Shaji and Carlton M. Caves. Qubit metrology and decoherence. Phys. Rev. A , 76:032111, Sep 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Spin squeezing and decoherence limit in Ramsey spectroscopy

    Duger Ulam-Orgikh and Masahiro Kitagawa. Spin squeezing and decoherence limit in Ramsey spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. A , 64:052106, Oct 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology

    BM Escher, RL de Matos Filho, and L Davidovich. General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology. Nat. Phys., 7(5):406, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Optimal quantum states for frequency estimation

    F Frwis and M Skotiniotis and B Kraus and W Dr. Optimal quantum states for frequency estimation. New J. Phys. , 16(8):083010, aug 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Matrix Product States for Quantum Metrology

    Marcin Jarzyna and Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski. Matrix Product States for Quantum Metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:240405, Jun 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Oszmaniec, R

    M. Oszmaniec, R. Augusiak, C. Gogolin, J. Ko lody´ nski, A. Ac´ ın, and M. Lewenstein. Random Bosonic States for Robust Quantum Metrology. Phys. Rev. X , 6:041044, Dec 2016

    2016

  35. [44]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 10th edition, 2011

    2011

  36. [45]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 72:3439–3443, May 1994

    1994

  37. [46]

    Helstrom

    C.W. Helstrom. Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics. Phys. Lett. A, 25(2):101 – 102, 1967

    1967

  38. [47]

    Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation

    Jing Liu, Haidong Yuan, Xiao-Ming Lu, and Xiaoguang Wang. Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation. J. Phys. A: Math. Theo. , 2019

    2019

  39. [48]

    Quantum Fisher Information for Density Matrices with Arbitrary Ranks

    Jing Liu, Xiao-Xing Jing, Wei Zhong, and Xiao-Guang Wang. Quantum Fisher Information for Density Matrices with Arbitrary Ranks. Comm. Theor. Phys. , 61(1):45–50, jan 2014

    2014

  40. [49]

    Wolf and J

    Michael M. Wolf and J. Ignacio Cirac. Dividing Quantum Channels. Comm. Math. Phys. , 279(1):147–168, Apr 2008

    2008

  41. [50]

    Infinitely divisible markov mappings in quantum probability theory

    LV Denisov. Infinitely divisible markov mappings in quantum probability theory. Theory of Probability & Its Applications , 33(2):392–395, 1989

    1989

  42. [51]

    QuEST and high performance simulation of quantum computers

    Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush, and Simon C Benjamin. QuEST and high performance simulation of quantum computers. Sci. Rep., 9(1):10736, 2019

    2019

  43. [52]

    Sun, and Franco Nori

    Jian Ma, Xiaoguang Wang, C.P. Sun, and Franco Nori. Quantum spin squeezing. Phys. Rep., 509(2):89 – 165, 2011

    2011

  44. [53]

    Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states

    Yingkai Ouyang, Nathan Shettell, and Damian Markham. Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02378 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  45. [54]

    John K Stockton, J. M. Geremia, Andrew C Doherty, and Hideo Mabuchi. Characterizing the entanglement of symmetric many-particle spin-1/2 systems. Phys. Rev. A , 67(2):022112, 2003

    2003

  46. [55]

    Jun J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, rev. edition, 1994

    1994

  47. [56]

    On Angular Momentum,

    Julian Schwinger. On Angular Momentum,. In L. C. Biedenharn and H. Van Dam, editors, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum , pages 229–279. Academic Press, New York, 1965. Variational-State Quantum Metrology 30

    1965

  48. [57]

    P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintan...

    2016

  49. [58]

    Quantum gradient descent and Newton’s method for constrained polynomial optimization

    Patrick Rebentrost, Maria Schuld, Leonard Wossnig, Francesco Petruccione, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum gradient descent and Newton’s method for constrained polynomial optimization. New J. Phys., 21(7):073023, jul 2019

    2019

  50. [59]

    Stochastic gradient descent for hybrid quantum-classical optimization

    Ryan Sweke, Frederik Wilde, Johannes Meyer, Maria Schuld, Paul K F¨ ahrmann, Barth´ el´ emy Meynard-Piganeau, and Jens Eisert. Stochastic gradient descent for hybrid quantum-classical optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01155 , 2019

    1910 arXiv

  51. [60]

    An adaptive optimizer for measurement-frugal variational algorithms

    Jonas M K¨ ubler, Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. An adaptive optimizer for measurement-frugal variational algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09083 , 2019

    1909 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Quantum natural gradient generalised to non-unitary circuits

    B´ alint Koczor and Simon C Benjamin. Quantum natural gradient generalised to non-unitary circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08660 , 2019

    1912 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Adaptive coordinate descent

    Ilya Loshchilov, Marc Schoenauer, and Mich` ele Sebag. Adaptive coordinate descent. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation , pages 885– 892, 2011

    2011

  54. [63]

    Variational-State-Quantum-Metrology, 2019

    GitHub repository. Variational-State-Quantum-Metrology, 2019. https://github.com/ QTechTheory/Variational-State-Quantum-Metrology

    2019

  55. [64]

    A fibre bundle over manifolds of quantum channels and its application to quantum statistics

    Akio Fujiwara and Hiroshi Imai. A fibre bundle over manifolds of quantum channels and its application to quantum statistics. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 41(25):255304, may 2008

    2008

  56. [65]

    Timothy F. Havel. Robust procedures for converting among Lindblad, Kraus and matrix representations of quantum dynamical semigroups. J. Math. Phys. , 44(2):534–557, 2003

    2003

  57. [66]

    G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein. On the Theory of the Brownian Motion. Phys. Rev., 36:823– 841, Sep 1930

    1930

  58. [67]

    Ting Yu and J.H. Eberly. Entanglement evolution in a non-Markovian environment. Optics Comm., 283(5):676 – 680, 2010

    2010

  59. [68]

    Meyer and Nolan R

    David A. Meyer and Nolan R. Wallach. Global entanglement in multiparticle systems. J. Math. Phys., 43(9):4273–4278, 2002

    2002

  60. [69]

    An observable measure of entanglement for pure states of multi-qubit systems

    Gavin K Brennen. An observable measure of entanglement for pure states of multi-qubit systems. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0305094 , 2003

    2003 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Maximally entangled multipartite states: a brief survey

    M Enr´ ıquez, I Wintrowicz, and Karol ˙Zyczkowski. Maximally entangled multipartite states: a brief survey. In J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. , volume 698, page 012003. IOP Publishing, 2016

    2016

  62. [71]

    G. S. Agarwal. Relation between atomic coherent-state representation, state multipoles, and generalized phase-space distributions. Phys. Rev. A , 24:2889–2896, 1981

    1981

  63. [72]

    Brif and A

    C. Brif and A. Mann. Phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics and quantum-state reconstruction for physical systems with Lie-group symmetries. Phys. Rev. A , 59(2):971–987, 1999

    1999

  64. [73]

    B´ alint Koczor, Robert Zeier, and Steffen J. Glaser. Continuous phase-space representations for finite-dimensional quantum states and their tomography. Phys. Rev. A , 101:022318, Feb 2020

    2020

  65. [74]

    B´ alint Koczor, Robert Zeier, and Steffen J. Glaser. Continuous phase spaces and the time evolution of spins: star products and spin-weighted spherical harmonics. J. Phys. A. , 52(5):055302, 2019. (Preprint arXiv:1808.02697)

    2019 arXiv

  66. [75]

    B´ alint Koczor, Robert Zeier, and Steffen J. Glaser. Time evolution of coupled spin systems in a generalized Wigner representation. Ann. Phys., 408(September):1–50, 2019

    2019

  67. [76]

    On phase-space representations of spin systems and their relations to infinite- dimensional quantum states

    B´ alint Koczor. On phase-space representations of spin systems and their relations to infinite- dimensional quantum states . Dissertation, Technische Universitat Munchen, Munich, 2019

    2019

  68. [77]

    Grossmann

    A. Grossmann. Parity operator and quantization of δ-functions. Comm. Math. Phys. , 48(3):191– 194, 1976. Variational-State Quantum Metrology 31

    1976

  69. [78]

    de Gosson, Steffen J Glaser, and Robert Zeier

    B´ alint Koczor, Frederik vom Ende, Maurice A. de Gosson, Steffen J Glaser, and Robert Zeier. Phase Spaces, Parity Operators, and the Born-Jordan Distribution, 2018. ( Preprint arXiv:1811.05872)

    2018 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Wigner Functions for Arbitrary Quantum Systems

    Todd Tilma, Mark J Everitt, John H Samson, William J Munro, and Kae Nemoto. Wigner Functions for Arbitrary Quantum Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117(18):180401, 2016

    2016

  71. [80]

    Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance

    Rami Barends, Julian Kelly, Anthony Megrant, Andrzej Veitia, Daniel Sank, Evan Jeffrey, Ted C White, Josh Mutus, Austin G Fowler, Brooks Campbell, et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature, 508(7497):500, 2014

    2014

  72. [81]

    Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits

    Matthew D Reed, Leonardo DiCarlo, Simon E Nigg, Luyan Sun, Luigi Frunzio, Steven M Girvin, and Robert J Schoelkopf. Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits. Nature, 482(7385):382, 2012

    2012

  73. [82]

    State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit

    Julian Kelly, Rami Barends, Austin G Fowler, Anthony Megrant, Evan Jeffrey, Theodore C White, Daniel Sank, Josh Y Mutus, Brooks Campbell, Yu Chen, et al. State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature, 519(7541):66, 2015

    2015

  74. [83]

    Superconducting quantum bits

    John Clarke and Frank K Wilhelm. Superconducting quantum bits. Nature, 453(7198):1031, 2008

    2008

  75. [84]

    Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy using a single artificial atom

    Hiraku Toida, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Kosuke Kakuyanagi, Xiaobo Zhu, William J Munro, Hiroshi Yamaguchi, and Shiro Saito. Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy using a single artificial atom. Comm. Phys., 2(1):33, 2019

    2019

  76. [85]

    A search algorithm for quantum state engineering and metrology

    PA Knott. A search algorithm for quantum state engineering and metrology. New J. Phys. , 18(7):073033, 2016

    2016

  77. [86]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas. High-Fidelity Quantum Logic Gates Using Trapped-Ion Hyperfine Qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:060504, Aug 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.