Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Restoring Heisenberg scaling in time via autonomous quantum error correction

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Autonomous quantum error correction can restore Heisenberg scaling in phase estimation under Markovian noise, without noiseless ancilla, whenever the noise operators commute with the signal Hamiltonian and a constrained linear equation…

desk verdict A genuinely useful sufficient condition and code construction for ancilla-free AutoQEC metrology, but the advertised error scaling is not proven: the QFI continuity bound in SM Step 3 fails, and the paper's own distance bound actually yields O(kappa T^3/R^c) rather than O(kappa T/R^c). read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13168 v3 pith:LJ7WFJ5G submitted 2025-04-17 quant-ph

Hyukgun Kwon , Uwe R. Fischer , Seung-Woo Lee , Liang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords HeisenbergscalingautonomousquantumerrorcorrectionmetrologyFisherinformationMarkoviannoisedephasingKnill-Laflammeconditionengineereddissipation
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

This paper aims to show that autonomous quantum error correction (AutoQEC), which uses only engineered dissipation and needs no continuous measurement or feed-forward, can restore Heisenberg scaling in quantum phase estimation despite Markovian noise. The authors prove a sufficient condition: if every Lindblad operator of the noise commutes with the fixed signal Hamiltonian, and a constrained linear equation over probability vectors admits a solution, then a simple ancilla-free two-word code exists whose quantum Fisher information is at least $(h_i - h_j)^2 t^2 - \epsilon$ for any sensing time up to $T$, with $\epsilon = O(\kappa T / R^c)$. Here $R$ is the ratio of engineered to natural dissipation and $c$ is the AutoQEC order, so higher order needs less dissipation to reach a given precision. The result matters because it identifies exactly when the experimentally easier always-on dissipation route can match the metrological performance of active error correction, and it comes with a linear-programming procedure to find the code. Numerical simulations under correlated and local dephasing confirm the predicted recovery of Heisenberg scaling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a family of matrices $A_i^{[\sim c]}$ with entries $[A_i^{[\sim c]}]_{kl} = \langle h_i^{(l)} | \hat{K}_k | h_i^{(l)} \rangle$, where $\hat{K}_k$ runs over the operators $\hat{E}_a^\dagger \hat{E}_b$ formed from the error set $E^{[\sim c]}$ and $|h_i^{(l)}\rangle$ are the eigenvectors of the signal Hamiltonian with eigenvalue $h_i$. The code consists of two codewords $|\mu_0\rangle, |\mu_1\rangle$ built by taking square roots of probability vectors $p_i, p_j$ as amplitudes on the two eigenspaces; condition (T2) is exactly the statement that these vectors can be chosen so the diagonal Knill-Laflamme checks match across codewords, while (T1) makes the off-diagonal checks vanish automatically. With the Knill-Laflamme condition satisfied for $E^{[\sim c]}$, the engineered dissipation from the standard AutoQEC construction (Lemma 1 of the paper) suppresses the noise to order $1/R^c$, and the quantum Fisher information data-processing inequality for the CPTP projector $\tilde{P}_E$ converts that suppression into the Heisenberg-scaling lower bound. Two structural properties that follow from the conditions do the real work: (P1) the signal Hamiltonian commutes with all correctable error operators, and (P2) it commutes with the projectors onto the $n$th-order correctable error spaces, so the signal never leaks amplitude into uncontrolled sectors.

What would settle it

The linear bound $|F[\hat{\rho}] - F[\hat{\sigma}]| = O(\|\hat{\rho} - \hat{\sigma}\|_{\rm op})$ used in the supplemental proof fails for rank-changing states: for $\hat{\sigma} = |0\rangle\langle 0|$, $\hat{\rho}_\varepsilon = (1-\varepsilon)|0\rangle\langle 0| + \varepsilon|+\rangle\langle +|$, and $\hat{H} = |0\rangle\langle 1| + |1\rangle\langle 0|$, the operator-norm distance is $\varepsilon/\sqrt{2}$ yet $F[\hat{\rho}_\varepsilon] - F[\hat{\sigma}] \to -2$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. A numerical check of the paper's own 3-qubit example---whether the QFI deficit at fixed $t$ decays as $1/R$ for $R = 10^3, 10^4, 10^5$---would settle whether this pathology invalidates Theorem 1 in the intended setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: given a signal Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ and Markovian noise with Lindblad operators $\hat{L}_{n,a}$, if (T1) $[\hat{H}, \hat{L}_{n,a}] = 0$ for all $a$, and (T2) there exist two distinct eigenvalues $h_i, h_j$ of $\hat{H}$ and probability vectors $p_i, p_j$ with $A_i^{[\sim c]} p_i = A_j^{[\sim c]} p_j$ (where $A_i^{[\sim c]}$ records the diagonal expectations of the error-correlation operators $\hat{K}$ in the eigenspace of $h_i$), then for any $T$ and any $\epsilon > 0$ one can build an ancilla-free AutoQEC scheme with finite $R$ such that the quantum Fisher information of the evolving probe satisfies $F[\hat{\rho}(t)] \ge (h_i - h_j)^2 t^2 - \epsilon$ for all $0 \le t \le T$, with $\epsilon = O(\kappa T / R^c)$. The code words are superpositions of Hamiltonian eigenstates from the two chosen eigenspaces with amplitudes taken from $p_i, p_j$; (T1) makes the signal and all correctable errors diagonal in the same basis, eliminating cross-codeword error terms, and (T2) enforces the Knill-Laflamme condition so the standard AutoQEC dissipation of order $c$ suppresses errors, and the quantum Fisher information data-processing inequality converts the resulting trace-norm closeness into the Fisher information bound.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the unproved assertion that small changes in a quantum state cause only proportionally small changes in the quantum Fisher information, even when the two states have different numbers of nonzero components (different rank).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any phase-estimation setup satisfying (T1) and (T2) inherits a concrete, ancilla-free AutoQEC code whose quantum Fisher information stays within $O(\kappa T / R^c)$ of $(h_i - h_j)^2 t^2$ over any prescribed sensing window.
  • Higher AutoQEC order $c$ reduces the engineered-dissipation ratio $R$ required for a fixed error, so the scheme becomes easier to implement as $c$ grows, up to the dimension constraints of the code.
  • When the sufficient condition holds, the Hamiltonian-not-in-Lindblad-span (HNLS) condition is automatically satisfied, so the scheme also meets the necessary condition for any QEC-based restoration of Heisenberg scaling.
  • If the condition fails, either the signal fails to commute with the errors (violating P1) or it couples distinct correctable error spaces (violating P2); the numerical examples show degraded Fisher information, worst when P2 is violated, because the signal then generates errors faster than natural dissipation.
  • Finding codewords that satisfy (T2) reduces to a linear program, so for a given noise model one can efficiently check feasibility and, when feasible, obtain the codewords.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The commuting condition (T1) rules out many natural noise models such as amplitude damping for typical transverse-field sensors, so Theorem 1 is likely most useful in dephasing-dominated settings; mapping which realistic noise-signal pairs admit commuting Lindblad operators is a natural follow-up.
  • Because the QFI bound passes through trace-norm closeness, the constant in the error $\epsilon = O(\kappa T / R^c)$ is state-dependent; an experiment comparing measured Fisher information against this bound at several $R$ values would reveal how conservative the estimate is in practice.
  • The linear-programming formulation suggests an automated code-search loop: given a signal and a noise correlation matrix, scan eigenvalue pairs in descending order of $|h_i - h_j|$ to find the code that maximizes the Heisenberg slope, turning the sufficiency condition into a design tool.
  • Combined with the paper's infinite-$R$ result (Theorem 2), the practical prescription is to use the Theorem 1 code when it exists and to reserve active feedback or very large $R$ for the HNLS-only regime; quantifying that crossover could guide resource allocation between engineered dissipation and measurement-based correction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sufficient condition for autonomous quantum error correction (AutoQEC) to restore Heisenberg scaling in noisy phase estimation. It proves (Theorem 1) that if all Lindblad operators commute with the signal Hamiltonian (T1) and a constrained linear system A_i^{[~c]} p_i = A_j^{[~c]} p_j admits a probability-vector solution (T2), then there exist ancilla-free codewords built from degenerate eigenspaces of H that satisfy the Knill-Laflamme condition for the error set E^{[~c]}. Using the engineered dissipation of Ref. [31], the AutoQEC state is shown to be close in operator norm to the ideal state, and the paper claims that the QFI approaches the ideal value (h_i-h_j)^2 t^2 with additive error epsilon = O(kappa T / R^c). The paper also provides a linear-programming method for checking (T2), discusses violations of the sufficient condition through properties (P1) and (P2), and presents numerical simulations for correlated and local dephasing noise.

Significance. If the claimed scaling were established, the paper would give the first general ancilla-free AutoQEC construction for metrology, with a checkable sufficient condition and a quantitative benefit from higher AutoQEC order c. The code construction itself is clean: T1 forces the Knill-Laflamme cross-terms to vanish, T2 forces the diagonal terms to match, and the reduction to the prior AutoQEC lemma of Ref. [31] is plausible. The paper also usefully distinguishes the HNLS condition from the AutoQEC-specific conditions and provides numerical evidence. However, the advertised error scaling is load-bearing and is not established by the provided proof; the main contribution as stated therefore needs substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [SM S1, Step 3, Eqs. (S27)-(S31)] The bound |F[rho]-F[sigma]| <= M0 ||rho-sigma|| with a time-independent M0 is not proven and is in fact contradicted by the explicit QFI formula for the two-dimensional code used in Theorem 1. For any sigma in the code space, F[sigma] = 4 t^2 (h0-h1)^2 |<mu0|sigma|mu1>|^2. With sigma = tilde P_E[rho(t)] and rho_id(t) the ideal balanced pure state, the AutoQEC bound (S26) gives |<mu0|sigma|mu1> - 1/2| <= M kappa t / R^c up to constants, so |F[sigma]-F[rho_id]| is of order kappa t^3 / R^c, not kappa t / R^c. Consequently the theorem's stated epsilon = O(kappa T / R^c) and the abstract's emphasis on this scaling are unsupported. The existential part of Theorem 1 (finite R for any fixed epsilon) may survive with a modified bound epsilon = O(kappa T^3 / R^c), but that is not what the paper proves or claims.
  2. [SM S1, Step 3, Eqs. (S28)-(S30)] The power-series expansion rho - sigma = sum_k M_k x^k and F[rho] - F[sigma] = sum_k F_k x^k with t-independent coefficients is not justified. For two states with different rank support, and for perturbations that change the support of the state, the QFI is not generally analytic in the operator-norm perturbation; adding an O(epsilon) component in an orthogonal direction can change the QFI by O(1). Moreover, even where an expansion exists, the coefficients F_k depend on t through the unitary evolution of both states, so the step from (S30) to (S31) requires a proof that the Lipschitz constant M0 is uniformly bounded in t over the interval [0,T]. No such proof is given, and the explicit two-level formula above shows that the natural dependence is t^2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and main text] There is a typo in the abstract: 'rate,)' should read 'rate).' Also, the paper uses 'HS' both for exact Heisenberg scaling and for the approximate preservation up to additive error; please clarify this in the introductory paragraphs.
  2. [SM S3.A, Eq. (S52)] The infinite-R limit in Theorem 2 is analyzed with the ansatz rho(t) = sum_k R^{-k} rho^{(k)}(t), but the paper does not explicitly justify that the limit R -> infinity commutes with the time evolution. Please make this limit argument precise.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not state which residual-state choices |Phi_q> are used for each curve; for c=2 there is no residual space, while for c=1 the choice |Phi_q> = (|mu0>+|mu1>)/sqrt(2) is made. Please make the parameter choice for each curve explicit.
  4. [SM S1, Eq. (S33)] The inequality F[rho(t)] <= F[rho_id(t)] is asserted without proof. The final inequality (S34) is trivially true when F[rho(t)] > F[rho_id(t)], but the assumption should still be stated as an assumption or justified, since it is used to frame the main bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a constructive sufficient-condition proof whose key tool is an independent prior AutoQEC lemma; the main caveat is an unproven QFI continuity step, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1 starts from explicit hypotheses (T1) and (T2), constructs codewords from the probability vectors in (T2) (SM Eq. S20), verifies the Knill-Laflamme conditions for that code, and then applies Lemma 1 of Ref. [31] to obtain the AutoQEC state-distance bound (SM Eq. S26). Lemma 1 is a prior theorem with stated assumptions (Knill-Laflamme condition for the error set E^{[~c]}) that do not include the target result (QFI Heisenberg scaling); although Ref. [31] shares an author with the present paper, it is used as a mathematical tool, not as a source of the metrological conclusion. The error scaling epsilon = O(kappa T / R^c) is inherited from the definition of AutoQEC order and from the subsequent QFI conversion; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one substantive weakness is SM S1 Step 3, where the asserted power-series expansion of F[rho] - F[sigma] in the operator norm of rho - sigma is not proved and can fail when the rank supports differ; this is a correctness gap in the advertised quantitative bound, but it is not a circular reduction, since the QFI inequality is not assumed among the hypotheses. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof assumes Lindblad Markovian dynamics, physical implementability of the engineered dissipation, and the validity of Lemma 1 from Ref. [31]. The load-bearing mathematical assumption beyond those is the analyticity of the QFI in the operator norm of the state difference, which is used to convert the trace-norm closeness into the epsilon = O(kappa T / R^c) error bound.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The open system evolves under a time-independent Lindblad master equation with natural and engineered dissipators.
    Eq. (1) and throughout; this excludes non-Markovian or time-dependent noise.
  • domain assumption The engineered dissipation of the canonical form in Lemma 1 can be physically implemented without noiseless ancilla and with rate R kappa.
    Main text Theorem 1 and Lemma 1; practical realizability is argued by citing experiments [38-41].
  • domain assumption Lemma 1 of Ref. [31]: if the Knill-Laflamme condition holds for error set E^{[~c]}, then AutoQEC up to order c is achieved by the given engineered dissipation and control Hamiltonian.
    The proof of Theorem 1 imports Lemma 1 from Ref. [31] without reproducing its proof; the result is domain-specific and co-authored by one of the present authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantum Fisher information difference along the path sigma + x A is O(x), i.e., analytic at x = 0.
    SM S1 Step 3 assumes F[rho] - F[sigma] = sum F_k x^k; no proof is given, and this is load-bearing for epsilon = O(kappa T / R^c).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Restoring Heisenberg scaling in time via autonomous quantum error correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJ7WFJ5G

@misc{pith2026250413168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Restoring Heisenberg scaling in time via autonomous quantum error correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJ7WFJ5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13168}
}
abstract

We establish a sufficient condition under which autonomous quantum error correction (AutoQEC) can effectively restore Heisenberg scaling (HS) in quantum metrology. Specifically, we show that if all Lindblad operators associated with the noise commute with the signal Hamiltonian and a particular constrained linear equation admits a solution, then an ancilla-free AutoQEC scheme with finite $R$ (where $R$ represents the ratio between the engineered dissipation rate for AutoQEC and the noise rate,) can approximately preserve HS with desired small additive error $\epsilon > 0$ over any time interval $0 \leq t \leq T$. We emphasize that the error scales as $ \epsilon = O(\kappa T / R^c) $ where $c$ is a positive integer and $\kappa$ is the noise rate, indicating that the required $R$ decreases significantly with increasing $c$ to achieve a desired error. Furthermore, we discuss that if the sufficient condition is not satisfied, logical errors may be induced that cannot be efficiently corrected by the canonical AutoQEC framework. Finally, we numerically verify our analytical results by employing the concrete examples of phase estimation under dephasing noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of AutoQEC dynamics under different conditions. Each panel depicts the evolution of quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. QFI as a function of sensing time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Autonomous Quantum Error Correction of Spin-Oscillator Hybrid Qubits

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single correlated jump operator autonomously stabilizes a spin-oscillator hybrid qubit, exponentially suppressing phase errors while linearly raising bit errors.

  2. Simultaneous Heisenberg-Limited Multiparameter Metrology via Indefinite Evolution

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Indefinite evolution maps two noncommuting signal parameters onto separate degrees of freedom, enabling simultaneous Heisenberg-limited multiparameter estimation.

  3. Subsystem Quantum Error Correction for Noisy Quantum Metrology

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Subsystem stabilizer codes enable Heisenberg-limited metrology via syndrome-free protocols with at most one ancilla for broad noise classes, including dynamical protection with Floquet codes.

  4. Beating the break-even point with autonomous quantum error correction

    quant-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A trapped-ion logical qubit encoded in four spin states is autonomously error-corrected via sympathetic cooling, reaching a lifetime of 11.6 ms, 12.9 times the physical qubit, beating break-even.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [42]

    Z. Li, T. Roy, D. Rodríguez Pérez, K.-H. Lee, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, Autonomous error correction of a single logical qubit using two transmons, Nat. Commun. 15, 1681 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [31]

    S. Puri, L. St-Jean, J. A. Gross, A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, P. S. Iyer, A. Krishna, S. Touzard, L. Jiang, A. Blais, S. T. Flammia, and S. M. Girvin, Bias- preserving gates with stabilized cat qubits, Science 7 Advances6, eaay5901 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    Ideal") and the red line (labeled “Error

    has a solution, then it is possible to construct an ancilla-free AutoQEC code with finiteR, tailored for quantum metrology that efficiently preserves HS within small additive errorϵ >0over any given time interval 0≤t≤T. (In the remainder of the paper, we refer to this approximate preservation of HS simply as HS.) To the best of our knowledge, this constit...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  5. [3]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  6. [4]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon.5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  7. [5]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum-enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035006 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photon.12, 724 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  2. [8]

    Abadie, B

    J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, C. Affeldt, B. Allen, G. Allen,et al., A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys.7, 962 (2011)

    2011

  3. [9]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari,et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photon.7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  4. [10]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  5. [11]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nat. Phys.4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  6. [12]

    Baumgratz and A

    T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Quantum enhanced estimation of a multidimensional field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 030801 (2016)

    2016

  7. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced positioning and clock synchronization, Nature 412, 417 (2001)

    2001

  8. [14]

    Komar, E

    P. Komar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nat. Phys.10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    Braun, F

    D. Braun, F. Schneiter, and U. R. Fischer, Intrinsic measurement errors for the speed of light in vacuum, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 175009 (2017)

    2017

  10. [16]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. Smith, J. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. Walmsley, Quantum phase estimation with lossy interferometers, Phys. Rev. A80, 013825 (2009)

    2009

  11. [17]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Commun.3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  12. [18]

    Escher, R

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

    2011

  13. [19]

    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 (1997)

    1997

  14. [20]

    W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fröwis, and B. Kraus, Improved Quantum Metrology Using Quantum Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  15. [21]

    Arrad, Y

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

    2014

  16. [22]

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Error Correction for Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150802 (2014)

    2014

  17. [23]

    Layden, S

    D. Layden, S. Zhou, P. Cappellaro, and L. Jiang, Ancilla- Free Quantum Error Correction Codes for Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040502 (2019)

    2019

  18. [24]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Adaptive Quantum Metrology under General Markovian Noise, Phys. Rev. X.7, 041009 (2017)

    2017

  19. [25]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Nat. Commun.9, 78 (2018)

    2018

  20. [26]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Channel Estimation, PRX Quantum2, 010343 (2021)

    2021

  21. [27]

    Zhuang, J

    Q. Zhuang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Distributed quantum sensing enhanced by continuous-variable error correction, New J. Phys.22, 022001 (2020)

    2020

  22. [28]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation, New J. Phys.16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  23. [29]

    Kapit, Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quantum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits, Phys

    E. Kapit, Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quantum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 150501 (2016)

    2016

  24. [30]

    Guillaud and M

    J. Guillaud and M. Mirrahimi, Repetition Cat Qubits for Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. X9, 041053 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Lebreuilly, K

    J. Lebreuilly, K. Noh, C.-H. Wang, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Autonomous quantum error correction and quantum computation (2021), arXiv:2103.05007

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    J.-M. Lihm, K. Noh, and U. R. Fischer, Implementation- independent sufficient condition of the Knill-Laflamme type for the autonomous protection of logical qudits by strong engineered dissipation, Phys. Rev. A98, 012317 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Leghtas, G

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-Efficient Autonomous Quantum Memory Protection, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    Kapit, Error-Transparent Quantum Gates for Small Logical Qubit Architectures, Phys

    E. Kapit, Error-Transparent Quantum Gates for Small Logical Qubit Architectures, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050503 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Z. Wang, T. Rajabzadeh, N. Lee, and A. H. Safavi- Naeini, Automated Discovery of Autonomous Quantum Error Correction Schemes, PRX Quantum3, 020302 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Q. Xu, G. Zheng, Y.-X. Wang, P. Zoller, A. A. Clerk, and L. Jiang, Autonomous quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation with squeezed cat qubits, Npj Quantum Inf.9, 78 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    V. V. Albert, S. O. Mundhada, A. Grimm, S. Touzard, M. H. Devoret, and L. Jiang, Pair-cat codes: autonomous error-correction with low-order nonlinearity, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 035007 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    J. M. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction, Nature590, 243 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Phys.16, 509 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Rojkov, D

    I. Rojkov, D. Layden, P. Cappellaro, J. Home, and F. Reiter, Bias in error-corrected quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 140503 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Reiter, A

    F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. Muschik, Dissipative quantum error correction and application to quantum sensing with trapped ions, Nat. Commun.8, 1822 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, Journal of Statistical Physics1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  40. [48]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Petz,Quantum information theory and quantum statistics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    D. Petz,Quantum information theory and quantum statistics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    Ideal") corresponds to the noiseless case. The blue line (labeled “HNLS: O

    The mathematical description of HNLS is ˆH̸∈ span{K[∼1]}. When HNLS is violated, i.e., ˆH∈ span{K[∼1]}, there is no code satisfying both the Knill- Laflamme condition ˆΠC ˆKk ˆΠC =σ k ˆΠC,∀1≤k≤ K[∼c] , where ˆKk ∈K [∼c], as well as ˆΠC ˆH ˆΠC ̸=c ˆΠC, since ˆHconsists of a lin...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.