Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Identification of Phase Plate Properties Using Photonic Quantum Sensor Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A single photon split into an N-mode W state can classify N phase plates as common-phase or random-phase with average error probability $1/(2N)$, while a local single-photon probe cannot beat $1/4$.

desk verdict Sound math and a clean 1/(2N) result for case (i), but the case (ii) asymptotic claim is wrong: the nonlocal error floors at δ²/6, not zero, for fixed δ. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18135 v1 pith:T3BPKPYK submitted 2025-04-25 quant-ph

Yusuke Machida , Hiroki Kuji , Yuichiro Mori , Hideaki Kawaguchi , Takashi Imoto , Yuki Takeuchi , Miku Ishizaki , Yuichiro Matsuzaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P50
keywords quantumsensornetworksdiscrete-variableestimationphaseplateidentificationWstatesingle-photonsensingerrorprobabilitybinaryclassificationdiscrimination
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 asks whether a single photon can tell, in one shot, what kind of phase plates it has passed through: plates that each add an independent random phase, or plates that all add the same phase. The proposed answer uses a nonlocal probe, with the photon split into an $N$-mode W state before hitting the plates. The paper proves that the average error probability of this identification is $1/(2N)$, so it approaches zero as the plate count grows. A sequential local probe, by contrast, has average error probability $1/4$ in the same setting. The paper also treats a harder variant where the two hypotheses differ only by a narrow phase range, and there the nonlocal state again wins, with error going to zero as $N$ grows.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $N$-mode W state, an equal superposition of a single photon over the $N$ optical modes. The protocol uses a projective measurement onto the original W state: after the photon interacts with the phase plates, the state is compared with $|w\rangle$. If all plates impart the same phase, the photon stays in $|w\rangle$ and the projection succeeds; if the plates impart independent random phases, the squared overlap $|\langle w|w_D\rangle|^2$ is the normalized modulus square of a sum of $N$ random unit phasors, which averages to $1/N$. The decision rule identifies the common-phase hypothesis when the projection onto $|w\rangle$ fires, and the random-phase hypothesis otherwise. This overlap measurement is what converts the classification into a coherent sum of phases, and it is the source of the $1/(2N)$ scaling.

What would settle it

Measure the error probability of the nonlocal protocol as a function of $N$ in a photonic setup with a known per-channel loss; if the observed error exceeds $1/(2N)$ by more than statistical uncertainty for large $N$, the ideal-model claim fails. A more direct test inserts a beam splitter with transmission $\eta<1$ into one arm and observes how the projection onto $|w\rangle$ degrades; the measured overlap should match the prediction only when the setup is lossless and perfectly mode-matched.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that, for classifying the statistical property of $N$ phase plates, the choice of probe state determines the achievable discrimination error. When the single photon is local and interacts with the plates one after another, the conditional states under the two hypotheses have an overlap whose squared modulus averages to a cosine of a random alternating sum; averaging over uniform $[0,2\pi]$ phases gives error probability $1/4$. When the photon is first split into the $N$-mode W state $|w\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(|0\cdots 01\rangle + |0\cdots 10\rangle + \cdots + |1\cdots 00\rangle)$, the overlap between the two conditional states is $\left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N e^{i\theta_j}\right|^2$, whose average is $1/N$, giving error probability $1/(2N)$. Since $1/(2N) < 1/4$ for $N>2$ and tends to zero, the nonlocal state gives near-perfect single-shot identification for large $N$. For the narrow-range variant, the local protocol has average error approximately $N\pi^2/(24M^2) + 1/4$, while the nonlocal protocol gives approximately $\frac{1}{2}(\pi^2/(3M^2)(1-1/N) + 1/N)$, again approaching zero as $N$ grows; the paper verifies both formulas numerically for $N$ up to 1000.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume ideal, lossless photonic operations: perfect W-state generation, unit-efficiency phase interaction, and a joint measurement with perfect visibility; if photon loss or mode mismatch leaks information away, the $1/(2N)$ advantage can vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For distinguishing common-phase from uniformly random-phase plates, the average error probability falls as $1/(2N)$, so a single photon can classify almost perfectly when the number of plates is large.
  • For the narrow-range variant, the nonlocal protocol again approaches zero error as $N$ grows, while the local protocol's error remains bounded below by $1/4$ plus a positive term.
  • The method uses only a single photon and a single measurement, making it a candidate for low-light or destructive-environment sensing tasks where repeated probes are costly.
  • The classification task has the same binary-decision structure as the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm's constant-versus-balanced function test, so the result strengthens the connection between quantum sensor networks and quantum-computing classification protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ideal scaling survives realistic loss, the same W-state overlap could be used to estimate the width of the phase distribution rather than only deciding between two hypotheses, since the overlap depends on the empirical mean of $e^{i\theta_j}$.
  • A natural extension is to replace the random-phase ensemble with a fixed but unknown phase pattern; the protocol's error would then depend only on the magnitude of the coherent sum, suggesting a direct way to measure that magnitude.
  • The result hints at a general rule for discrete classification in sensor networks: nonlocal resources help because they turn a classification into a coherent sum of phasors, whereas local sequential strategies wash out the distinguishing information.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers binary hypothesis testing about N phase plates using a single photon in single-rail encoding. In case (i), the two hypotheses are that the plates impart independent phases uniform on [0, 2π] (|D⟩) versus a common phase (|S⟩). In case (ii), the alternative is that the plates impart independent phases uniform on [−δ, δ] with δ = π/M small (|Sim⟩). For each case, the authors derive the average error probability of a local sequential strategy (one photon passing through all plates with bit-flips and SWAPs) and of a nonlocal strategy (one photon in an N-mode W state interacting with all plates in parallel, followed by projection onto the unperturbed W state). The closed-form results are ⟨P_err^{local}⟩ = 1/4 and ⟨P_err^{nonlocal}⟩ = 1/(2N) for case (i); for case (ii), the corresponding averages are approximately Nπ²/(24M²) + 1/4 and (1/2)(π²/(3M²)(1 − 1/N) + 1/N). The paper concludes that the nonlocal state gives more precise identification for large N, and Monte Carlo simulations reproduce the analytical curves.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a clean example of a discrete-variable quantum sensor network task where a single-photon nonlocal probe yields an average error that decreases as 1/N, while the local sequential probe has a nonzero floor 1/4 in case (i). The analytic formulas are parameter-free and verified by 100,000-trial Monte Carlo simulations, which is a concrete strength. The topic connects to Deutsch–Jozsa-type classification and recent work on discrete-outcome QSNs. However, the significance is tempered by three limitations: the case-(ii) asymptotic interpretation is overstated (Eq. (74) saturates at δ²/6 for fixed δ), the resource accounting between sequential and parallel protocols is not stated, and the ideal-lossless assumption is not discussed. These issues are fixable but affect the advertised headline.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B.3, Eq. (74)] The sentence following Eq. (74) states that in the limit of sufficiently large N the nonlocal error 'asymptotically approaches 0.' For fixed δ = π/M, the N→∞ limit of Eq. (74) is π²/(6M²) = δ²/6, not 0. This is consistent with Eq. (73), whose N→∞ limit is 1 − π²/(3M²), so the projective test fails with finite probability even for infinitely many plates. The text should be corrected to say that the error saturates at δ²/6 for fixed δ and approaches zero only when δ is also taken to zero (i.e., M→∞ jointly with N→∞). The nonlocal-vs-local comparison survives, but the 'almost without error' interpretation for case (ii) is currently overstated.
  2. [Section II.A.2–II.A.4 (comparison protocol)] The resource comparison between the local and nonlocal protocols is not normalized. In the local protocol the photon undergoes N sequential interactions, each of duration t (Eqs. (4)–(5) apply exp(−iHt) a total of N times), whereas in the nonlocal protocol the single photon interacts with all N plates in parallel for one duration t (Eq. (20)). The paper compares single-shot error probabilities without stating the resource metric. If total interaction time, number of modes, or parallel-versus-sequential interrogation time is the relevant resource, the comparison should be stated and, where appropriate, the local protocol should be allowed the same total resource before concluding that the nonlocal state is superior.
  3. [Section II (all protocols)] The analysis assumes ideal lossless optics: perfect W-state generation, lossless phase-plate interaction, and a projection measurement with unit visibility. In case (i) the nonlocal error is 1/(2N), so any per-mode loss or imperfect mode matching introduces an error floor that will dominate for large N and may erase the advertised advantage. A quantitative loss model (e.g., amplitude-damping or beam-splitter loss before and after the phase plates) is needed to support the 'almost without error' conclusion for large N. The current text contains no discussion of noise or imperfections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.B.2, around Eq. (45)] The text says 'Eqation (13)'; this should be 'Equation (13)'.
  2. [Section II.B.1 and Eqs. (55)–(74)] The relationship δ = π/M should be stated explicitly before Eq. (55); currently the abstract uses δ and the derivation introduces M without connecting the two notations.
  3. [Section II.A.3] The text says that repeating the beam-splitter procedure m times produces an N = 2^m mode W state, but the numerical comparisons in Figs. 4–6 include N = 3, 5, etc.; please clarify that arbitrary-N W states can be generated or restrict the numerics accordingly.
  4. [Equations (14), (28), (47), (69)] The error probabilities are for the specific projective measurements chosen, not for the Helstrom minimum-error measurement; the conclusion should explicitly state that the advantage is relative to these measurements.
  5. [Section II.A.3, Eq. (30)] The notation ⟨·⟩ is used for both statistical averaging over random phases and quantum expectation; a short clarifying remark at first use would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all error probabilities are derived from the stated priors and phase distributions, with no fitted parameters and no self-citation chain supporting the central claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained analytic calculations. The local-state error probabilities (Eqs. (17) and (57)) and nonlocal-state error probabilities (Eqs. (32) and (74)) are each obtained by writing the relevant overlap, e.g. |<+|ψ>|^2 or |<w|w_D>|^2, and averaging over the declared uniform phase distributions. There is no parameter fitted to data, no prediction that reduces to an input by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior work by overlapping authors is contextual and does not supply the uniqueness or validity of the protocols. The measurements P_S and P_D are chosen as projectors onto the relevant output states, but that is standard binary hypothesis testing rather than circularity. Numerical simulations are used only to verify the analytic averages, not to define them. One non-circular caveat exists: the statement that Eq. (74) approaches 0 as N increases holds only if M also grows; for fixed M (fixed δ), the limit is π^2/(6M^2), which is a correctness or interpretation issue, not a circularity issue. Overall, no circular reasoning is present.

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

No fitted parameters. The only inputs are the prior distributions, the interaction time, and the ideal linear-optics assumption. The analysis is a direct calculation of error probabilities under these priors.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two hypotheses are equally likely (p=1/2) and can be labeled by orthogonal quantum states.
    Bookkeeping device for Bayesian discrimination; used in Eqs. (2), (18), (34), and (58).
  • domain assumption The phases theta_j are independent and uniformly distributed on [0,2pi] for the |D> setup, and on [-pi/M, pi/M] for the |Sim> setup.
    This prior defines the discrimination task and is used to compute averaged error probabilities in Eqs. (17), (30), (55), and (73).
  • domain assumption The single-rail single-photon Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) describes the interaction with the phase plates.
    Standard photonic model used throughout Section II; the paper does not derive it from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption Beam splitter networks can create and measure N-mode W states with unit efficiency.
    Needed for the nonlocal protocol's state preparation and the projection measurement in Eqs. (19), (26), and (67).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of Phase Plate Properties Using Photonic Quantum Sensor Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3BPKPYK

@misc{pith2026250418135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of Phase Plate Properties Using Photonic Quantum Sensor Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3BPKPYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18135}
}
abstract

Quantum sensor networks (QSNs) have been widely studied for their potential of precise measurements. While most QSN research has focused on estimating continuous variables, recent studies have explored discrete-variable estimation. Here, we propose a method for high-precision identification of phase plate properties using a photon-based QSN, which is categorized as discrete-variable estimation. We consider an interaction of a single photon with $N$ phase plates. There are some distinct properties of the phase plates, and we aim to identify such properties. Specifically, we investigate two cases: (i) distinguishing between phase plates that impart uniformly random phases in the range $[0, 2\pi]$ and those that impart the same phase, and (ii) distinguishing between phase plates that impart uniformly random phases in $[0, 2\pi]$ and those that impart phases within a narrower range $[- \delta, \delta]$ ($0< \delta \ll 1$). For this distinction, we consider two approaches: one in which a single photon is prepared in a nonlocal state before interacting with the phase plates, and the other in which the single photon remains in a local state. Our results demonstrate that the nonlocal state enables more precise identification when $N$ is large.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. In our setup, there are some distinct properties of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A single photon is initially prepared in a local state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A single photon is initially prepared in a nonlocal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The plot shows the error probabilities for both the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The plot shows the error probabilities for both the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For simplic- ity, we assume that N is even and adopt the single-rail (a) (b) Phase Plate FIG

    setup We consider a system consisting ofN phase plates and the optical modes that interact with them. For simplic- ity, we assume that N is even and adopt the single-rail (a) (b) Phase Plate FIG. 1. In our setup, there are some distinct properties of the phase plates where we aim to identify the properties. Specif- ically, we consider two cases. In the fi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A single photon interacts with a phase plate, and subse- quently, a quantum bit-flip operation is applied

    Interaction of a Local Single-Photon State with N Phase Plates First, we analyze the case where a single photon in a local state interacts with phase plates (see Fig.2). A single photon interacts with a phase plate, and subse- quently, a quantum bit-flip operation is applied. This process is repeated multiple times. As described later, in this method, if ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Interaction of a nonlocal Single-Photon State with N Phase Plates Next, we consider the case where a single photon in a nonlocal state is used (see Fig.3). Specifically, the same Hamiltonian described in II A 2 (Equation (1)) is used, but the initial state ρ(nonlocal) 0 is defined as follows: ρ(nonlocal) 0 =|ψ0⟩⟨ψ0|⊗ 1 2|D⟩⟨ D| + 1 2|S⟩⟨ S| , (18) |ψ0⟩ = ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (17) This result indicates that the average of the error prob- ability cannot be reduced below 1 /4 in the case of the local states

    work page

  5. [5]

    Comparison 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 number of phase plates 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250error probability local nonlocal(ana) nonlocal(num) FIG. 4. The plot shows the error probabilities for both the local and nonlocal states. The number of phase plates con- sidered ranges from 2 to 10, with t = 1. For the nonlocal state, the error proba...

    work page

  6. [6]

    P. Kok, J. Dunningham, and J. F. Ralph, Role of en- tanglement in calibrating optical quantum gyroscopes, Physical Review A 95, 012326 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    We denote the state of the phase plates in the first case as |D⟩ (Different), and in the second case as|Sim⟩ (Similar)

    setup Furthermore, we consider the task of identifying phase plates in a single measurement, distinguishing between two cases: the phase plates impart uniformly random phases over the range [0, 2π], and the phases imparted by the phase plates are non-uniform but with a sufficiently small range of variation, smaller than 1 (Fig.1(b)). We denote the state o...

    work page

  8. [8]

    A single photon interacts with one phase plate and then undergoes a quantum bit-flip operation

    Interaction of a local Single-Photon State with N Phase Plates First, we analyze the case where a single photon in a local state interacts with phase plates (see Fig 2). A single photon interacts with one phase plate and then undergoes a quantum bit-flip operation. This process is repeated multiple times. The Hamiltonian of the system is defined as follow...

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    (51) Similarly, the calculation of|⟨+|ψ′⟩|2 is given as follows: |⟨+|ψ′⟩|2 = 1 2(1 + cosϕ) (52) ≃ 1− 1 4ϕ2, (53) where ϕ is defined as: ϕ = (θ′ 1−θ′

  2. [10]

    When there are two phase plates, no significant difference in the error probabilities is observed

    The plotted results show the statistical averages of the error probabilities for the nonlocal state of numerical results (Equation (28)), the nonlocal state of analytical solution (Equation (32)), and the local state (Equation (17)). When there are two phase plates, no signifi...

  3. [11]

    (55) Here, θ′ 1,θ′ 2··· and θ′ N are assumed to be uniformly dis- tributed within [− π M, π M ], and M is assumed to be much larger than 1

    +··· + (θ′ N−1−θ′ N), (54) and the statistical average of ϕ2 is given as: ⟨ϕ2⟩ = N 3 π2 M 2. (55) Here, θ′ 1,θ′ 2··· and θ′ N are assumed to be uniformly dis- tributed within [− π M, π M ], and M is assumed to be much larger than 1. The statistical average of |⟨+|ψ′⟩|2 is then...

  4. [12]

    (57) Consequently, it can be concluded that in the case of the local states, the average of the error probability can- not be smaller than 1/4

  5. [13]

    The same Hamiltonian as in the local state case (Equation (33)) is employed

    Interaction of a nonlocal Single-Photon State with N Phase Plates We consider the case of using single photons in a non- local state (see Fig 3). The same Hamiltonian as in the local state case (Equation (33)) is employed. The initial state ˜ρ(nonlocal) 0 is defined as follows...

  6. [14]

    Comparison We compare the use of single photons in nonlocal states versus local states when interacting with phase plates. Fig.5 and Fig.6 illustrate the relationship between the 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 number of phase plates 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250e...

  7. [15]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of modern physics 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement, Physical Review Letters 79, 3865 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maxi- mally correlated states, Physical Review A 54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quan- tum noise in spectroscopy, Physical Review A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four-entangled photons, Science 316, 726 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2011

  13. [21]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. Zibrov, et al. , Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond, Nature 455, 644 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al-Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hemmer, A. Krueger, et al. , Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient conditions, Nature 455, 648 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 015004 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Schaffry, E

    M. Schaffry, E. M. Gauger, J. J. Morton, and S. C. Ben- jamin, Proposed spin amplification for magnetic sensors employing crystal defects, Physical review letters 107, 207210 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Maletinsky, S

    P. Maletinsky, S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, B. Hausmann, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, M. Loncar, and A. Ya- coby, A robust scanning diamond sensor for nanoscale imaging with single nitrogen-vacancy centres, Nature nanotechnology 7, 320 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Quantum metrology and its application in biology, Physics Reports 615, 1 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum metrology, AVS Quantum Science 2 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    C. Zhan, H. Gupta, and M. Hillery, Optimizing initial state of detector sensors in quantum sensor networks, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 5, 1 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    A. Zang, A. Kolar, A. Gonzales, J. Chung, S. K. Gray, R. Kettimuthu, T. Zhong, and Z. H. Saleem, Quantum advantage in distributed sensing with noisy quantum net- works, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17089 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. F. Ralph, P. Kok, and J. A. Dunningham, Local versus global strategies in multiparameter estimation, Physical Review A 94, 062312 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Physical review letters 111, 070403 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Takeuchi, Y

    Y. Takeuchi, Y. Matsuzaki, K. Miyanishi, T. Sugiyama, and W. J. Munro, Quantum remote sensing with asym- metric information gain, Physical Review A 99, 022325 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. Bate, A. Hamann, M. Canteri, A. Winkler, Z. X. Koong, V. Krutyanskiy, W. D¨ ur, and B. P. Lanyon, Ex- perimental distributed quantum sensing in a noisy envi- ronment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08940 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    K. Qian, Z. Eldredge, W. Ge, G. Pagano, C. Monroe, J. V. Porto, and A. V. Gorshkov, Heisenberg-scaling mea- surement protocol for analytic functions with quantum sensor networks, Physical Review A 100, 042304 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Bringewatt, I

    J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Niroula, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Protocols for estimating multiple func- tions with quantum sensor networks: Geometry and per- formance, Physical Review Research 3, 033011 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Shettell and D

    N. Shettell and D. Markham, Graph states as a re- source for quantum metrology, Physical review letters 124, 110502 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal and secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Physical Review A 97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Okane, H

    H. Okane, H. Hakoshima, Y. Takeuchi, Y. Seki, and Y. Matsuzaki, Quantum remote sensing under the effect of dephasing, Physical Review A 104, 062610 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Kasai, Y

    H. Kasai, Y. Takeuchi, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokura, Di- rect moment estimation of intensity distribution of mag- netic fields with quantum sensing network, New Journal of Physics 26, 123013 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Kasai, Y

    H. Kasai, Y. Takeuchi, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokura, Anonymous quantum sensing, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 91, 074005 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    P. Yin, Y. Takeuchi, W.-H. Zhang, Z.-Q. Yin, Y. Mat- suzaki, X.-X. Peng, X.-Y. Xu, J.-S. Xu, J.-S. Tang, Z.-Q. Zhou, et al., Experimental demonstration of secure quan- tum remote sensing, Physical Review Applied14, 014065 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Liu, Y.-Z

    L.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, Y.-Y. Fei, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, et al. , Distributed quantum phase estimation with entangled photons, Nature photonics 15, 137 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Rubio, P

    J. Rubio, P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, and J. A. Dun- ningham, Quantum sensing networks for the estimation of linear functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 344001 (2020). 11

    2020

  36. [44]

    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, Nature Physics 10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Hillery, H

    M. Hillery, H. Gupta, and C. Zhan, Discrete out- come quantum sensor networks, Physical Review A 107, 012435 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Ali and M

    N. Ali and M. Hillery, Discrete-outcome sensor net- works. ii. multiple detection events and grouping detec- tors, Physical Review A 110, 012619 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Lee and J

    H.-W. Lee and J. Kim, Quantum teleportation and bell’s inequality using single-particle entanglement, Physical Review A 63, 012305 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Lund and T

    A. Lund and T. Ralph, Nondeterministic gates for pho- tonic single-rail quantum logic, Physical Review A 66, 032307 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Drahi, D

    D. Drahi, D. V. Sychev, K. K. Pirov, E. A. Sazhina, V. A. Novikov, I. A. Walmsley, and A. Lvovsky, Entangled re- source for interfacing single-and dual-rail optical qubits, Quantum 5, 416 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    S. M. Barnett, Introduction to quantum information, Quantum Optics and Nanophotonics 101, 1 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of Statistical Physics 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  44. [52]

    C. W. Helstrom, Detection theory and quantum mechan- ics, Information and Control 10, 254 (1967)

    1967

  45. [53]

    Maleki and M

    Y. Maleki and M. S. Zubairy, Distributed phase estima- tion and networked quantum sensors with w-type quan- tum probes, Physical Review A 105, 032428 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Deutsch and R

    D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 439, 553 (1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    Arrasmith, R

    A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al. , Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitiga- tion, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al. , Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Wang and J

    Y. Wang and J. Liu, A comprehensive review of quantum machine learning: from nisq to fault tolerance, Reports on Progress in Physics (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Physical Review A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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