Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Multiple phase estimation with photon-added multi-mode coherent states of GHZ-type

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photon-added GHZ-type coherent states can estimate multiple phases at once with precision that beats estimating each phase separately.

desk verdict The independent-estimation part is credible, but the simultaneous QFIM is miscomputed: Eq. (36) assigns PACS moments to ordinary coherent modes and drops off-diagonal covariances, so the paper's headline QCRBs do not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10161 v1 pith:RTD2ZKCG submitted 2025-05-15 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Hanan Saidi , Abdallah Slaoui , Hanane El Hadfi , Rachid Ahl Laamara This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords multiparameterquantummetrologyphoton-addedcoherentstatesGHZ-typeCramér-RaoboundsimultaneousvsindependentestimationnonlinearphasehomodynedetectionNOON
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 argues that a class of multi-mode optical probes—Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-type coherent states in which one mode carries $n$ added photons while $d$ other modes are ordinary coherent states—can estimate several phase shifts simultaneously with precision that surpasses estimating each phase on its own. It derives closed-form quantum Cramér\-Rao bounds for three strategies: independent estimation, simultaneous linear phase shifts, and simultaneous nonlinear phase shifts. The claimed result is that simultaneous estimation wins, the nonlinear protocol wins among simultaneous ones, and precision improves as the coherent amplitude $|\alpha|^2$ and the photon-excitation number $n$ grow while the number of estimated parameters $d$ shrinks. Along the way the paper compares these photon-added GHZ states with NOON states and entangled coherent states, finding the photon-added GHZ states give the tightest bounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon-added multi-mode coherent state of GHZ type: one reference mode prepared in a photon-added coherent state $|\alpha,n\rangle$, obtained by applying the creation operator $n$ times to a coherent state, entangled with $d$ ordinary coherent modes $|\alpha\rangle$ and their sign-flipped counterparts $|-\alpha\rangle$. The argument runs through the quantum Fisher information matrix of a pure state under commuting local phase generators $H_p$, which becomes $F_{pq} = 4(\langle H_p H_q\rangle - \langle H_p\rangle\langle H_q\rangle)$. Because all generators commute and act locally, the paper writes $F$ as a diagonal term plus a rank-one term proportional to the all-ones matrix, and inverts that structure to obtain the $d(\sqrt{d}+1)^2$ factor. The quantities $g$, $h$, $r$, and $s$ encode the photon statistics through Laguerre polynomials $L_n$, and their ratios control the resulting precision bounds.

What would settle it

Evaluate the normalized state of Eq. (34) for $n=1$, $d=2$ and compute the $2\times 2$ quantum Fisher information matrix by direct differentiation without imposing equal moments; if $\mathrm{Tr}(F^{-1})$ differs from Eq. (40) at any value of $|\alpha|^2$, the central bound is not exact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for the probe state $|\Psi_s\rangle = \mathcal{N}_l(\alpha,n,d)[|\alpha,n\rangle_0 \otimes_{i=1}^d |\alpha\rangle_i + e^{il\pi}|-\alpha,n\rangle_0 \otimes_{i=1}^d |-\alpha\rangle_i]$, the quantum Fisher information matrix for simultaneous estimation has the structure $F = 4 b g (I - (b h^2/g) \mathbb{1})$, where $b$, $g$, and $h$ are functions built from Laguerre polynomials. Inverting this matrix gives the total variance bounds $|\delta\varphi|^2_L = d(\sqrt{d}+1)^2 h^2/(4g^2)$ for the linear generators $H_p = a_p^\dagger a_p$ and $|\delta\varphi|^2_{NL} = d(\sqrt{d}+1)^2 s^2/(4r^2)$ for the nonlinear generators $(a_p^\dagger a_p)^2$. The paper's main conclusion is that these simultaneous bounds are lower than the independent-estimation bound $|\delta\varphi|^2_{\mathrm{Ind}} = d/F$, especially in the nonlinear protocol; that precision improves as $|\alpha|^2$ and $n$ increase and as $d$ decreases; and that among the states compared, the photon-added GHZ-type states yield the highest precision.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the simultaneous bounds assumes that all $d+1$ modes contribute identical first and second moments of the phase generators, even though only mode 0 carries the $n$ added photons; if those moments are unequal, the closed-form Fisher-matrix structure and the $d(\sqrt{d}+1)^2$ variance formula do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simultaneous estimation with these states beats independent estimation in the linear protocol, and the gap becomes much larger in the nonlinear protocol, where the bounds drop to scales around $10^{-3}$.
  • Adding photons to the reference mode acts as a metrological resource: at fixed coherent amplitude, larger $n$ lowers the Cramér\-Rao bound in all three protocols.
  • For large coherent amplitudes $|\alpha|^2$, the linear and nonlinear bounds become comparable and the total average photon number approaches $|\alpha|^2 - 1$, placing the states near the Heisenberg limit.
  • Homodyne detection is close to the quantum limit for intense coherent states, but is less effective than optimal linear estimation for small amplitudes and for many estimated parameters.
  • Among the states compared in the paper, photon-added GHZ-type states give the lowest Quantum Cramér\-Rao bound, with the antisymmetric version slightly better at large photon-excitation numbers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would expect the $d(\sqrt{d}+1)^2$ factor to be inherited from the NOON-style multi-mode superposition rather than from the photon-added modification, with added photons mainly rescaling the ratios $h/g$ and $s/r$; a direct numerical inversion of the exact Fisher matrix for $d=2, n=1$ could separate these two contributions.
  • A resource-fair comparison would fix the total mean photon number across PACS-GHZ, NOON, and entangled coherent states, since adding $n$ photons raises the resource count and may account for part of the reported advantage.
  • The homodyne approximations suggest a concrete experimental route: prepare single-photon-added coherent states, imprint $d$ small phase shifts, and test whether the variance scales as predicted with $n$, $\alpha$, and $d$ in the small- and large-amplitude regimes.
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 studies multiparameter phase estimation with GHZ-type photon-added coherent states (PACS). It derives quantum Cramér-Rao bounds for independent estimation (Sec. 3.1), simultaneous linear and non-linear estimation (Sec. 3.2), compares the results with NOON and entangled-coherent states (Sec. 4), and analyzes homodyne detection (Sec. 5). The central quantitative claims are that simultaneous estimation outperforms independent estimation and that PACS-based GHZ states achieve the highest precision, especially as the photon-excitation number n increases. These claims rest on the simultaneous quantum Fisher information matrix in Eqs. (36)-(39) and the total-variance formulas in Eqs. (40)-(41).

Significance. If the bounds in Eqs. (40)-(41) were correct, the paper would provide a useful extension of multiparameter optical metrology to photon-added coherent states and a concrete comparison with existing NOON and ECS results. The state construction is natural, the independent-estimation expressions in Sec. 3.1 are explicit, and the paper addresses three different protocols, which is a useful framing. However, the central simultaneous-estimation result is not established: the QFIM is computed from moments that do not correspond to the actual probe state, and the final variance formulas do not follow from the matrix that is inverted. Because the abstract and the conclusions draw their main message from these formulas, the paper in its current form does not support its advertised conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Eqs. (36)-(39)] The QFIM is not a property of the probe state in Eq. (34). In that state, mode 0 is a photon-added coherent state and modes 1,...,d are ordinary coherent states, but the moments in Eqs. (36)-(37) are n-dependent PACS moments and are used as if they applied to every mode. For H_p = a†_p a_p with p = 1,...,d, a direct calculation gives, writing x=|α|² and S = cos(lπ)e^{-2(d+1)x} L_n(x)/L_n(-x) with 2N_l² = 1/(1+S): ⟨H_p⟩ = x(1-S)/(1+S), ⟨H_p²⟩ = x² + x(1-S)/(1+S), and ⟨H_p H_q⟩ = x² for p≠q. These expressions do not have the structure ⟨H_p H_q⟩ = δ_pq b g and ⟨H_p⟩ = b h with b,g,h given by Eq. (37); in particular, the branch-overlap factor in Eq. (37) is e^{-2d|α|²}, whereas the normalization in Eq. (35) and the true branch overlap require e^{-2(d+1)|α|²}. Thus Eq. (38) assigns PACS-mode moments to the coherent modes and omits the nonzero off-diagonal second moments, so the inversion leading to Eq. (40) is not a consequence of the defined state.
  2. [3.2, Eqs. (40)-(41)] Even accepting Eq. (38), the total-variance formula (40) does not follow. With F = 4bg(I - aJ), a = bh²/g, the inverse has eigenvalues 1/[4bg(1-ad)] and 1/(4bg) (multiplicity d-1), so Tr(F^{-1}) = d[1 - a(d-1)]/[4bg(1-ad)]. This is not equal to d(√d+1)²h²/(4g²) for the quantities defined in Eq. (37). The prefactor d(√d+1)² is the known NOON-state result from Ref. [48] and appears here without derivation; Eq. (41) inherits the same problem. A concrete consistency check is d=1: for n=0 and large |α|², Eq. (40) gives |δφ|² ≈ 1/|α|^4, whereas the exact single-parameter QFI for a phase shift on a coherent mode is 4|α|², giving a bound at most 1/(4|α|²). Equation (40) is therefore not only underived but numerically incompatible with the single-parameter limit.
  3. [5, Eq. (43)] The output state written for the linear protocol is not the result of the d-parameter unitary U = exp(i Σ_{p=1}^d H_p φ_p). Equation (43) contains a single phase φ applied only to the PACS mode, |α e^{iφ}, n⟩_0, while all d coherent modes remain unshifted. This is a one-parameter phase shift, not a simultaneous d-parameter encoding. Consequently, the homodyne probability distribution in Eq. (47) and the variance approximations in Eqs. (49)-(50) do not describe the multiparameter simultaneous estimation problem analyzed in Sec. 3.2, and the comparison made in Sec. 5 is not with the protocol claimed in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.1, Eq. (19)] The Laguerre polynomial is written as L_n = Σ ... x^k ... with no argument on the left-hand side; it should be L_n(x). In addition, the text says 'order m' but the subscript is n.
  2. [2.1, Eq. (21)] The line 'a α = |α|e^{iϕ}' should read α = |α|e^{iϕ}, and the denominator '(i)2' in the overlap sum should be '(i!)²'.
  3. [3.2, Eq. (39)] The same symbol I is used for both the identity matrix and the all-ones matrix; the latter should be denoted by J or a calligraphic symbol to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure captions, Figs. 2 and 3] The captions for Figures 2 and 3 contain duplicated or mismatched panel labels; for example, Figure 2 lists '(b) d=5 and l=1' and then '(b)|α|²=4 and n=1', and Figure 3 similarly mislabels panel (d).
  5. [4, resource comparison] The comparison with NOON and ECS states should state the resource constraint explicitly. If the total photon number N̄ is not fixed across the states being compared, the claim that PACS-based GHZ states offer 'maximum precision' for larger n may be a trivial consequence of using more photons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QCRB computation is attempted from stated probe states and the standard QFIM formula, and the suspected issues are derivation gaps, not input-output equivalences.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then rename it a prediction. Its central objects are the probe state in Eq. (34), the standard pure-state QFIM expression in Eq. (15), and analytically asserted moments in Eqs. (36)-(37); the advertised bounds in Eqs. (40)-(41) are supposed to follow from inverting the QFIM in Eqs. (38)-(39). No step in this chain is circular in the sense of defining an input in terms of the claimed output. The comparison bounds for NOON and ECS states are imported from independent published work, Refs. [48] and [55], and are used as external benchmarks rather than as the justification for the paper's own formulas. The authors' self-citations appear in background statements about multiparameter estimation and in prior technical context; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for the central derivation. The reviewer's concern that Eq. (36) may assign mode-0 PACS moments to the ordinary coherent probe modes, and that the d(√d+1)^2 prefactor in Eq. (40) may not follow from inverting Eq. (39), is a mathematical correctness or missing-derivation issue: the equations are asserted rather than derived consistently, but they are not true by construction and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. For those reasons, the paper's central claim is not circular; any defect belongs to correctness risk, not to circularity analysis.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; α, n, d are controllable probe and protocol parameters. The load-bearing assumptions are the unproved QFIM structure and the NOON-style total-variance formula, not new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Pure-state QFI matrix formula F_pq = 4 Re(⟨∂pψ|∂qψ⟩ - ⟨∂pψ|ψ⟩⟨ψ|∂qψ⟩) and its saturability for commuting local Hamiltonians.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 (Eq. 6) and Sec. 2.2 (Eqs. 12-15); this is standard quantum estimation theory.
  • standard math Laguerre polynomial identities for PACS normalization and moments, especially ⟨α|(a⁻)ⁿ(a⁺)ⁿ|α⟩ = n!L_n(-|α|²).
    Used throughout Sec. 3 to express b, g, h, r, s; standard in the photon-added coherent state literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The d+1-mode state is permutation-symmetric in all modes for the purpose of the QFIM, so every diagonal F entry is b g and every off-diagonal entry is -b² h².
    The state (34) has the PACS only in mode 0, so this assumption fails for n>0; the simultaneous QFIM (Eqs. 38-39) depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The total simultaneous-variance bound is d(√d+1)² h²/(4g²) for linear and d(√d+1)² s²/(4r²) for nonlinear protocols.
    Stated in Eqs. (40)-(41) after 'some calculations' but not derived from the inverse of Eq. (39); it appears imported from the NOON-state result of ref. [48].
  • ad hoc to paper For homodyne detection, projecting all modes onto the same quadrature value p and using first-order expansion in φ gives the variance approximations (49)-(50).
    Sec. 5 uses this nonstandard postselection and truncation without justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple phase estimation with photon-added multi-mode coherent states of GHZ-type." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTD2ZKCG

@misc{pith2026250510161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple phase estimation with photon-added multi-mode coherent states of GHZ-type},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTD2ZKCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10161}
}
abstract

This paper explores multiparameter quantum metrology using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ)-type photon-added coherent states (PACS) and investigates both independent and simultaneous parameter estimation with linear and non-linear protocols, highlighting the significant potential of quantum resources to enhance precision in multiparameter scenarios. To provide a comprehensive analysis, we explicitly derive analytical expressions for the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound (QCRB) for each protocol. Additionally, we compare the two estimation strategies, examining the behavior of their QCRBs and offering insights into the advantages and limitations of these quantum states in various contexts. Our results show that simultaneous estimation generally outperforms independent estimation, particularly in non-linear protocols. Furthermore, we analyze how the QCRB varies with the coherent state amplitude $|\alpha|^2$, the number of estimated parameters $d$, and the photon excitation order $n$ across three protocols. The results indicate that increasing $|\alpha|^2$ and decreasing $d$ improves estimation precision. For low $n$, the variation in the QCRB is similar for both symmetric and antisymmetric cases; however, at higher $n$, the antisymmetric case exhibits slightly better precision. The dependence on $d$ is comparable for both types of states. We also compare PACS-based GHZ states with NOON states and entangled coherent states, demonstrating the relative performance of each. Finally, we conclude with an analysis of homodyne detection in the context of a linear protocol, discussing its impact on estimation accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variation of |δφ| 2 Ind versus the parameters |α| 2 and d for various values of photon excitation number n. (a) d=5 and l=0, (b) d=5 and l=1, (c) |α| 2=4 and l=0. (b) |α| 2=4 and l=1. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) depict the scenario of independent estimation that involves the amplitude of the coherent Glauber states |α| 2 . This applies to symmetric cases (l = 0) and antisymmetric cases (l = 1). These figures show that… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The variation of |δφ| 2 L versus the parameters |α| 2 and d for various values of photon excitation number n. (a) d=5 and l=0, (b) d=5 and l=1, (c) |α| 2=4 and l=0. (b) |α| 2=4 and n=1. For simultaneous estimation, particularly in the case of linear parameterization (as illustrated in Figures 2), the bound |δφ| 2 L decreases exponentially as both the amplitude |α| 2 and the parameter n increase, indicating an improv… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The variation of |δφ| 2 NL versus the parameters |α| 2 and d for various values of photon excitation number n. (a) d=5 and l=0, (b) d=5 and l=1, (c) |α| 2=4 and n=0. (b) |α| 2=4 and l=1. As a result, when comparing the limits |δφ| 2 Ind, |δφ| 2 L , and |δφ| 2 NL, it is evident that simultaneous estimation consistently outperforms independent estimation for the same state. When considering the limits |δφ| 2 L and |δφ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The variation of |δφ| 2 Ind, |δφ| 2 L , and |δφ| 2 NL as a function of the amplitude |α| 2 with the total parameter number is set to d = 5 here. a.) Represent the entangled coherent state ECS. b.) Represent the case of the NOON states. When comparing the latest results…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The variation of |δφ| 2 Ind, |δφ| 2 L , and |δφ| 2 NL as a function of the amplitude d with the amplitude is set to |α| 2 = 4 here. c.) Represent the case of an entangled coherent state ECS. d.) Represent the case of the NOON states. If we increase n to 10 and |α| 2 to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [55]

    J. Liu, X. M. Lu, Z. Sun, & X. Wang . Quantum multiparameter metrology with generalized entangled coherent state. J. Phys. A: Math. Theo., 49(2016), 115302

    work page 2016

  2. [48]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett, 111 (2013) 070403

    work page 2013

  3. [1]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys, 1 (1969) 231-252

    work page 1969

  4. [2]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quant. Infor, 7 (2009)125-137

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science, 306 (2004) 1330

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology. Nature photonics, 5 (2011), 222-229

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Friis, D

    N. Friis, D. Orsucci, M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur. Flexible resources for quantum metrology. New Journal of Physics, 19 (2017), 063044

    work page 2017

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Abdellaoui, N

    M. Abdellaoui, N. E. Abouelkhir, A. Slaoui, and R. Ahl Laamara, Quantum phase estimation and realistic detection schemes in Mach-Zehnder interferometer using SU (2) coherent states. Phys. Lett. A. 522 (2024), 129786

    2024

  2. [9]

    Saidi, H

    H. Saidi, H. El Hadfi, A. Slaoui, and R. Ahl Laamara, Achieving quantum metrological performance and exact Heisenberg limit precision through superposition of s-spin coherent states. Eur. Phys. J. D. 78 (2024), 97

    2024

  3. [10]

    N. E. Abouelkhir, A. Slaoui, H. El Hadfi, and R. Ahl Laamara, Estimating purity and mixing parameter of the initial state for Tavis–Cumming and dephasing models in multiparameter metrological schemes. Eur. Phys. J. Plus. 139 (2024), 712

    2024

  4. [11]

    Przysiezna, M

    A. Przysiezna, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki. Quantum metrology: Heisenberg limit with bound entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 92 (2015), 062303

    2015

  5. [12]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D, 23 (1981), 1693

    1981

  6. [13]

    N. E. Abouelkhir, A. Slaoui, H. El Hadfi, and R. Ahl Laamara, A simple analytical expression of quantum Fisher and Skew information and their dynamics under decoherence channels. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 612 (2023), 128479

    2023

  7. [14]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, A. Sanpera. Individual quantum probes for optimal thermometry. Phys. Rev. lett., 114 (2015), 220405

    2015

  8. [15]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, X. M. Lu. Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources. Phys. Rev. X, 6 (2016), 031033

    2016

  9. [16]

    Y. L. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Jing, L. Z. Mu, H. Fan. Fitting magnetic field gradient with Heisenberg-scaling accuracy. Scientific reports, 4 (2014), 7390

    2014

  10. [17]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limi, Nature Phys, 7 (2011) 962

    2011

  11. [18]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A, 54 (1996) R4649

    1996

  12. [19]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum limits in optical interferometry, Prog. Opt, 60 (2015) 345

    2015

  13. [20]

    Slaoui, B

    A. Slaoui, B. Amghar, and R. Ahl Laamara, Interferometric phase estimation and quantum resource dynamics in Bell coherent-state superpositions generated via a unitary beam splitter. Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 40 (2023), 2013-2027

    2023

  14. [21]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A, 46 (1992) R6797. 12

    1992

  15. [22]

    A. S. Holevo, probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  16. [23]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Generalized uncertainty relations: theory, examples, and Lorentz invariance, Ann. of Phys, 247 (1996) 135-173

    1996

  17. [24]

    Slaoui, M

    A. Slaoui, M. Daoud, and R. A. Laamara, The dynamics of local quantum uncertainty and trace distance discord for two-qubit X states under decoherence: a comparative study, Quantum Inf. Process, 17 (2018) 178

    2018

  18. [25]

    Dakir, A

    Y. Dakir, A. Slaoui, A. B. A. Mohamed, R. A. Laamara and H. Eleuch, Quantum teleportation and dynamics of quantum coherence and metrological non-classical correlations for open two-qubit systems, Sci Rep, 13 (2023) 20526

    2023

  19. [26]

    C. C. Gerry, R. A. Campos. Generation of maximally entangled photonic states with a quantum-optical Fredkin gate. Phys. Rev. A, 64 (2001), 063814

    2001

  20. [27]

    M. N. Bera. Role of quantum correlation in metrology beyond standard quantum limit. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1405.5357, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    S. Choi, N. Y. Yao, M. D. Lukin. Quantum metrology based on strongly correlated matter. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00042,(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    K. Modi, H. Cable, M. Williamson, V. Vedral. Quantum correlations in mixed-state metrology. Phys. Rev. X, 1 (2011), 021022

    2011

  23. [30]

    A. Sone, Q. Zhuang, C. Li, Y. X. Liu, P. Cappellaro. Nonclassical correlations for quantum metrology in thermal equilibrium. Phys. Rev. A, 99 (2019), 052318

    2019

  24. [31]

    G. Y. Xiang, G. C. Guo. Quantum metrology. Chinese Phys. B, 22 (2013), 110601

    2013

  25. [32]

    T´ oth and I

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

    2014

  26. [33]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Multi-parameter quantum metrology, Advances in Physics X, 1 (2016) 621-639

    2016

  27. [34]

    M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum-enhanced multipa- rameter estimation in multiarm interferometers, Sci Rep, 6 (2016) 28881

    2016

  28. [35]

    T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett, 120 (2018) 080501

    2018

  29. [36]

    Yousefjani, R

    R. Yousefjani, R. Nichols, S. Salimi, G. Adesso. Estimating phase with a random generator: Strategies and resources in multiparameter quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. A, 95 (2017), 062307

    2017

  30. [37]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski. Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. A, 94 (2016), 052108

    2016

  31. [38]

    A. Z. Goldberg, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, H. Ferretti. Intrinsic sensitivity limits for multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127 (2021), 110501

    2021

  32. [39]

    Nichols, P

    R. Nichols, P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, P. A. Knott, G. Adesso. Multiparameter Gaussian quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. A, 98 (2018), 012114

    2018

  33. [40]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X. M. Lu, X. Wang. Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 53 (2020), 023001

    2020

  34. [41]

    J. Liu, X. X. Jing., X. Wang. Quantum metrology with unitary parametrization processes. Scientific reports, 5 (2015), 8565

    2015

  35. [42]

    Albarelli, and R

    F. Albarelli, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Probe incompatibility in multiparameter noisy quantum metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. X, 12 (2022) 011039

    2022

  36. [43]

    Ikken, A

    N. Ikken, A. Slaoui, R. Ahl Laamara and L. B. Drissi, Bidirectional quantum teleportation of even and odd coherent states through the multipartite Glauber coherent state: theory and implementation, Quantum Inf Process, 22 (2023) 391. 13

    2023

  37. [44]

    Liu and H

    J. Liu and H. Yuan, Control-enhanced multiparameter quantum estimation, Phys. Rev. A, 96 (2017) 042114

    2017

  38. [45]

    Fujiwara, Estimation of SU(2) operation and dense coding: An information geometric approach, Phys

    A. Fujiwara, Estimation of SU(2) operation and dense coding: An information geometric approach, Phys. Rev. A, 65 (2001) 012316

    2001

  39. [46]

    Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cram´ er-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J

    K. Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cram´ er-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 35 (2002) 3111

    2002

  40. [47]

    Abouelkhir, A

    N.-E. Abouelkhir, A. Slaoui, H. El Hadfi, and R. Ahl Laamara, Estimating phase parameters of a three- level system interacting with two classical monochromatic fields in simultaneous and individual metrological strategies, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 40 (2023) 1599-1610

    2023

  41. [49]

    J. D. Yue, Y. R. Zhang, H. Fan. Quantum-enhanced metrology for multiple phase estimation with noise. Scientific reports, 4 (2014), 5933

    2014

  42. [50]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, D. Braun. Quantum parameter estimation using general single-mode Gaussian states. Phys. Rev. A, 88 (2013), 040102

    2013

  43. [51]

    Y. Yao, L. Ge, X. Xiao, X. G. Wang, C. P. Sun. Multiple phase estimation in quantum cloning machines. Phys. Rev. A, 90 (2014), 022327

    2014

  44. [52]

    Y. Yao, L. Ge, X. Xiao, X. G. Wang, C. P. Sun. Multiple phase estimation for arbitrary pure states under white noise. Phys. Rev. A, 90 (2014), 062113

    2014

  45. [53]

    M. D. Lang, C. M. Caves. Optimal quantum-enhanced interferometry. Phys. Rev. A, 90 (2014), 025802

    2014

  46. [54]

    B. C. Sanders, Review of entangled coherent states. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45 (2012), 244002

    2012

  47. [56]

    J. Joo, K. Park, H. Jeong, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. P. Spiller, Quantum metrology for nonlinear phase shifts with entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. A, 86 (2012) 043828

    2012

  48. [57]

    X. X. Jing, J. Liu, W. Zhong and X. G. Wang, Quantum fisher information of entangled coherent states in a lossy mach—zehnder interferometer, Commun. Theor. Phys, 61 (2014) 115

    2014

  49. [58]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro and T. P. Spiller, Quantum metrology with entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett, 107 (2011) 083601

    2011

  50. [59]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne and H. Weinfurter, Quest for GHZ states, Acta Physica Polonica A, 93 (1998)187-195

    1998

  51. [60]

    D’Hondt and P

    E. D’Hondt and P. Panangaden, The computational power of the W and GHZ states, arXiv preprint quant- ph/0412177, (2004)

    2004

  52. [61]

    C. C. Gerry, Proposal for a mesoscopic cavity QED realization of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state, Phys. Rev. A, 54 (1996) R2529

    1996

  53. [62]

    J. W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement, Nature, 403 (2000) 515-519

    2000

  54. [63]

    C. C. Gerry and R. Grobe, Nonlocal entanglement of coherent states, complementarity, and quantum erasure, Phys. Rev. A, 75 (2007) 034303

    2007

  55. [64]

    Jeong and N

    H. Jeong and N. B. An, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger–type and W-type entangled coherent states: Generation and Bell-type inequality tests without photon counting, Phys. Rev. A, 74 (2006) 022104

    2006

  56. [65]

    G. S. Agarwal and K. Tara, Nonclassical properties of states generated by the excitations on a coherent state, Phys. Rev. A, 43 (1991) 492. 14

    1991

  57. [66]

    Zavatta, S

    A. Zavatta, S. Viciani and M. Bellini, Quantum-to-classical transition with single-photon-added coherent states of light, Science, 306 (2004) 660-662

    2004

  58. [67]

    J. Liu, X. X. Jing, W. Zhong, X. G. Wang. Quantum Fisher information for density matrices with arbitrary ranks. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 61 (2014), 45

    2014

  59. [68]

    Sivakumar

    S. Sivakumar. Photon-added coherent states as nonlinear coherent states. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 32 (1999), 3441

    1999

  60. [69]

    Mojaveri, and A

    B. Mojaveri, and A. Dehghani, Generation of photon-added coherent states via photon-subtracted generalised coherent states. Eur. Phys. J. 68 (2014), 1-9

    2014

  61. [70]

    T. M. Duc, and J. Noh, Higher-order properties of photon-added coherent states. Optics Communications, 281 (2008), 2842-2848

    2008

  62. [71]

    F. A. Dom´ ınguez-Serna, F. J. Mendieta-Jimenez, and F. Rojas, Entangled photon-added coherent states. Quantum Information Processing, 15 (2016), 3121-3136. 15

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.