Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Nonlinear Enhancement of Measurement Precision via a Hybrid Quantum Switch

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coherently controlling the order of an unknown rotation and known OAM shifts transfers a 4mlθ phase to a control qubit, giving per-photon rotation precision that scales as 1/(4ml), beyond the Heisenberg limit.

desk verdict A real experimental advance in rotation metrology via coherently controlled order, with clean theory but a convention-dependent 'super-Heisenberg' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20632 v1 pith:PJZNF3G6 submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Lei Chen , Yu-Xiang Yang , Gong-Chu Li , Xu-Song Hong , Si-Qi Zhang , Hua-Qin Xu , Yuan-Cheng Liu , Giulio Chiribella
show 3 more authors
Geng Chen Chuan-Feng Li Guang-Can Guo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologyindefinitecausalorderswitchorbitalangularmomentumgeometricphaserotationmeasurementHeisenberglimitphotonicexperiment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper demonstrates that putting an unknown rotation and a known orbital angular momentum shift in a coherently controlled order—a 'quantum switch'—transfers a geometric phase 4mlθ to a control qubit, where m counts repeated rotations and l counts the OAM shift in units of ℏ. The rotation angle θ can then be estimated with a per-photon precision that scales as 1/(4ml), a nonlinear improvement over the Heisenberg limit that normally allows only 1/N with N independent queries. The authors build a collinear round-trip photonic setup with Q-plates and Dove prisms that realizes this for rotations, measure the interference fringes predicted by the phase, and obtain an enhancement factor of 2317 in practice, with absolute precision 0.0105 arcseconds using 7.16×$10^{7}$ photons. If correct, this shows that indefinite causal order offers a practical metrological advantage—no entangled probes or nonlinear interactions are needed, only a control qubit and ordinary linear optics.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the hybrid quantum switch, defined by the controlled-ordered evolution W = D^†_{lℏ}D_{2mθ}D_{lℏ}⊗|0⟩⟨0| + D_{lℏ}D_{2mθ}D^†_{lℏ}⊗|1⟩⟨1|, unitarily equivalent to W_QS = D_{2mθ}D_{2lℏ}⊗|0⟩⟨0| + D_{2lℏ}D_{2mθ}⊗|1⟩⟨1|. The key identity is the commutation relation D_{2lℏ}D_{2mθ} = $e^{{i4mlθ}}$D_{2mθ}D_{2lℏ}, which follows from the canonical commutation [θ̂, L̂_z]=iℏ; it transfers the phase 4mlθ to the control qubit. The Q-plate (spin–orbit coupling) implements the OAM shifts conditioned on polarization, and the Dove-prism pairs implement the unknown rotation; the round-trip configuration with a hollow roof prism preserves the rotation and cancels polarization deflection.

What would settle it

Operate the same protocol with l first-order Q-plates in series instead of one l-th order Q-plate: if the precision scaling changes from 1/(4ml) to a weaker law as l grows, or if the per-gate precision with one high-order plate is lower than with l single plates, the resource-counting that underlies the claimed nonlinear advantage is falsified. Equivalently, a calculation of the Fisher information with the physical cost of the OAM shift counted as O(l) energy or O(l) optical elements should reveal whether 1/(ml) is the correct asymptotic scaling per resource.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the precision of estimating an unknown rotation angle θ can scale as 1/(4ml) per photon, where m is the number of rotation operations (in units of pairs of Dove prisms) and l is the OAM shift in units of ℏ, by placing the rotation D_{2mθ} between two opposite OAM shifts D_{±lℏ} in a superposition of orders controlled by a polarization qubit. Because the displacement operators satisfy D_{2lℏ}D_{2mθ}=$e^{{i4mlθ}}$D_{2mθ}D_{2lℏ}, the controlled-order evolution is unitarily equivalent to a quantum switch whose net effect is to imprint a relative phase 4mlθ on the control qubit, leaving the spatial mode untouched. The phase is read out by a simple polarizer, and the Fisher information is $16νm^{2}$$l^{2}$, which yields the Cramér–Rao bound δθ ≥ 1/(4√ν ml). The experiment realizes this with a collinear round-trip interferometer that avoids the phase drift of separated arms, uses a high-order Q-plate to generate the OAM shift, and achieves a measured RMSE that tracks the 1/(4ml) scaling within a factor of about 2.4.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed nonlinear enhancement over the Heisenberg limit relies on counting the total number of gates as N_g = 2(m+l), with an l-quantum OAM shift charged as l unit gates; if the physical cost of a single l-th order Q-plate instead scales like one gate independent of l, or like a resource proportional to the maximum OAM transferred, the advantage over the Heisenberg limit reduces or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A rotation angle can be measured with precision scaling 1/(4ml) per photon using only linearly many physical gates, beating the Heisenberg limit 1/N_g with N_g = 2(m+l).
  • The scheme requires no specially tailored input state—even a scrambled speckle works—and no photon–photon interaction, because the enhancement comes from the coherent control of order.
  • The same mechanism transfers to any shift parameter whose generator has a discrete spectrum, including phase estimation.
  • The measured fringe period shrinks as 1/(ml), confirming the nonlinear enhancement for six (m,l) combinations.
  • The experimental precision (0.0105 arcsec with 7.16×10^7 photons, normalized 4.3×10^-4 rad per photon) surpasses the indefinite-evolution OAM scheme and the classical photonic gear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gate-counting is instead taken as the number of queries to the unknown rotation only (O(m) rather than O(m+l)), the claimed nonlinear advantage over the Heisenberg limit may be less dramatic, suggesting the comparison should be made against the physical cost of generating a high-order OAM shift.
  • The fact that the phase is read out on the control qubit and the OAM mode is discarded suggests a general recipe: any unknown unitary can be converted to a measurable phase by sandwiching it between conjugate displacements in a coherently controlled order, provided the generator has a discrete spectrum.
  • The robustness to input state suggests a variant where the same enhancement is obtained with thermal or mixed states, which would strengthen the practical case.
  • Testable extension: apply the same switch to phase estimation in a fiber loop, or to gyroscope rotation sensing, and measure whether the 1/(ml) scaling persists under loss.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a photonic experiment realizing a hybrid quantum switch in which a rotation gate on orbital angular momentum is combined with OAM displacement gates in a coherently controlled order, using photon polarization as the control qubit. The authors derive the controlled-order evolution W, show that the control qubit acquires a phase 4mlθ, and estimate θ from the projective probability P(θ) = 1/2[1−cos(4mlθ+φ0)]. They report the quantum Fisher information 16νm²l² and the Cramér-Rao bound δθ ≥ 1/(4√ν ml), and they present six experimental configurations whose measured RMSE tracks this bound within a factor of about 2.5, including a reported absolute precision of 0.0105 arcsec with 7.16×10⁷ photons. The central claim is that this constitutes a nonlinear precision enhancement that surpasses the Heisenberg limit while consuming only linearly increasing resources, based on the gate count N_g = 2(m+l).

Significance. If the main claim is upheld, this is a valuable experimental demonstration that coherently controlled order of operations can encode a product m×l into a single-qubit phase, and the common-path, round-trip interferometric realization with polarization-deflection compensation is technically impressive. The derivation of P(θ) and of the Fisher information is essentially parameter-free except for the phase offset φ0, and the experimental data track the predicted curve across six configurations, with the factor-of-2.5 gap plausibly attributed to mechanical noise. The paper also engages, at least superficially, with the literature on nonlinear metrology and resource counts [47-49]. However, the headline 'super-Heisenberg' claim is conditional on the resource convention N_g = 2(m+l), and the manuscript's own generator-spread calculation shows that the scheme saturates, rather than violates, the parameter-based Heisenberg bound for its own generator. The significance of the result therefore depends on whether the O(l) counting of the high-order Q-plate can be physically justified, or whether the claims are appropriately softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (Eq. (1) and following paragraph); Discussion] The claim that the precision 'dramatically surpasses the linear Heisenberg limit as 1/N_g' is load-bearing and depends entirely on the resource convention N_g = 2(m+l), in which the l-th order Q-plate is counted as l unit gates. The manuscript does not justify why an l-th order Q-plate should be counted as l elementary gates, nor does it engage with the resource measures in Refs. [47-49], which are precisely about whether nonlinear metrology can beat the Heisenberg limit under fair accounting. Under the generator-spread measure used in those references, the authors' own calculation gives Δh_QS = 2mΔL_z/ℏ + 2ml, and the parameter-based uncertainty relation δθ·Δh ≥ 1/2 then yields δθ ≥ 1/(4ml), which is exactly the Cramér-Rao bound that the scheme saturates. Thus the scheme does not surpass the Heisenberg limit for its own generator; the claimed super-Heisenberg factor is an artifact of measuring the resource by m+l while measuring precision by the generator size 2ml. The authors should either derive the O(l) cost of an l-th order Q-plate from a concrete physical model, or soften the claim to a nonlinear enhancement under a stated gate-counting convention.
  2. [Results, Fig. 4] The experimental evidence for the 1/(4ml) scaling rests on six configurations, and five of them have m = 2l, so that 4ml = 8l² over the initial portion of the scaling curve. A fit over those points cannot distinguish 1/(ml) from 1/l², and the sixth point (m = 8, l = 128) is the only one that breaks the m = 2l relation. To support the claimed two-parameter scaling, the authors should add configurations with fixed l and varying m (or vice versa), or at least report the fitted slope and its uncertainty when the (8,128) point is removed. Without this, the statement that the RMSE 'vanishes with the speed 1/4ml' is only weakly constrained by the data.
  3. [Abstract; Introduction; Results] The headline numbers 'enhancement factor as high as 2317' and 'ultimate precision 0.0105 arcsec' are presented without a clear definition of the baseline against which the enhancement is measured. It is not specified whether 4ml is compared with a single rotation pass, with the multi-pass generator Δh_MP = 2mΔL_z/ℏ, or with the earlier schemes of Refs. [34,35], and the normalization (per photon, per gate, or per unit energy) is not stated. Since these numbers appear in the abstract as the main quantitative claims, the baseline and normalization must be defined when the enhancement factor is introduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting errors, including 'parallels the the commutation relation' in Results, 'twifold rotating operations' in the Fig. 2 caption, and 'DA TA A V AILABILITY' in the data availability heading.
  2. [Abstract; Results; Fig. 4] The abstract states a normalized precision of approximately 10⁻⁴ rad per photon, while the main text and the Fig. 4 discussion give 4.3×10⁻⁴ rad per photon; use one value consistently.
  3. [Results; Fig. 4 caption] The text says the experimental fitting curve is worse than the Cramér-Rao bound by a factor of approximately 2.5, while the Fig. 4 caption says 2.4; make the two numbers consistent.
  4. [Discussion] The sentence that a Mach-Zehnder-based scheme [36] 'renders QFI only one quarter one-sixteenth of that in our scheme' is ambiguous; specify whether the factor is 1/4, 1/16, or a range, and state the assumptions under which the comparison is made.
  5. [Supplementary Material references] The manuscript repeatedly refers to Supplementary Material Sections I-IV for derivations of Δh_QS, the Fisher information, the HRP behavior, and the Jones-matrix compensation, but the supplementary material is not included with the arXiv submission; the published version must include it and ensure all referenced equation numbers match.
  6. [Introduction; Results] The term 'hybrid quantum SWITCH' is introduced with 'a little abuse of terminology'; a sentence distinguishing the common-path polarization-controlled superposition from genuine indefinite causal order in spacetime would prevent misinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1/(4ml) precision scaling follows from the canonical commutator and the Cramér-Rao bound, not from a fitted parameter or a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained. The central phase factor Ψ=4mlθ is obtained by direct commutation of D_{2lℏ} and D_{2mθ} using [θ̂, L̂z]=iℏ, and the Fisher information 16νm²l² is computed from the resulting control-qubit unitary; neither step fits m or l nor assumes the claimed scaling. The experimental RMSE is compared to the independent Cramér-Rao bound of Eq. (5) and to the predicted fringe period, while the enhancement factor 4ml is fixed by the chosen m and l rather than extracted from the data. The self-citations to Refs. [28] and [31] are consistency remarks and are not load-bearing: the present derivation stands alone. The only qualification is that the claim of 'surpassing the Heisenberg limit' is stated relative to the paper's explicit resource convention N_g=2(m+l), in which a single l-th order Q-plate is counted as l unit gates. That is a resource-accounting choice, and Refs. [47–49] dispute such counts, but this is a benchmark or correctness concern rather than a circular reduction, because the 1/(4ml) precision scaling is derived independently of that convention. No circular step is present; the score of 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for consistency with prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the hybrid quantum SWITCH is a name for the composed optical circuit, not a new particle or force. The free parameter list contains only the fringe phase offset. The two domain assumptions and the resource-counting assumption capture the load-bearing premises behind the scaling claim.

free parameters (1)
  • phi_0 (initial phase offset) = fitted per (m,l) configuration; numerical values not reported
    Fitted in Eq. (4) to the measured interference fringes in Fig. 3. It calibrates the phase reference, not the 4ml scaling, so it does not directly determine the precision claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Angle and angular momentum satisfy [θhat, Lz] = iℏ on the restricted domain θ∈(-π,π)
    Invoked in Results to justify the commutation relation D_{2lℏ}D_{2mθ}=e^{i4mlθ}D_{2mθ}D_{2lℏ}; angle operators on a circle have known subtleties that are set aside by restricting θ to (-π,π).
  • domain assumption Q-plate and Dove prism operations act as ideal displacement and rotation unitaries D_l and D_{2mθ} with no loss or mode distortion
    The derivation assumes ideal gates; the experiment addresses imperfections with spatial filtering and polarization compensation.
  • ad hoc to paper Resource count Ng = 2(m+l) with each OAM unit shift l counted as l gates
    The super-Heisenberg claim depends on this resource accounting; alternative universal resource counts from Refs [47-49] are not evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Enhancement of Measurement Precision via a Hybrid Quantum Switch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJZNF3G6

@misc{pith2026250620632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Enhancement of Measurement Precision via a Hybrid Quantum Switch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJZNF3G6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20632}
}
abstract

Quantum metrology promises measurement precision beyond the classical limit by using suitably tailored quantum states and detection strategies. However, scaling up this advantage is experimentally challenging, due to the difficulty of generating high-quality large-scale probes. Here, we build a photonic setup that achieves enhanced precision scaling by manipulating the probe's dynamics through operations performed in a coherently controlled order. Our setup applies an unknown rotation and a known orbital angular momentum increase in a coherently controlled order, in a way that reproduces a hybrid quantum SWITCH involving gates generated by both discrete and continuous variables. The unknown rotation angle $\theta$ is measured with precision scaling as $1/4ml$ when a photon undergoes a rotation of $2m\theta$ and an angular momentum shift of $2l \hbar$. With a practical enhancement factor as high as 2317, the ultimate precision in our experiment is $0.0105^{\prime \prime}$ when using $7.16\times10^7$ photons, corresponding to a normalized precision of $\approx 10^{-4}$rad per photon. No photon interaction occurs in our experiment, and the precision enhancement consumes only a linearly increasing amount of physical resources while achieving a nonlinear scaling of the precision. We further indicate that this nonlinear enhancement roots in an in-depth exploration of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), and our findings not only deepen the understanding of the HUP but also pave a pathway for advancements in quantum metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20632 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Maccone, L

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science306, 1330–1336 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    & Maccone, L

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Quantum metrology. Physical review letters96, 010401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    J., Itano, W

    Bollinger, J. J., Itano, W. M., Wineland, D. J. & Heinzen, D. J. Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states. Physical Review A54, R4649 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    & Silberberg, Y

    Afek, I., Ambar, O. & Silberberg, Y. High-noon states by mixing quantum and classical light.Science328, 879–881 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    L., Sasaki, K

    Nagata, T., Okamoto, R., O’brien, J. L., Sasaki, K. & Takeuchi, S. Beating the standard quantum limit with four-entangled photons. Science316, 726–729 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    & LaPorta, A

    Grangier, P., Slusher, R., Yurke, B. & LaPorta, A. Squeezed-light–enhanced polarization interferometer. Physical review letters59, 2153 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    Zwierz, M., P´ erez-Delgado, C. A. & Kok, P. General optimality of the heisenberg limit for quantum metrology. Physical review letters105, 180402 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    & Rempe, G

    Thomas, P., Ruscio, L., Morin, O. & Rempe, G. Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom. Nature608, 677–681 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, X.-L. et al. 18-qubit entanglement with six pho- tons’ three degrees of freedom. Physical review letters 120, 260502 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    & Schnabel, R

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, R., Banaszek, K. & Schnabel, R. Fundamental quantum in- terferometry bound for the squeezed-light- enhanced gravitational wave detector geo 600. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 041802 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Chen, G. et al. Achieving Heisenberg-scaling preci- sion with projective measurement on single photons. Physical Review Letters121, 060506 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Chen, G. et al. Heisenberg-scaling measurement of the single-photon Kerr non-linearity using mixed states. Nature Communications9, 1–6 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Towards quantum gravity: a framework for probabilistic theories with non-fixed causal structure

    Hardy, L. Towards quantum gravity: a framework for probabilistic theories with non-fixed causal structure. J. Phys. A40, 3081 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    & Valiron, B

    Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G., Perinotti, P. & Valiron, B. Beyond quantum computers. arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.0195 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    & Brukner, ˇC

    Oreshkov, O., Costa, F. & Brukner, ˇC. Quantum corre- lations with no causal order. Nature communications3, 1092 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    M., Perinotti, P

    Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G. M., Perinotti, P. & Valiron, B. Quantum computations without definite causal struc- ture. Physical Review A88, 022318 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Perfect discrimination of no-signalling channels via quantum superposition of causal structures

    Chiribella, G. Perfect discrimination of no-signalling channels via quantum superposition of causal structures. Phys. Rev. A86, 040301(R) (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Procopio, L. M. et al. Experimental superposition of orders of quantum gates. Nature Communications6, 1– 6 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    M., Facchini, S

    Colnaghi, T., D’Ariano, G. M., Facchini, S. & Perinotti, P. Quantum computation with programmable connec- tions between gates. Physics Letters A376, 2940–2943 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    & Brukner, ˇC

    Ara´ ujo, M., Costa, F. & Brukner, ˇC. Computational advantage from quantum-controlled ordering of gates. Physical Review Letters113, 250402 (2014). 7

    2014

  13. [21]

    Renner, M. J. & Brukner, ˇC. Computational advan- tage from a quantum superposition of qubit gate orders. Physical Review Letters128, 230503 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    & Chiribella, G

    Ebler, D., Salek, S. & Chiribella, G. Enhanced com- munication with the assistance of indefinite causal order. Physical Review Letters120, 120502 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    & White, A

    Goswami, K., Cao, Y., Paz-Silva, G., Romero, J. & White, A. Increasing communication capacity via super- position of order. Physical Review Research2, 033292 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    & Chau, H

    Chiribella, G., Wilson, M. & Chau, H. Quantum and classical data transmission through completely de- polarizing channels in a superposition of cyclic orders. Physical review letters127, 190502 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Guo, Y. et al. Experimental transmission of quan- tum information using a superposition of causal orders. Physical Review Letters124, 030502 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    & Vedral, V

    Felce, D. & Vedral, V. Quantum refrigeration with in- definite causal order. Physical review letters125, 070603 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    & Xue, P

    Zhu, G., Chen, Y., Hasegawa, Y. & Xue, P. Charging quantum batteries via indefinite causal order: Theory and experiment. Physical Review Letters131, 240401 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    & Chiribella, G

    Zhao, X., Yang, Y. & Chiribella, G. Quantum metrol- ogy with indefinite causal order. Physical Review Letters 124, 190503 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Noisy quantum metrol- ogy with the assistance of indefinite causal order

    Chapeau-Blondeau, F. Noisy quantum metrol- ogy with the assistance of indefinite causal order. Physical Review A103, 032615 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    An, M. et al. Noisy quantum parameter estimation with indefinite causal order. Physical Review A109, 012603 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Yin, P. et al. Experimental super-heisenberg quantum metrology with indefinite gate order. Nature Physics19, 1122–1127 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Fickler, R., Campbell, G., Buchler, B., Lam, P. K. & Zeilinger, A. Quantum entanglement of angular mo- mentum states with quantum numbers up to 10,010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 13642–13647 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    & Zhang, Y

    Wang, L., Ma, J., Xiao, M. & Zhang, Y. Application of optical orbital angular momentum to rotation measure- ments. Results in Optics5, 100158 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    & Zeng, G

    Xia, B., Huang, J., Li, H., Luo, Z. & Zeng, G. Nanoradian-scale precision in light rotation measurement via indefinite quantum dynamics. Science Advances10, eadm8524 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    D’ambrosio, V. et al. Photonic polarization gears for ultra-sensitive angular measurements. Nature communications4, 2432 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    & Padgett, M

    Courtial, J., Dholakia, K., Robertson, D., Allen, L. & Padgett, M. Measurement of the rotational frequency shift imparted to a rotating light beam possessing orbital angular momentum. Physical review letters80, 3217 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    & Lezama, A

    Barreiro, S., Tabosa, J., Failache, H. & Lezama, A. Spec- troscopic observation of the rotational doppler effect. Physical review letters97, 113601 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Zhang, W. et al. Free-space remote sensing of rotation at the photon-counting level. Physical Review Applied10, 044014 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    On the uncertainty relation for angle variables

    Judge, D. On the uncertainty relation for angle variables. Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)31, 332–340 (1964)

    1964

  32. [40]

    T., Barnett, S

    Pegg, D. T., Barnett, S. M., Zambrini, R., Franke- Arnold, S. & Padgett, M. Minimum uncertainty states of angular momentum and angular position. New Journal of Physics7, 62 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    super-heisenberg

    Hou, Z. et al. “super-heisenberg” and heisenberg scalings achieved simultaneously in the estimation of a rotating field. Physical Review Letters126, 070503 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    & Paparo, D

    Marrucci, L., Manzo, C. & Paparo, D. Optical spin-to- orbital angular momentum conversion in inhomogeneous anisotropic media. Physical review letters96, 163905 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    T., Caves, C

    Boixo, S., Flammia, S. T., Caves, C. M. & Geremia, J. M. Generalized limits for single-parameter quantum estimation. Physical Review Letters98, 090401 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    & Braunstein, S

    Roy, S. & Braunstein, S. L. Exponentially en- hanced quantum metrology. Physical Review Letters 100, 220501 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    & Sundaram, B

    Choi, S. & Sundaram, B. Bose-einstein condensate as a nonlinear ramsey interferometer operating beyond the Heisenberg limit. Physical Review A77, 053613 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Napolitano, M. et al. Interaction-based quantum metrol- ogy showing scaling beyond the heisenberg limit. Nature 471, 486–489 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Zwierz, M., P´ erez-Delgado, C. A. & Kok, P. Ultimate limits to quantum metrology and the meaning of the Heisenberg limit. Physical Review A85, 042112 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    W., Hall, M

    Berry, D. W., Hall, M. J., Zwierz, M. & Wiseman, H. M. Optimal Heisenberg-style bounds for the average perfor- mance of arbitrary phase estimates. Physical Review A 86, 053813 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Hall, M. J. & Wiseman, H. M. Does nonlinear metrology offer improved resolution? answers from quantum infor- mation theory. Physical Review X2, 041006 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    & Boyd, R

    Bolduc, E., Bent, N., Santamato, E., Karimi, E. & Boyd, R. W. Exact solution to simultaneous intensity and phase encryption with a single phase-only hologram. Optics letters38, 3546–3549 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Bent, N. et al. Experimental realization of quantum tomography of photonic qudits via symmetric infor- mationally complete positive operator-valued measures. Physical Review X5, 041006 (2015). METHODS Details of the rotating system To transmit OAM beam below 128 order, Dove pr...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.