Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Ramsey Interferometry in Wigner-Majorana Qudits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing the qubit with a Wigner-Majorana qutrit doubles the central-fringe density of a Ramsey interferometer at the same interrogation time and with the same single drive.

desk verdict The qutrit doubling is a real, plausible result, but the abstract overpromises a robustness study the body explicitly defers. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06290 v2 pith:YBPNLNQX submitted 2025-09-08 quant-ph

Branislav Ilikj , Thomas Zanon-Willette , Nikolay V. Vitanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords RamseyinterferometryqutritquditWigner-Majoranasymmetrymultipathinterferencequantummetrologyresolution-contrastindexfrequencyestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a single-qudit extension of Ramsey interferometry: operate on a spin-1 Wigner-Majorana (WM) manifold instead of a qubit, using exactly the same two near-resonant pi/2 pulses and one interrogation time tau. For a qutrit prepared in the central m=0 state, the return probability is P_3(Delta)=cos^2(Delta tau), against the qubit's P_2(Delta)=cos^2(Delta tau/2). That means the central Ramsey fringe is compressed by a factor of two at fixed tau and the maximum slope is doubled, with contrast near unity in the ideal limit. If correct, a single three-state system delivers a factor-of-two resolution improvement in frequency estimation without longer interrogation, entanglement, or extra control fields. The paper also shows that the enhancement is not generic: QFT and sqrt(X_D) pulse sequences do not densify the fringes; the gain comes specifically from the WM ladder coupling and the coherences it creates between separated states.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Wigner-Majorana (WM) Hamiltonian: an SU(2) spin ladder hidden inside a D-level system, with Zeeman-like diagonal energies proportional to m Delta and nearest-neighbor couplings (1/2) sqrt(d(D-d)) Omega. In the qutrit this ladder reduces to a single effective two-level system, so the two pi/2 pulses generate two coherent paths that recombine at the central state with accumulated phases ±Delta tau; that is the mechanism producing cos(2 Delta tau) interference, twice the qubit's phase. The resolution-contrast index RCI = Re_D · Co_D, with Re_D the number of oscillation cycles in a detuning window and Co_D the mean visibility, is the scalar metric the paper uses to compare dime

What would settle it

Compute or measure P_3(Delta) from the paper's Eq. (14) with finite Omega (e.g., Omega=pi/2, T=1, tau=10, sweeping Delta near zero) and check whether the central-fringe spacing is exactly pi/tau and the maximum slope is twice the qubit's; if the spacing or slope differs, or if the formula does not reduce to cos^2(Delta tau) in the ideal limit, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a compensation-free resolution gain in Ramsey interferometry. For a qutrit (D=3) governed by the WM Hamiltonian, with diagonal energies 0 and ±Delta and couplings Omega/sqrt(2) between adjacent ladder states, the two pi/2 pulses create a multipath interferometer whose central-state amplitude carries phases e^{+i Delta tau} and e^{-i Delta tau}; the cross term oscillates as cos(2 Delta tau), hence P_3(Delta)=cos^2(Delta tau). The qubit phase difference is only Delta tau, giving P_2(Delta)=cos^2(Delta tau/2), so the qutrit central fringe is exactly twice as dense and its maximum slope twice as large at the same interrogation time, with ideal contrast 1. The paper gener

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the two pulses act as perfect pi/2 rotations on the effective two-level subsystem, so off-resonant effects during the pulses are negligible and the exact return probability collapses to cos^2(Delta tau); any finite-pulse distortion or miscalibration will soften the factor-two compression.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single near-resonant drive on a WM qutrit suffices to double the central-fringe slope relative to a qubit at the same tau, so frequency resolution improves by a factor of two with no additional experimental resources.
  • The enhancement is tied to WM ladder coupling; QFT and sqrt(X_D) pulse sequences do not densify the central fringe, so the standard Ramsey R-F-R sequence remains the practical choice.
  • Higher WM dimensions (D=4 to D=7) keep increasing fringe density roughly linearly, but reduced contrast sets a trade-off; according to the RCI, the qutrit and the quinit (D=5) give the best resolution-contrast balance.
  • The RCI metric lets different dimensions and pulse protocols be ranked on one scale, and since QFI alone does not distinguish the qutrit protocols, the metric matters for choosing a practical readout.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial flag: the abstract announces a robustness analysis against diagonal probe-shift phase noise, but the displayed main text contains no such section and instead states that a full noise analysis is beyond scope; the robustness claims should be treated as unsupported in this version until the missing analysis appears.
  • If the qutrit formula survives finite-pulse corrections, the same spin-1 manifold could serve as a drop-in replacement in existing Ramsey spectrometers on atoms and ions, giving a factor-two precision gain with unchanged pulse hardware.
  • The phase factor suggests a general rule: a spin-j WM Ramsey scheme may accumulate phase 2j Delta tau; checking whether the quinit's roughly fourfold fringe count follows the 2j pattern would connect the numerics to an analytic formula.
  • Because QFI is identical for the qutrit protocols while RCI differs, the practical advantage claimed here is protocol- and readout-dependent; a full metrological sensitivity analysis including quantum estimation theory would clarify the actual precision gain per shot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Ramsey interferometry with Wigner-Majorana (WM) qudits, claiming that a qutrit prepared in the central state of a spin-1 manifold and driven by two nominal π/2 pulses exhibits return probability P_3(Δ)=cos²(Δτ), versus the qubit P_2(Δ)=cos²(Δτ/2), giving twofold central-fringe compression and doubled maximal slope in the ideal limit. It further claims that quantum Fourier transform and √X sequences do not improve resolution, that higher-dimensional WM qudits sharpen the response at the cost of contrast, and that the WM readout is robust to certain diagonal phase-noise models. The paper introduces a resolution-contrast index (RCI) to compare protocols and reports numerical simulations for D=2 through D=7.

Significance. If the central claim is correct and experimentally realizable with a single drive and no extra resources, it provides a simple, resource-free factor-two resolution enhancement over qubit Ramsey interferometry at fixed interrogation time. The analytical propagator for the qutrit, the explicit treatment of QFT and √X alternatives, and the falsifiable prediction for the central-state return probability are useful elements. However, the advertised robustness study is absent, the ideal-limit reduction is not derived or quantified, and the comparative conclusions rest on an ad hoc figure of merit. The underlying physics is plausible, but the paper as submitted does not yet support its strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §III.A.1, Eq. (14)] The central claim P_3(Δ)=cos²(Δτ) is presented in the abstract as an exact/ideal result, but Eq. (14) is not shown to reduce to it, and the parameters used in the figures and table are not in the claimed ideal limit. With Ω=π/2, T=1, τ=10, the top panel of Fig. 2 reaches |Δ/Ω|≈0.64, so Ω≫Δ is not satisfied. Expanding Eq. (14) in x=Δ/Ω gives a zero condition tan(Δτ)≈(1−x²)/(2x) rather than tan(Δτ)→∞; on the actual curve τΩ=5π this shifts the first zero from Δ=π/(2τ)=0.157 to Δ≈0.139, an ~11% shift, with larger deviations away from resonance. No error bound is supplied. The authors should either prove the reduction with explicit error bounds or derive the metrological quantities (zero locations, maximal slope, Fisher information) from Eq. (14) for the operating point. Additionally, \tildeΩ in Eqs. (13)–(14) is undefined and the generalized pulse area A appears without the pulse duration T,
  2. [Abstract; §V Discussion] The abstract promises a robustness study of diagonal phase noise from probe-shift fluctuations, including projector-type common-mode dephasing and linear Zeeman dephasing. The body contains no such analysis: there is no dephasing Hamiltonian, no master-equation or stochastic model, no numerical noise traces, and no contrast-sensitivity comparison. Section V instead states that 'a full noise analysis is beyond scope' and refers only to possible mitigation by composite or hyper-Ramsey pulses. The advertised robustness claim is therefore unsupported and should either be implemented or removed from the abstract.
  3. [§II.C; Table I] The RCI is a custom figure of merit evaluated in an arbitrarily chosen window Δ∈[−1,1]. The 'resolution' counts maxima in that window and the 'contrast' averages extremal differences; no connection is made to estimation error, Fisher information, or zero-crossing slope. The conclusion that the qutrit is the optimal operating point rests on the RCI values in Table I, but the window choice and counting convention can change the ranking. The authors should either justify RCI against a standard metrological measure (e.g., classical/quantum Fisher information for the specific readout, or slope at the central zero) or demonstrate that the comparative conclusions are insensitive to the window size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (13)–(14)] Define \tildeΩ explicitly and include the pulse duration T in the generalized pulse area A; otherwise the propagator and probability formulas cannot be evaluated or checked.
  2. [§III.A.2, Eqs. (15)–(16)] The index notation for odd D is garbled: for D=5 the formula P_{D+1}=P_{D/2←D/2+1}+P_{D/2+2←D/2+1} uses non-integer indices. It should be P_D=P_{(D−1)/2←(D+1)/2}+P_{(D+3)/2←(D+1)/2} for odd D≥5.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Qutrit oscillations (dashed)' while the text says the qutrit curve is 'plotted on Fig. 2 in red'. Harmonize the color/line-style description.
  4. [§III.A.1] The statement that the qutrit 'reduces to an effective two state system' is not self-evident for the 3×3 Hamiltonian in Eq. (12); the propagator is 3×3 and the central state couples to both neighboring states. Clarify in what precise sense the reduction holds.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'The QFI gives shows', 'probability' misspelled in figure axes, 'ququartit' vs 'ququartit', and missing commas in Eq. (20). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the qutrit Ramsey signal is obtained by explicit algebra from a stated Hamiltonian; no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The WM Hamiltonian for the qutrit is written explicitly in Eq. (12), the pulse propagator in Eq. (13) is the exact exponential of that Hamiltonian, and the central-state return probability in Eq. (14) is obtained by concatenating the pulse, free evolution, and pulse. The abstract's P_3(Δ)=cos²(Δτ) is presented as the ideal-limit reduction of this exact expression, and the same ideal-π/2-pulse limit underlies the qubit formula P_2=cos²(Δτ/2); it is not fitted, not defined in terms of the target result, and not obtained by citing the authors' prior work. The WM coupling structure is standard (Hioe, Varshalovich), and the displayed algebra does not depend on the self-citations. The RCI is an explicitly defined figure of merit; its window choice may influence the 'qutrit optimal' conclusion, but it is not an input to the Ramsey probability calculation and does not make the prediction circular. The Discussion's disclaimer that a full noise analysis is beyond scope is a scope limitation, not a circular step. Finite-pulse deviations from cos²(Δτ) are a quantitative accuracy concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the WM coupling model, the RWA, ideal projective readout, and an ideal-limit approximation for the pulses. No parameters are fitted to data; the only hand-chosen numbers are the RCI window and the simulation values of τ and T. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • RCI detuning window = [-1,1] (dimensionless)
    The resolution factor Re_D counts oscillations within this window; the window is chosen by hand and directly determines the reported RCI values and the 'qutrit is optimal' conclusion. A different window would change the comparison.
  • Interrogation time τ = 10 (in simulations)
    Protocol parameter held fixed across protocols for comparison; not fitted to data, but all RCI and QFI plots use τ=10.
  • Pulse duration T and Rabi amplitude Ω=π/(2T) = T=1, Ω=π/2
    Pulse area fixed to π/2 on resonance; the square pulse shape and duration are modeling choices that affect off-resonant behavior.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The qudit dynamics obey the Wigner-Majorana Hamiltonian (Eqs. 7-9) with nearest-neighbor couplings √(d(D-d)) Ω and diagonal energies (d-(D+1)/2)Δ.
    The entire protocol rests on this SU(2)-in-SU(D) coupling structure. The paper states it occurs naturally in atoms and ions, but does not prove it for any specific experimental platform.
  • domain assumption The rotating-wave approximation is valid, so the pulse Hamiltonian is time-independent.
    Used to write Eq. (2) and the WM pulse Hamiltonian; assumes near-resonant drive and neglects counter-rotating terms.
  • domain assumption The readout is ideal projective population measurement on a single state (or shoulder sum).
    The probabilities in Eqs. (14)-(16) presume ideal projective measurement; detection noise is not included.
  • domain assumption The ideal-limit reduction P_3(Δ)=cos^2(Δτ) holds for the central readout, i.e., pulses act as perfect π/2 rotations on the effective two-level subsystem and off-resonant effects during pulses are negligible.
    The central claim uses this limit, but the paper does not quantify when Eq. (14) reduces to cos^2(Δτ) or provide error bounds for finite Ω and Δ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ramsey Interferometry in Wigner-Majorana Qudits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBPNLNQX

@misc{pith2026250906290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ramsey Interferometry in Wigner-Majorana Qudits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBPNLNQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06290}
}
abstract

Ramsey interferometry estimates a detuning from the phase accumulated between two interaction zones, with a resolution set by the interrogation time $\tau$. We propose a single-qudit extension based on Wigner-Majorana (WM) spin-$j$ dynamics, whose internal levels form a multipath interferometer. The enhancement is not generic: ideal $\mathrm{QFT}_D$ and $\sqrt{X_D}$ sequences do not densify the central fringe under the population readouts considered. Instead, in manifolds that realize the WM coupling, it arises from coherences between separated ladder states created and recombined by a single near-resonant drive per Ramsey zone. For the qutrit, preparing the central state of a spin-1 WM manifold and measuring its return probability gives $P_3(\Delta)=\cos^2(\Delta\tau)$, versus the qubit $P_2(\Delta)=\cos^2(\Delta\tau/2)$. The central fringe is thus compressed twofold at fixed $\tau$ and the maximal slope doubled in the ideal limit, with contrast ideally unity. For higher-dimensional WM manifolds (odd and even $D$) the central response sharpens with dimension, but the signal spreads over several channels; we introduce a scalar readout from nearest-neighbor shoulder populations and quantify the resolution-contrast trade-off via the slope $S_D$ and contrast $C_D$. We also study robustness to diagonal phase noise from probe-shift fluctuations: under projector-type common-mode dephasing, the WM readouts are less contrast-sensitive than the qubit readout. The robustness is symmetry-selective, not universal: for linear Zeeman dephasing ($L=J_z$), the large $m$-separation that compresses the fringe also enhances dephasing, so higher-dimensional readouts become more sensitive, not protected. The WM qutrit is thus a practical operating point for enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy at fixed $\tau$; higher qudits trade extra slope for reduced contrast.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Wigner–Majorana (WM) decomposition of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Qutrit oscillations (dashed) given by Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Quantum Fisher information (QFI) for Ramsey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of ququartit, quinit, qusextit and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Propagators of the qutrit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Propagators of the ququartit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Propagators of the quinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.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. Spectator-transition crosstalk in a spin-3/2 silicon vacancy qudit in silicon carbide revealed by broadband Ramsey interferometry

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A spin-3/2 silicon-vacancy qudit's Ramsey signal is shown to contain six detuning-dependent frequency branches arising from pairwise coherences between all four spin sublevels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ( 7) H3 = 0 B@ −∆ Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 ∆ 1 CA

    Qutrit (D=3) system interrogations The WM Hamiltonian of a qutrit (D=3) is given by Eq. ( 7) H3 = 0 B@ −∆ Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 0 Ω√ 2 ∆ 1 CA. (12) We generate the pulses with R3(T ) = e−iH3T , explicitly R3(T) = 1˜Ω2 0 BB@ ∆2−∆˜∆ +Ω2 2 1 +cA Ω˜∆√2 Ω2 2 cA−1 Ω˜∆√2 ∆2+ Ω2cA −Ω˜∆∗ √2Ω2 2 cA−1 −Ω˜∆∗ √2 ∆2−∆˜∆∗+Ω2 2 1 +cA 1 CCA, (13) where sA = sin A and cA = co...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Odd and even state interrogations for D > 3 The higher dimensional dynamics follow directly by settingD in Eq. ( 7). Even state systems are prepared in -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Detuning ( ) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Measured state robability Qubit Qutrit -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Detuning ( ) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Measured state robability Qubit Qutrit ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Su- perpositions are mapped into each computational basis state following QFTD = 1√ D D−1X k=0 ωmk D , (17) where ωD = e2iπ/D is the D-th root of unity, and m,k ∈ 0, 1, 2,...,D − 1

    Quantum Fourier transform interrogations The quantum Fourier transform (QFT) generalizes naturally to qudit systems [ 1, 4, 5], scaling the computa- tional Hilbert space from 2n toDn (n being the number of qudits) dimensions while also preserving unitarity. Su- perpositions are mapped into each computational basis state following QFTD = 1√ D D−1X k=0 ωmk ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Pudda, M

    F. Pudda, M. Chizzini, and L. Crippa, ”Generalised Quantum Gates for Qudits and their Application in Quantum Fourier Transform,” arXiv:2410.05122 [quant- ph] (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05122

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, ”Qu- dits and high-dimensional quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 032417 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.103.032417

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    I. S. Mihov and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 020802 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.020802

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,

    D. Coppersmith, “An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,” IBM Research Report RC19642 (1994), https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/ 0201067

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer,” SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484–1509 (1997), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172

    doi:10.1137/s0097539795293172 1997

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields,

    N. F. Ramsey, “A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields,” Phys. Rev. 78, 695–699 (1950), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.78.695

    1950 doi

  2. [10]

    Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions,

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, “Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281–324 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.75.281

    2003

  3. [11]

    E. P. Wigner, Group Theory and its Application to the Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra , translated by J. J. Griffin, Academic Press, New York (1959), https: //api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781483275765_ A26552417/preview-9781483275765_A26552417.pdf

    1959

  4. [12]

    Teoria relativistica di particelle con mo- mento intrinseco arbitrario,

    E. Majorana, “Teoria relativistica di particelle con mo- mento intrinseco arbitrario,” Nuovo Cimento 9, 335–344 (1932), https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02959557

    1932 doi

  5. [13]

    Résolution d’une question relative aux déterminants,

    J. Hadamard, “Résolution d’une question relative aux déterminants,” Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques 17, p.240–246 (1893). https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/ 1572824501240738944

  6. [14]

    Resolution of a question relating to determinants,

    J. Hadamard, “Resolution of a question relating to determinants,” http://mathscinet.ru/files/ HadamardTranslation.pdf

  7. [15]

    Thoughts on inverse orthogonal matri- ces, simultaneous sign successions, and tessellated pave- ments in two or more colours,

    J. J. Sylvester, “Thoughts on inverse orthogonal matri- ces, simultaneous sign successions, and tessellated pave- ments in two or more colours,” Philosophical Maga- zine 34, 461–475 (1867), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14786446708639914

  8. [16]

    J. R. Morris and B. W. Shore, ”Reduction of degenerate two-level excitation of a multilevel system to independent two-state systems,” Phys. Rev. A 27, 906–912 (1983). https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.27.906

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    Universal quantum gates,

    J.-L. Brylinski and R. Brylinski, “Universal quantum gates,” Mathematics of Quantum Computation, pp. 101– 116 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420035377

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    Coherent quantum control of multiphoton transitions by shaped ultrashort optical pulses,

    D. Meshulach and Y. Silberberg, “Coherent quantum control of multiphoton transitions by shaped ultrashort optical pulses,” Phys. Rev. A 60, 1287–1292 (1999), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1287

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    A new method of measuring nu- clear magnetic moment,

    I. I. Rabi et al. , “A new method of measuring nu- clear magnetic moment,” Phys. Rev. 53, 318–327 (1938), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.53.318

    1938 doi

  12. [20]

    Olivares et al., arXiv:2501.17693 [quant-ph] (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17693

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N-level quantum systems with SU(2) dynamic symmetry,

    F. T. Hioe, “N-level quantum systems with SU(2) dynamic symmetry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1327 (1987). https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?URI= josab-4-8-1327

    1987

  14. [22]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. Sekatski, J. Calsamiglia, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, ”Fundamental Limits of Metrology at Thermal Equilibrium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010801 (2024). https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.134.010801

    2024

  15. [23]

    Gefen, A

    T. Gefen, A. Rotem, and A. Retzker, ”Overcoming res- olution limits with quantum sensing,” Nat. Commun. 10, 4992 (2019). https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41467-019-12817-y

    2019

  16. [24]

    N. V. Vitanov, T. F. Gloger, P. Kaufmann, D. Kauf- mann, T. Collath, M. T. Baig, M. Johanning, and C. Wunderlich, ”Fault-tolerant Hahn-Ramsey interferome- try with pulse sequences of alternating detuning,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 033406 (2015). https://journals.aps.org/ pra/abstract/...

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    S. G. Stanchev and N. V. Vitanov, ”Coherent interaction of multistate quantum systems possessing the Wigner– Majorana and Morris–Shore dynamic symmetries with pulse trains,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 56, 014001 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/acaa17

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, ”Statistical dis- tance and the geometry of quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439–3443 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.72.3439

    1994

  19. [27]

    Anandan and Y

    J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, ”Geometry of quan- tum evolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1697–1700 (1990), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1697

    1990 doi

  20. [28]

    Fujiwara, ”Quantum Fisher metric and estimation for pure state models,” Phys

    A. Fujiwara, ”Quantum Fisher metric and estimation for pure state models,” Phys. Lett. A 201, 119–124 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00269-9

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

    Quan- tum information with Rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, “Quan- tum information with Rydberg atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313–2363 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.82.2313

    2010

  22. [30]

    Broadband, Narrowband, and Passband Composite Pulses for Use in Advanced NMR Experi- ments,

    S. Wimperis, “Broadband, Narrowband, and Passband Composite Pulses for Use in Advanced NMR Experi- ments,” J. Magn. Reson., Ser. A 109, 221–231 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1006/jmra.1994.1159

    1994

  23. [31]

    Generalized hyper-Ramsey resonance with separated os- cillating fields,

    T. Zanon-Willette, V. I. Yudin, and A. V. Taichenachev, “Generalized hyper-Ramsey resonance with separated os- cillating fields,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 023416 (2015), https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.023416

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Modified hyper-Ramsey meth- ods for the elimination of probe shifts in optical clocks,

    R. Hobson, W. Bowden, S. A. King, P. E. G. Baird, I. R. Hill, and P. Gill, “Modified hyper-Ramsey meth- ods for the elimination of probe shifts in optical clocks,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 010501(R) (2016), https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.010501

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Hyper-Ramsey spectroscopy with probe-laser- intensity fluctuations,

    K. Beloy, “Hyper-Ramsey spectroscopy with probe-laser- intensity fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 031406(R) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97. 031406

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Entanglement-free Heisenberg- limited phase estimation,

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, “Entanglement-free Heisenberg- limited phase estimation,” Nature 450, 393–396 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06257. 10

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Mo- mentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988), https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500. 12657/50493/1/9789814415491.pdf

    1988

  28. [36]

    Mewes, M

    M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Dur- fee, C. G. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, ”Output Cou- pler for Bose–Einstein Condensed Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582–585 (1997). https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.582

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    G. T. Genov, B. T. Torosov, and N. V. Vitanov, ”Optimized control of multistate quantum systems by composite pulse sequences,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 063413 (2011). https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.063413

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.