Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

The paper reports direct measurement of entropy production for processes that erase quantum correlations, obtaining values close to 0, 1, and 2 bits and showing that standard maximum-likelihood reconstruction spuriously diverges while a Bay

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Entropy production of correlation-erasing processes in a cavity-QED atom-field system is measured via Bayesian quantum-state estimation, which avoids divergences produced by maximum-likelihood reconstruction.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A serious experimental paper whose two load-bearing quantitative claims—the reset ideal value and the backward-unitary implementation—don't hold as written. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.07011 v2 pith:YZFD3T5M submitted 2026-01-11 quant-ph

Irreversibility of decorrelating processes: an experimental assessment in cavity QED

Guillaume C{\oe}uret Cauquil , Patrice A. Camati , Ir\'en\'ee Frerot , Zheng Tan , Alexia Auff\`eves , Igor Dotsenko This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq05.70.Ln
keywords entropy productiontwo-point measurementKullback-Leibler divergencecavity QEDquantum state tomographydecorrelationquantum coherenceBayesian estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 authors aim to show that entropy production, usually defined for thermalization with a heat bath, can be assessed experimentally for purely informational processes that erase correlations between a two-level atom and a cavity field. Using a two-point measurement scheme, they identify entropy production with the Kullback-Leibler-Umegaki divergence between the states before and after the forward-backward cycle. They demonstrate that local dephasing, complete decorrelation, and reset processes yield measured entropy productions close to the ideal values of 1, 2, and 2 bits respectively. They further show that standard maximum-likelihood reconstruction of the quantum states causes spurious divergences in these entropic quantities, and propose a Bayesian Monte-Carlo estimator that avoids the problem.

Core claim

The central claim is that the entropy production of an irreversible decorrelating process is given by the Kullback-Leibler-Umegaki divergence, ⟨Σ⟩ = D(ρτ || ρ̃0) = D(ρ0 || ρ̃τ), and that this quantity can be measured experimentally. For a resonant π/2 atom-cavity interaction creating a maximally entangled state, local dephasing of one subsystem yields ⟨Σ⟩ = 1 bit (the relative entropy of coherence), complete decorrelation yields ⟨Σ⟩ = 2 bits (the mutual information), and resetting one subsystem to its initial pure state yields ⟨Σ⟩ = 2 bits. The authors implement these processes in a cavity-QED experiment and reconstruct the states by tomography; the measured entropy productions approach the

What carries the argument

The engine of the result is the two-point measurement (TPM) scheme for a forward-backward cycle: a controllable forward unitary U_F, an intermediate irreversible CPTP map E, and a controllable backward unitary U_B = U_F†. The entropy production of E is the Kullback-Leibler-Umegaki divergence D(ρ1||ρ2) = -Tr[ρ1 ln ρ2] - S(ρ1). For the specific decorrelating maps, this divergence reduces to the relative entropy of coherence (local dephasing) and to the mutual information (complete decorrelation), linking irreversibility to information-theoretic correlation measures. To make the quantity experimentally accessible, the authors use a Bayesian Monte-Carlo sampling of density matrices weighted by t

Load-bearing premise

The backward step of the cycle is assumed to exactly undo the forward interaction, so that any measured entropy production is attributed solely to the intermediate decorrelating process.

What would settle it

Perform full quantum-state tomography on the state after the forward-backward cycle with no intermediate decorrelation; if the reconstructed state is not ρ0 (up to known decoherence), the backward evolution is not the exact inverse and the identification with Eq. (1) fails. A numerical evaluation of the implemented sequence (half-atom-cavity interaction, σx pulse, second half-interaction) under the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, compared with U_F†, would also settle it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For local dephasing, complete decorrelation, and reset, the measured entropy production approximates the ideal values of 1, 2, and 2 bits, confirming that these information-erasing processes have a quantifiable entropic cost.
  • The identity cycle yields entropy production near zero, so the protocol can serve as a calibration benchmark for the quality of the forward-backward unitaries.
  • The Bayesian Monte-Carlo estimator provides a general recipe to compute nonlinear functions of reconstructed quantum states, avoiding the divergent artifacts of maximum-likelihood reconstruction.
  • In the TPM scheme, entropy production of non-thermal processes becomes experimentally accessible without a heat reservoir, broadening the scope of quantum thermodynamic experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed spurious divergences may be a generic artifact for near-pure states in any experiment estimating relative entropies from MLE reconstructions; the Bayesian approach could be widely adopted.
  • If the backward pulse sequence is not exactly the inverse (which can be checked by full tomography of the identity cycle), the reported values should be read as operational measures of the whole protocol rather than intrinsic properties of the decorrelating maps.
  • The two-copy simulation used to implement complete decorrelation suggests a general method to realize non-completely-positive operations in the laboratory, which could be exploited beyond thermodynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental cavity-QED study of entropy production for three non-thermal, correlation-erasing processes within the two-point-measurement (TPM) framework: local dephasing, complete decorrelation, and reset (local thermalization to a pure state). The authors measure the Kullback-Leibler-Umegaki divergence D(ρ0||ρ̃τ) between the initial and final states of a forward-backward atom-cavity cycle, with the intermediate process erasing correlations. They report values close to the ideal 0, 1, and 2 bits for the three processes, obtained from full quantum-state tomography. A central methodological contribution is the demonstration that standard maximum-likelihood reconstruction produces spurious divergences of the KL divergence due to rank-deficient states, and the introduction of a Bayesian Monte-Carlo estimator that samples density matrices according to their likelihood, yielding finite and stable estimates.

Significance. If the reported results are correct, this is a valuable experimental test of entropy production for processes that are not thermalization, and a practical recipe for estimating nonlinear, potentially divergent functionals of reconstructed quantum states. The Bayesian estimator is a useful contribution to quantum state reconstruction. The paper also tackles a conceptually important issue: the behavior of the KL divergence for states with different support, and the practical pitfalls in estimating it from experimental data. The experimental setup and data treatment are sophisticated. However, the central quantitative claims rest on the correct implementation of the backward unitary evolution, and that premise is not established in the manuscript as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, 'No environment action' (Eq. 17 and following text)] The text states that the backward unitary is U_B = U_F† and describes its implementation as: 'It starts by first applying the σx operation on the atomic qubit state and then activating the resonant π/2 interaction as in U_F.' For the resonant Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian H = ħg(σ+ a + σ- a†), σx does not anticommute with H; indeed σx H σx = ħg(σ- a + σ+ a†) ≠ -H. Consequently U_F σx ≠ U_F†. For the ideal no-environment cycle, this sequence maps |e0⟩ to a state with zero overlap with |e0⟩ (e.g., for the π/2 pulse, components |g0⟩, |e1⟩, |g2⟩), so D(ρ̃τ||ρ0) would diverge, not approach zero. The paper provides no derivation, alternative sequence, or calibration showing that the realized sequence effectively acts as U_F†. Since Eq. (1) and the identification of the measured divergences with the TPM entropy production depend critically on U_B = U_F†, this is a load-bearing issue for all three
  2. [Section V, 'No environment action'] Even if the intended sequence is different from the literal description, the manuscript does not provide an experimental verification that the no-environment cycle closes the loop as in Eq. (17). The measured ⟨Σ_id⟩ is reported as 'larger than its ideal zero value' but its magnitude (roughly 0.2 bits in Fig. 4) is not shown to be consistent with the described pulse sequence. A direct test—e.g., full tomography of the state after the backward operation and comparison of its fidelity with ρ0—is essential to validate that U_B = U_F†. Without such a calibration, the deviation of ρ̃τ from ρ0 can be attributed either to the flawed backward operation or to physical imperfections, and the TPM interpretation is not justified.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (8) and Section V, 'Local thermalization'] The reset process is described as 'local thermalization' with the role of the thermal state played by the initial pure state |0⟩⟨0|. However, Eq. (8) contains the term D(ρ_B||ζ_B); if ζ_B is taken to be the pure state |0⟩⟨0|, the divergence is infinite for any ρ_B with support outside |0⟩, which is the case for the ideal cavity state after forward evolution. The paper avoids this by computing the entropy production through the cycle (D(ρ0||ρ̃τ)), but the connection to Eq. (8) is left unclear. The authors should clarify whether the reset protocol is meant to be a concrete realization of Eq. (8) and, if so, how the finite 2-bit value is obtained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] There is a typographical error: 'ΠB_il' should be 'ΠB_l'.
  2. [General] The phrase 'similar to the spin-echo technique' is misleading because the σx pulse does not reverse the sign of the Jaynes-Cummings interaction. The analogy should be removed or carefully explained.
  3. [Section IV, 'Monte-Carlo approach'] The Monte-Carlo uncertainty estimates in Fig. 4 are not defined. It would be helpful to state explicitly whether the error bars represent the standard deviation of the posterior distribution of the estimator, the dispersion from experimental repetitions, or the Monte-Carlo sampling error.
  4. [Section V, 'Local dephasing'] The sentence 'Possibly, the smaller value of I_deph compared to ⟨Σ_deph⟩ results from some systematic uncertainty in the atom-cavity interaction that is partially compensated in the forward-backward cycle' is vague. If a systematic effect is suspected, it should be quantified or described.
  5. [Appendix A] The Metropolis proposal distribution is stated to satisfy detailed balance, but the argument is brief. A short derivation or reference would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 0/1/2-bit predictions follow from parameter-free KLU formulas applied to ideal states, and the experimental estimates come from independent tomography through a fixed Bayesian estimator.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central theoretical formula Eq. (1), ⟨Σ⟩ = D(ρτ||ρ̃0) = D(ρ0||ρ̃τ), is taken from the TPM framework of the external review [5] and is not defined in terms of the measured outputs. The ideal benchmark values (0 bits for identity, 1 bit for dephasing, 2 bits for complete decorrelation/reset) are obtained by applying Eqs. (3), (7), and (8) to the engineered ideal states of Eqs. (16)-(22). For example, for the Bell-like state ρτ = (1/2)(|e0⟩+|g1⟩)(⟨e0|+⟨g1|), the dephased mixture of Eq. (18) gives D = 1 bit, and the mutual information is 2 bits; no parameter is fitted to force these values. The experimental entropy productions are computed from full quantum-state tomography through the Bayesian/Metropolis estimator of Sec. IV and Appendix A, which is fully specified and data-dependent, not constructed to reproduce the ideal numbers. The only self-citation in the theoretical backbone, [27], is used for the standard identity Ũτ,0 = U†τ,0, an elementary property of time-reversed Hamiltonians, and it is not load-bearing. The potential experimental issue raised by the skeptic—that the σx-centered pulse sequence may not implement U_F† under the resonant Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian—is a physical validity/correctness concern, not a circularity: it concerns whether the measured quantity equals the theoretical ⟨Σ⟩, not whether any prediction reduces to its inputs by construction. No step fits a parameter to the target data and relabels the fit as a prediction, and no central claim is imported solely from self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on the TPM-to-KLU identification (cited to Ref. [5]), the two-copy simulation of a non-linear decorrelation map, and the assumed exact reversibility of the implemented backward pulse sequence. The latter is the most fragile: the described spin-echo sequence is not the Jaynes-Cummings inverse as written. The free parameters are mostly undisclosed simulation inputs and sampler settings; the red-line ideal values themselves are parameter-free.

free parameters (3)
  • Imperfection parameters for simulated/theoretical states (atomic and photon lifetimes, atom-cavity coupling dispersion, = not disclosed
    Secs. III and V: the upper rows of Figs. 3 and 6 and the simulated curves in Fig. 4 come from a numerical model 'accounting for known experimental imperfections.' Without the values one cannot tell whether the agreement with data is a validation or a fit; if any are tuned to match the measured states, the simulation comparison becomes self-consistency.
  • Metropolis sampler hyperparameters (proposal width schedule, target acceptance 0.4-0.6, 10^5 steps between samples, n = = not fully specified
    Appendix A: in a 63-dimensional state space, random-walk Metropolis with acceptance 0.4-0.6 (above the high-dimensional optimum of ~0.234) risks slow mixing; no autocorrelation or convergence diagnostics are shown, so the reported uncertainties (standard deviation over 100 samples) may be understated.
  • Cavity Hilbert-space truncation to 3 photons (d = 4) = 3-photon cutoff
    Sec. IV: any population at n >= 4 photons is forced to zero in the reconstruction, biasing the estimated density matrices and hence D; the bias is stated to be 'reasonable' but not quantified.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Entropy production of the intermediate process equals the KLU divergence D(ρ_τ||ρ̃_0) = D(ρ_0||ρ̃_τ) (Eq. 1), per the two-point measurement scheme.
    Sec. II: cited to Ref. [5]; the experiment uses state tomography at reference points rather than projective two-point measurements, so the equality relies on the standard TPM result.
  • domain assumption The complete decorrelation map E_decor(ρ) = ρ_A ⊗ ρ_B can be simulated by entangling two copies (A with C_x, A_x with C) and tracing out the auxiliary systems.
    Sec. V C: valid only if the two bipartite entanglements are independent and the reduced states match; a nontrivial assumption given shot-to-shot atom-number fluctuations.
  • domain assumption The implemented backward sequence (first-half π/2 interaction, central σx, second-half π/2 interaction) realizes U_B = U_F† on the atom-cavity system.
    Secs. III and V A, Eq. (17): under the resonant Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, σx does not anticommute with the coupling, so the described sequence does not in general implement the inverse; the paper offers no derivation or calibration.
  • standard math Uniform (Haar) prior over density matrices in the Bayesian estimator.
    Sec. IV: with N ~ 10^4-10^5 the prior's influence is small, but the claimed integrals in Eqs. (13)-(14) are defined with respect to this specific measure.
  • domain assumption States are confined to the 4-dimensional cavity subspace (at most 3 photons).
    Sec. IV: any leakage to higher photon numbers biases the reconstructed states and the resulting divergence.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Irreversibility of decorrelating processes: an experimental assessment in cavity QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZFD3T5M

@misc{pith2026260107011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Irreversibility of decorrelating processes: an experimental assessment in cavity QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZFD3T5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07011}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Entropy production quantifies the amount of irreversibility of a physical process, leading to fundamental bounds for thermodynamic quantities. It captures the inability to run a physical system forward and then backward, bringing it to the same initial state. Considerable research has been carried out in the last decades to extend entropy production to non-equilibrium quantum processes. We experimentally investigate the entropy production of such forward-backward cycles affected by genuinely quantum irreversibility. Namely, we consider processes realized to erase different types of correlations between two interacting systems, from obliterating solely quantum coherence to completely decorrelating local states. This makes the measurement of entropy production experimentally challenging. Addressing this challenge is the purpose of this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07011 by Alexia Auff\`eves, Guillaume C{\oe}uret Cauquil, Igor Dotsenko, Ir\'en\'ee Frerot, Patrice A. Camati, Zheng Tan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Forward-backward cycle in the presence of an irre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Scheme of the experimental setup. Flying circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reconstructed atom-cavity states. Three columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic representation of the complete decorre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstructed atom-cavity states for three types of decorrelating processes: dephasing, complete decorrelation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. W. Zemansky and R. H. Dittman,Heat and thermo- dynamics(The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New Journal of Physics12, 013013 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Role of mutual information in entropy production under information exchanges, New Journal of Physics15, 125012 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nature Physics11, 131 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Irreversible entropy pro- duction: From classical to quantum, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. d. Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in ther- modynamics - a topical review, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009244 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    H. Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009244 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  9. [9]

    Suomela, P

    S. Suomela, P. Solinas, J. P. Pekola, J. Ankerhold, and T. Ala-Nissila, Moments of work in the two-point mea- surement protocol for a driven open quantum system, Phys. Rev. B90, 094304 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On Information and Suf- ficiency, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics22, 79 (1951)

    1951

  11. [11]

    Umegaki, Conditional expectation in an operator al- gebra, I, Tohoku Mathematical Journal6, 177 (1954)

    H. Umegaki, Conditional expectation in an operator al- gebra, I, Tohoku Mathematical Journal6, 177 (1954)

    1954

  12. [12]

    T. B. Batalh˜ ao, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, M. Paternostro, E. Lutz, and R. M. Serra, Irre- versibility and the arrow of time in a quenched quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 190601 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    P. A. Camati, J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalh˜ ao, K. Mi- cadei, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Experimental rectification of entropy pro- duction by maxwell’s demon in a quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 240502 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Najera-Santos, P

    B.-L. Najera-Santos, P. A. Camati, V. M´ etillon, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, A. Auff` eves, and I. Dotsenko, Autonomous Maxwell’s demon in a cavity QED system, Phys. Rev. Research2, 032025 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Mancino, M

    L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, E. Roccia, I. Gianani, F. Somma, P. Mataloni, M. Paternostro, and M. Barbieri, The entropic cost of quantum generalized measurements, npj Quantum Information4, 20 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    P. M. Harrington, D. Tan, M. Naghiloo, and K. W. Murch, Characterizing a statistical arrow of time in quantum measurement dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 020502 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Rossi, L

    M. Rossi, L. Mancino, G. T. Landi, M. Paternostro, A. Schliesser, and A. Belenchia, Experimental assessment of entropy production in a continuously measured me- chanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 080601 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Adesso, T

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Mea- sures and applications of quantum correlations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Galindo and M

    A. Galindo and M. A. Mart ´ ın-Delgado, Information and computation: Classical and quantum aspects, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 347 (2002)

    2002

  20. [20]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  21. [21]

    Haroche, Nobel lecture: Controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to classical boundary, Rev

    S. Haroche, Nobel lecture: Controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to classical boundary, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1083 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    P. Six, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, I. Dotsenko, A. Sarlette, B. Huard, and P. Rouchon, Quantum state tomog- raphy with noninstantaneous measurements, imperfec- tions, and decoherence, Phys. Rev. A93, 012109 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Manzano, J

    G. Manzano, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Quantum fluctuation theorems for arbitrary environ- ments: Adiabatic and nonadiabatic entropy production, Phys. Rev. X8, 031037 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Morikuni and H

    Y. Morikuni and H. Tasaki, Quantum jarzynski-sagawa- ueda relations, Journal of Statistical Physics143, 1 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and appli- cations, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Murashita, Z

    Y. Murashita, Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, and M. Ueda, Fluc- tuation theorems in feedback-controlled open quantum systems: Quantum coherence and absolute irreversibil- ity, Phys. Rev. A96, 043840 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    P. A. Camati and R. M. Serra, Verifying detailed fluctu- ation relations for discrete feedback-controlled quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A97, 042127 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Bellomo, A

    G. Bellomo, A. Majtey, A. Plastino, and A. Plastino, Quantum correlations from classically correlated states, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 405, 260 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Luo, Using measurement-induced disturbance to char- acterize correlations as classical or quantum, Phys

    S. Luo, Using measurement-induced disturbance to char- acterize correlations as classical or quantum, Phys. Rev. A77, 022301 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    D. R. Terno, Nonlinear operations in quantum- information theory, Phys. Rev. A59, 3320 (1999)

    1999

  32. [32]

    Guerlin, J

    C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, S. Del´ eglise, C. Sayrin, S. Gleyzes, S. Kuhr, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Pro- gressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting, Nature448, 889 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    Del´ eglise, I

    S. Del´ eglise, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Reconstruction of non- classical cavity field states with snapshots of their deco- herence, Nature455, 510 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    M´ etillon, S

    V. M´ etillon, S. Gerlich, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, P. Rouchon, and I. Dotsenko, Benchmarking maximum- likelihood state estimation with an entangled two-cavity state, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 060404 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Blume-Kohout, Optimal, reliable estimation of quan- tum states, New Journal of Physics12, 043034 (2010)

    R. Blume-Kohout, Optimal, reliable estimation of quan- tum states, New Journal of Physics12, 043034 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Penasa, S

    M. Penasa, S. Gerlich, T. Rybarczyk, V. M´ etillon, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche, L. Davidovich, and I. Dotsenko, Measurement of a microwave field am- plitude beyond the standard quantum limit, Phys. Rev. A94, 022313 (2016)

    2016

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.