Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper shows that the fundamental integration-time bound for broadband AC detection is a geometric corollary of an IQFI ceiling, and that an all-analog protocol reaches near-optimal scaling.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:31 UTC pith:ZN7LUWAI

load-bearing objection The m=1 geometric proof of the broadband bound is clean and the all-analog protocol is genuinely new, but the GHZ m^{-3/2} scaling is asserted rather than derived and the IQFI ceiling may carry an m-dependent prefactor that changes the exponent. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.19816 v2 pith:ZN7LUWAI submitted 2026-01-27 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Simple broadband signal detection at the fundamental limit

Anthony M. Polloreno , Graeme Smith This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords broadband AC detectionintegrated quantum Fisher informationquantum Fisher informationSu-Schrieffer-Heeger modelGHZ statequantum sensingmagnetometryaxion search
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.

This paper aims to establish that the fundamental integration-time limit for detecting a weak oscillatory field of unknown carrier frequency is metrological rather than computational: it follows from a universal ceiling on the integrated quantum Fisher information (IQFI), and it can be reached by coherent control and measurement alone. The central quantitative claim is the scaling T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/(m B_min)^{3/2}, where |Δω| is the search bandwidth, B_min the minimum detectable amplitude, and m the number of entangled probe registers. The authors derive the previously known Grover-like lower bound as a geometric corollary of the IQFI ceiling, then simulate an all-analog protocol—a randomized Su–Schrieffer–Heeger control Hamiltonian probed by an m-register GHZ state with a single projective readout—that empirically attains this scaling. If correct, this means broadband AC magnetometry, axion searches, and gravitational-wave sensing can approach the fundamental limit without requiring a quantum computer.

Core claim

Central discovery: the Grover-like integration-time lower bound for broadband AC detection, T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/B_min^{3/2}, is a geometric corollary of an IQFI ceiling: any continuous-control protocol satisfies K(B,T) ≤ C B T^2. Bures-angle geometry then shows that any protocol detecting amplitude B_min over a band of width |Δω| must have distinguishability at least ~ |Δω|/B_min^2, forcing the bound. The all-analog protocol—a randomized Su–Schrieffer–Heeger control Hamiltonian tiling the band with dense gaps, an m-register GHZ state giving effective drive m B_min, and a single projection onto the no-signal state—achieves detection probability ~ (m B_min T)^2 / N, N ~ |Δω|/(m B_min), so T ~ sqrt(

What carries the argument

The central object is the IQFI ceiling (Eq. 6): the frequency-integrated quantum Fisher information of any continuous-control protocol is bounded as K(B,T) ≤ C B T^2, with B the signal amplitude and T the evolution time. This ceiling arises from balancing a discrete-protocol bound O(T^2/δt) against a Trotter-error term O(B^2 T^2 δt) in a piecewise-constant approximation. Geometrically, the Bures angle between the no-signal and signal states gives a finite-displacement witness that forces K ≳ |Δω|/B_min^2 for any successful broadband detector; combining the two bounds yields the T scaling. The protocol's key mechanism is internal band engineering with an SSH chain (a one-dimensional tight-bin

Load-bearing premise

The near-optimal scaling with m entangled probes assumes the IQFI ceiling K(B,T) ≤ C B T^2 holds with a constant C that does not depend on the number of registers m; the paper replaces B_min by m B_min without deriving an m-dependent ceiling for the collective generator.

What would settle it

Numerically compute the IQFI or detectability scaling for an m-register GHZ probe with collective signal generator Z_tot = Σ Z^(ℓ) for m = 1, 2, 3 at fixed B, T, and bandwidth; if the integration time needed for a fixed detection probability does not decrease as m^{-3/2}, the m-dependent claim is false. Equivalently, verify directly whether K(B,T) ≤ C B T^2 holds with C independent of m.

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

If this is right

  • Broadband AC sensing at the fundamental limit is achievable by coherent control and a single projective measurement; no quantum computer is required.
  • The Grover-like lower bound from quantum-algorithmic sensing follows from a metrological IQFI ceiling, unifying computational and metrological perspectives.
  • Incoherent frequency scanning is eliminated: a single static Hamiltonian is sensitive across the whole band, and a spectral-flatness certificate lets one observation at the unknown frequency determine the band-wide sensitivity.
  • A mild log-oversampling of the resonant lattice (N ~ r log r) suppresses rare large gaps, keeping worst-case detuning within O(m B_min).
  • A two-time log-log slope test distinguishes signal from no-signal with O(log(1/δ)) total shots, for error probability δ.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The IQFI-ceiling argument likely generalizes to other sensing tasks with unknown parameters (phase, amplitude, multiple tones), where fundamental bandwidth–sensitivity tradeoffs could be derived purely geometrically.
  • The SSH construction is a proof-of-principle of a general design rule: any control Hamiltonian whose transition frequencies densely tile the band can serve as a broadband sensor; passband-engineered devices (e.g., coupled-resonator optical waveguides, inhomogeneously broadened ensembles) may implement the same protocol in other hardware.
  • The claimed m-dependent scaling relies on the unstated assumption that the IQFI ceiling's constant C is independent of the register count m for the collective generator Z_tot; if C grows with m, the GHZ enhancement would be weaker than stated. This could be checked by numerically extracting the IQFI for m = 1, 2, 3.
  • The two-time log-log slope test is likely suboptimal in constants; a sequential Bayesian or Neyman–Pearson test could reduce the number of shots while preserving the O(log(1/δ)) scaling.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the Grover-like integration-time lower bound for broadband detection of a weak oscillatory field with unknown carrier frequency is a geometric corollary of an upper bound on the integrated quantum Fisher information (IQFI). For a single register the derivation in Eqs. (10)-(14) yields T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/B_min^{3/2}. The paper further states that with an m-register GHZ probe the relevant Rabi scale is mB_min, giving T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/(mB_min)^{3/2}, and proposes an all-analog protocol based on a randomized SSH control Hamiltonian probed with a GHZ state. It reports simulations (Fig. 2) showing the stopping time follows the predicted scaling over a range of (m, B_min, Δω). The paper also sketches a two-time log-log slope test as a detection statistic and claims an offline flatness certificate for the SSH response.

Significance. The m=1 geometric derivation is clean: it connects a published IQFI ceiling (Eq. (6)) to a lower bound on detection time via the Bures-angle geodesic inequality, giving a transparent metrological interpretation of a previously algorithmic result. If the GHZ-enhanced bound and the all-analog protocol are correct, the paper would be a valuable step toward practical broadband AC sensing without quantum computation. The protocol's conceptual simplicity (a static, engineered spectrum plus a projective GHZ-consistency readout) is attractive, and the simulation provides initial evidence. However, the m-dependent scaling and the protocol's uniformity guarantee are not rigorously established, and the numerical methods are underspecified. With those gaps filled or explicitly softened, this could be a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [GHZ-enhanced bound after Eq. (14)] The statement T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/(mB_min)^{3/2} is obtained by replacing B_min with mB_min in Eq. (14), but the IQFI ceiling (6) and the witness bound (12)-(13) are not derived for the collective generator Z_tot = Σ Z^(ℓ). The constant C in Eq. (6) absorbs protocol-dependent factors from the Trotter analysis, and the commutator norms in Eqs. (22)-(25) of the End Matter depend on ∥[G, Z_tot]∥, which generically scales with m. If C ∝ m^p, the lower bound becomes T ≳ sqrt(|Δω|)/(m^{p/2} B_min^{3/2}), and the claimed m^{-3/2} improvement requires p=3. The text says only that "the relevant Rabi scale is mB_min," which describes the protocol's sensitivity, not an upper bound on the IQFI. Please derive the m-dependence of the IQFI ceiling (or state clearly that the GHZ-enhanced bound is a conjecture), since the central quantitative claim of the paper rests on this point.
  2. [IQFI as a discrimination statistic] The estimated log-log slope bα = (log bK(B,qT) − log bK(B,T))/(log q) is never made concrete: the estimator bK is undefined, and the text says a "simple two-time hypothesis test is given in detail in the End Matter," but no such section exists (the End Matter contains Trotter error, transversality, and numerical simulation only). Consequently the claimed O(log(1/δ)) shot complexity and the Hoeffding/Chernoff bound cannot be verified. Either define bK and provide the test, or replace this passage with the detection statistic actually used in the simulation (the threshold crossing described in Fig. 2).
  3. [All-analog broadband protocol, bucket tiling] The claim that the randomized SSH construction with oversampling N=Θ(r log r) "ensuring" worst-case detuning O(mB_min) is not proven. The Haar-random conjugation U does not alter the spectrum of G_SSH, so the set of transition frequencies is deterministic apart from finite-size effects; why randomizing the eigenbasis helps cover spectral holes is unclear. The only evidence is the numerical inset in Fig. 2. A formal certificate (e.g., a bound on the covering radius of the transition set, or a high-probability statement) is needed to support the protocol's uniform-detection guarantee, or the claim should be explicitly labeled as empirical.
  4. [Numerical simulation and fast GHZ evaluation (End Matter)] The simulation section does not describe the "fast GHZ evaluation" used for filled markers in Fig. 2, nor the exact "fixed GHZ-diagonal population statistic" and its L1 threshold. The three-harmonic Floquet truncation (Eq. (30)) is used without a quantitative justification for the parameter ranges reported. While small-m brute-force points provide some validation, the scaling data at larger m may depend on the truncation and the undisclosed statistic. Please specify the statistic, the fast evaluation method, and provide a truncation error estimate (or an argument why k ∈ {−1,0,1} suffices).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: "geometric corollary an upper bound" should read "geometric corollary of an upper bound."
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: "an AC magnetic field field excites" has a duplicated word; "logroversampling" should be "log oversampling."
  3. [End Matter, Eq. (24)] The scaling argument for J_err omits the fact that ∂_B H_err does not contain B (H_err is proportional to B, so its B-derivative is δt[G,Z]/2). The text writes J_err ~ (∥H_err∥T)^2; the actual derivative is T·∂_B H_err, which would give a different B-dependence. This should be clarified, as it affects the m-dependence of the Trotter contribution.
  4. [Eq. (17) and bucket definition] The notation N ≡ Θ(|Δω|/(mB_min)) ≡ Θ(r) is introduced, but r is not defined before this equation. Define r explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [Acknowledgment] The acknowledgment repeats "this work was supported by." Minor wording issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the IQFI-to-witness derivation is self-contained given the cited ceiling, and the m-register scaling is an unsupported extrapolation, not a tautology.

full rationale

The single-register derivation is not circular: Eq. (4) and the ceiling (6) are imported from Ref. [20] (a prior paper by these authors), but the import is an analytic bound that is not the target result; the geometric steps (Bures angle, Cauchy-Schwarz, finite-displacement witness) genuinely transform it into Eq. (14). This is independent content, not a renaming or a fit. The one load-bearing extension, "With an m-register GHZ probe, the relevant Rabi scale is mBmin, giving T≳sqrt(|Δω|)/(mBmin)^{3/2}," does not follow from Eq. (14), which contains no m; it is an additional ansatz about the collective generator. That is a missing proof / correctness risk, but not circular: the bucket construction independently derives the same T from N=|Δω|/(mBmin) and p_det=Θ((mBminT)^2/N), so the m-scaling is not the conclusion of the IQFI derivation. The simulation is a consistency check of a protocol designed to meet the bound rather than an independent prediction, but no parameter is fitted from the data and the measured stopping times are compared to the predicted scale. The Trotter-error section labels its own contribution as "heuristic content," again a rigor caveat, not circularity. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by construction; the paper's limitations are omitted derivations and self-citation, not circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central scaling inherits the IQFI ceiling from prior work by the same authors; the protocol adds an unproven GHZ enhancement and an unproven random-tiling certificate. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • C1, C2 in IQFI ceiling (Eq. 4) = unspecified O(1) constants
    Protocol-dependent constants introduced to absorb discretization and Trotter-error prefactors; no values are needed for scaling, but the bound is only meaningful if they are constant.
  • detection threshold p0 / θ0 = unstated constant; θ0=arcsin√p0
    The large-deviation argument needs a fixed p0>0 such that p_det(Bmin,ω,T)≥p0 for all ω; the protocol's stopping rule uses a preset L1 threshold that is never quantified.
  • flatness tolerance ε_T (Eq. 15) = unstated
    Spectral-flatness certification requires a chosen ε_T<1; no construction or bound for achieving it is given beyond the simulation inset.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption IQFI ceiling K(B,T) ≤ C B T^2 (Eq. 6) for continuous-control protocols
    Imported from Ref. [20] (same first and last authors); the paper only outlines the Trotter/heuristic derivation, so the central corollary inherits any hidden assumptions in that bound.
  • domain assumption Trotter-error term in Eq. (4) scales as O(B^2 T^2 δt) and optimizing δt yields Eq. (6)
    End Matter gives an order-of-magnitude argument (Eqs. (19)–(25)) but no rigorous bound; protocol-dependent prefactors are absorbed into unspecified C1, C2.
  • standard math Bures angle is the geodesic distance and θ≤ℓ; Cauchy–Schwarz on ∫√J
    Used in Eqs. (9)–(11); standard quantum geometry result.
  • standard math p_det = 1−F(ρ0,ρB) bounds fidelity; Fuchs–van de Graaf allows constant-bias discrimination
    Text after Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption A nearly time-independent Hamiltonian can approximate Haar-random conjugating unitary U (Refs [35,36])
    Needed for G_single = U G_SSH U† to be 'all-analog'; relies on approximate unitary design constructions.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomized SSH spectrum with N=Θ(r log r) modes has every bucket of width mBmin covered (no deep spectral holes)
    Assumed in the bucket-tiling argument and End Matter; no proof or quantitative failure probability is given, only 'mild log oversampling'.
  • ad hoc to paper m-register GHZ probe simply replaces B with mB in the IQFI-corollary scaling
    The sentence 'the relevant Rabi scale is mBmin' is the only justification; no m-dependent version of Eqs. (6) or (12) is derived, so the GHZ enhancement is an assumption rather than a consequence.
  • ad hoc to paper Three-harmonic Floquet truncation (k=−1,0,+1) is sufficient to simulate the dynamics
    Used for Fig. 2; no convergence test across harmonics is reported, though brute-force open markers at small m partially validate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9326 in / 19207 out tokens · 213542 ms · 2026-08-03T07:31:41.913525+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Broadband detection of a weak oscillatory field with unknown carrier frequency underlies magnetometry, axion searches and gravitational-wave sensing. We show that the Grover-like integration-time lower bound for this task is a geometric corollary of an upper bound on the integrated quantum Fisher information and present an all-analog protocol with near-optimal scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19816 by Anthony M. Polloreno, Graeme Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Simple broadband sensing by internal band engineering. a) An incoming AC magnetic field field excites a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Simulated stopping time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Precision limits for time-dependent quantum metrology under Markovian noise

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Derives differential upper bounds on quantum Fisher information for time-dependent metrology under Markovian noise and proves universal long-time scaling laws saturated by quantum error correction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dy- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Experimental searches for the axion and axion-like particles, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science65, 485 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Huang, S

    H.-Y. Huang, S. Choi, J. R. McClean, and J. Preskill, The vast world of quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05720 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Babbush, R

    R. Babbush, R. King, S. Boixo, W. Huggins, T. Khattar, G. H. Low, J. R. McClean, T. O’Brien, and N. C. Ru- bin, The grand challenge of quantum applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09124 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Stas, Y.-C

    P.-J. Stas, Y.-C. Wei, M. Sirotin, Y. Huan, U. Yazlar, F. A. Arias, E. Knyazev, G. Baranes, B. Machielse, S. Grandi,et al., Entanglement assisted non-local opti- cal interferometry in a quantum network, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09464 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    J. M. Brown and T. G. Walker, Perspective: Practical atom-based quantum sensors, Physical Review A112, 040102 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    S. A. Khan, S. Prabhu, L. G. Wright, and P. L. McMa- hon, Quantum computational sensing using quantum sig- nal processing, quantum neural networks, and hamil- tonian engineering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15845 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Cotler, W

    J. Cotler, W. Gong, and I. Kannan, Noisy quantum learn- ing theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10929 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    J.-J. Feng, A. J. Brady, and Q. Zhuang, Physical-layer machine learning with multimode interferometric photon counting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12309 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    S. Liu, X. Wu, and M. Y. Niu, Optimal and robust in- situ quantum hamiltonian learning through paralleliza- tion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07818 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Qian and J

    D. Qian and J. Wang, Data-driven learnability transition of measurement-induced entanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01317 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Physical Review Letters79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  15. [15]

    R. R. Allen, F. Machado, I. L. Chuang, H.-Y. Huang, and S. Choi, Quantum computing enhanced sensing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07625 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the heisenberg limit, Physical review letters71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  17. [17]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maxi- mally correlated states, Physical Review A54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  18. [18]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  19. [19]

    A. M. Polloreno,Characterizing Quantum Devices Us- ing the Principles of Quantum Information, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    A. M. Polloreno, J. L. Beckey, J. Levin, A. Shlos- berg, J. K. Thompson, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, and G. Smith, Opportunities and limitations in broadband sensing, Physical Review Applied19, 014029 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    J. L. Beckey,Theoretical Tools for Quantum Sensor Opti- mization and Entanglement Quantification, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Shi and Q

    H. Shi and Q. Zhuang, Ultimate precision limit of noise sensing and dark matter search, npj Quantum Informa- tion9, 27 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, Journal of the American sta- tistical association58, 13 (1963)

    W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, Journal of the American sta- tistical association58, 13 (1963)

    1963

  24. [24]

    Chernoff, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 493 (1952)

    H. Chernoff, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 493 (1952)

    1952

  25. [25]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement(Cam- bridge university press, 2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, The “transition probability” in the state space of a*-algebra, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273 (1976)

    1976

  27. [27]

    C. A. Fuchs and J. Van De Graaf, Cryptographic dis- tinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory45, 1216 (2002)

    2002

  28. [28]

    D. Bures, An extension of kakutani’s theorem on infi- nite product measures to the tensor product of semifinite w*-algebras, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society135, 199 (1969)

    1969

  29. [29]

    C. W. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of esti- mates in quantum statistics, Physics letters A25, 101 (1967)

    1967

  30. [30]

    Spehner, Bures geodesics and quantum metrology, Quantum9, 1715 (2025)

    D. Spehner, Bures geodesics and quantum metrology, Quantum9, 1715 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J

    K. ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, Average fidelity between random quantum states, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics71, 032313 (2005)

    2005

  32. [32]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum optics(Cam- bridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  33. [33]

    J. K. Asb´ oth, L. Oroszl´ any, and A. P´ alyi,A Short Course on Topological Insulators: Band Structure and Edge States in One and Two Dimensions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 919 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene, Physical Review Letters42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  35. [35]

    Nakata, C

    Y. Nakata, C. Hirche, M. Koashi, and A. Winter, Ef- ficient unitary designs with nearly time-independent hamiltonian dynamics, arXiv:1609.07021 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    LaRacuente and F

    N. LaRacuente and F. Leditzky, Approximate unitaryk- designs from shallow, low-communication circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07876 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A near-quantum-limited josephson traveling-wave para- metric amplifier, Science350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    B. H. Eom, P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, and J. Zmuidzinas, A wideband, low-noise superconducting amplifier with high 6 dynamic range, Nature Physics8, 623 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    Morichetti, C

    F. Morichetti, C. Ferrari, A. Canciamilla, and A. Melloni, The first decade of coupled resonator optical waveguides: bringing slow light to applications, Laser & Photonics Reviews6, 74 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    Takesue, N

    H. Takesue, N. Matsuda, E. Kuramochi, W. J. Munro, and M. Notomi, An on-chip coupled resonator optical waveguide single-photon buffer, Nature Communications 4, 2725 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    Sangouard, C

    N. Sangouard, C. Simon, M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin, Analysis of a quantum memory for photons based on controlled reversible inhomogeneous broadening, Physi- cal Review A75, 032327 (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol

    M. Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 89 (Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 2001)

    2001

  44. [44]

    P. Hayden, Concentration of measure effects in quantum information, inQuantum Information Science and Its Contributions to Mathematics, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 68 (American Mathemati- cal Society, 2010) pp. 3–12

    2010

  45. [45]

    A. D. L. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information, Quantum8, 1340 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    next-order

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to quantum randomizing, Physical Review A80, 012304 (2009). 7 T rotter Error Equation (4) contains a “next-order” contribution scaling asB 2T 2δtwhen a continuous-control protocol is approx- imated by piecewise-constant controls of step sizeδt. H...

    2009