Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Unbiased Estimation of Conditional Covariance for Quantum Optomechanics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-trajectory estimator recovers the conditional covariance of a continuously measured quantum oscillator without assuming forward–backward covariance symmetry.

desk verdict The three-trajectory covariance identity is a real and clean result; the experimental 'verification' is a guarded consistency test, so the abstract's 'fixed independently' overstates what the paper shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06431 v2 pith:JCVJ63YK submitted 2026-07-07 quant-ph

Katsuta Sakai , Nobuyuki Matsumoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 93E1181V80
keywords conditionalcovariancequantumtrajectoryKalmanfilteringretrodictionsmoothingoptomechanicsfeedbackcoolingentanglementverification
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

Continuous measurement can condition a macroscopic mechanical oscillator into a nearly pure state, but verifying the conditional covariance—the matrix that determines purity and entanglement—has been biased: the standard two-trajectory estimator assumes the future-record likelihood has the same covariance as the forward conditional state, an assumption that fails under feedback damping and colored noise. This paper derives an exact linear-Gaussian estimator that adds a third trajectory, the smoothed estimate, and combines the three pairwise trajectory differences so that the unknown future-likelihood covariance cancels algebraically. The result recovers the full forward covariance, including off-diagonal elements, without separate bias corrections. Applied to a 7.71-mg suspended mirror, the reconstruction agrees with a Riccati prediction based on independently fixed parameters (χ²V = 0.66, p = 0.884), while the conventional estimator exhibits a systematic covariance-space bias dM ≃ 3.5 that record length cannot remove. If correct, the method gives a pathway to unbiased macroscopic entanglement certification in tabletop and gravitational-wave-scale optomechanical systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-trajectory covariance identity, Eq. (3)/Eq. (S33): V = ½[Var(fwd−bwd) + Var(sm−fwd) − Var(sm−bwd)], built from the causal Kalman filter, the maximum-likelihood future-record retrodiction (the 'effect' variable), and the two-filter smoother. All three trajectories are constructed from the same measured record through a calibrated linear-Gaussian state-space model that includes auxiliary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck states for colored structural-damping thermal noise and a coherent laser-intensity-noise channel. The orthogonality property of the smoothing error—the residual of the complete-record conditional mean is uncorrelated with any function of the record—is wha

What would settle it

Generate a synthetic linear-Gaussian measurement record with a known forward covariance V and a deliberately asymmetric future-likelihood covariance V^(E), e.g., strong feedback damping plus colored thermal noise, then apply Eq. (3) and the conventional half-difference estimator: if the three-trajectory estimate does not recover the known V within statistical error, or if it still shows a bias comparable to the conventional estimator's dM ≈ 3.5, the identity or its implementation is wrong. On the experimental side, an out-of-loop measurement of the stabilized laser-frequency noise—or use of a

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an identity: for a linear-Gaussian system under continuous measurement, the forward conditional covariance V equals one half times [Var(x_fwd − x_bwd) + Var(x_sm − x_fwd) − Var(x_sm − x_bwd)], where x_fwd is the causal Kalman estimate, x_bwd is the future-likelihood retrodiction, and x_sm is the two-filter smoothed estimate. The identity holds because the smoothing error is orthogonal to every record-derived trajectory, giving V = V(s) + Var(x_sm − x_fwd) and V^(E) = V(s) + Var(x_sm − x_bwd); combining with Var(x_fwd − x_bwd) = V + V^(E) cancels the unknown future-likelihood covariance V^(E). The estimator therefore does not require V^(E) ≃ V and retains the off-diagonal

Load-bearing premise

The reduced state-space model—the 1/f structural-damping thermal force approximated by three Ornstein–Uhlenbeck poles, feedback cooling absorbed into an effective damping rate, and no independently measured residual laser-frequency-noise state—must accurately describe the apparatus, and f_eff, Q_eff, and δ are fixed from the same 10-s record used for verification, so any model error enters both the estimator filters and the Riccati comparison in a correlated way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The systematic bias of the conventional two-trajectory estimator, quantified as dM ≈ 3.5 at the operating point, is removed without needing numerical correction factors.
  • All covariance elements, including the off-diagonal q–p correlations that cancel in the half-difference method, are reconstructed from the record.
  • Feedback cooling can be used to reduce macroscopic unconditional motion without invalidating the covariance estimate through a forward–backward symmetry assumption.
  • In the two-mirror entanglement geometry analyzed by the paper, the conventional estimator would classify some entangled configurations as separable (EN = 0 while the true value is EN = 0.1), so this estimator is needed for reliable entanglement certification.
  • The method applies to both milligram-scale tabletop mirrors and kilogram-scale gravitational-wave test masses, since it needs only a calibrated linear-Gaussian model and a single measurement record.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the identity relies only on linear-Gaussian orthogonality and not on optomechanical specifics, it should transfer to any continuously monitored linear system—classical control plants, circuit-QED, or cold-atom sensors—where the future-likelihood covariance deviates from the forward covariance; a numerical simulation with a known asymmetric V^(E) would test this directly.
  • The experimental closure is a consistency test of the reduced state-space model as much as of the estimator: f_eff, Q_eff, and δ are fixed from the same 10-s record used for verification, so any model error enters the filters and the Riccati reference in a correlated way; a stronger test would use a held-out record or an out-of-loop measurement of the stabilized laser-frequency noise.
  • Since the two-trajectory bias is systematic and does not vanish with record length, previously reported conditional-covariance results obtained in feedback-cooled or detuned systems may need re-examination; the paper itself does not survey that body of work.
  • A natural extension is to apply the three-trajectory estimator to the bipartite two-mirror geometry of the paper's Fig. 1 and ask whether the reconstructed two-mirror covariance violates the positive-partial-transpose criterion, providing a direct macroscopic entanglement witness.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives and experimentally applies a three-trajectory estimator for the forward conditional covariance V of a continuously measured linear-Gaussian (optomechanical) system, using the causal (filtered), future-likelihood (retrodictive), and two-filter smoothed trajectories. The central identity, Eq. (3)/Eq. (S33), V = [Var(x_fwd−x_bwd) + Var(x_sm−x_fwd) − Var(x_sm−x_bwd)]/2, follows from the orthogonality of the smoothing error to record-derived trajectories and cancels the unknown future-likelihood covariance V^(E) without assuming V^(E)≃V, while recovering off-diagonal elements. On data from a 7.71-mg suspended-mirror cavity, the reconstructed covariance agrees with the matched finite-band Riccati prediction (χ²_V=0.66, p=0.884; frequency-resolved χ²_SV=86.2, p=0.198), whereas the conventional two-trajectory estimator shows the predicted systematic bias (d_M≈3.47±0.48 vs model d_M=3.65). The paper also predicts that the conventional estimator would misclassify the state as separable in a proposed bipartite entanglement configuration (Fig. 1 lower panel).

Significance. The theoretical core is clean and genuinely useful. Eq. (3), derived in Sec. S1 from the orthogonality of the smoothing error to record-derived trajectories, removes the V^(E)≃V assumption that limits the conventional retrodictive estimator, recovers the full covariance including off-diagonal terms, and is parameter-free within the linear-Gaussian model — no fitted bias correction is involved. The discrete-time sample-assignment subtlety is addressed correctly. The experimental execution is careful: 300 paired nuisance draws, coherent displacement-calibration rank-one propagation, paired experiment–model residuals, boundary trimming, and an alternative no-time-domain-filter reanalysis are all reported. The predicted covariance-space bias (d_M≃3.65) and the entanglement misclassification scenario (Fig. 1 lower panel) are falsifiable model-based predictions, and the experimental d_M=3.47±0.48 is consistent with them. The authors are candid about limitations: line-excised covariance optimism, the unmeasured boost-on frequency-noise residual, and the non-identifiability of a single-output spectrum. If the validation claims are reframed as a covariance-closure consistency test, this is

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. S2.1/Table S1; Sec. S3.4] The abstract and Summary say the reconstruction 'agrees with a Riccati prediction based on parameters fixed independently.' The verification is a closed-loop consistency test: Table S1 shows f_eff, Q_eff, and δ were fixed from the ordinary displacement spectrum of the same 10-s record used for verification, and Sec. S3.4 gives S_V(ω)=W(ω)S_y(ω). Since the parameters were calibrated to reproduce S_y(ω), the matched finite-band prediction tracks the estimator largely by construction. The quoted statistics (χ²_V=0.66, p=0.884; χ²_SV=86.2, p=0.198) establish internal consistency and correct filter implementation, not independent certification of V; the paper concedes 'A single-output spectrum cannot, by itself, identify an arbitrary internal realization.' Please reframe the abstract/Summary accordingly.
  2. [Sec. S2.2; Fig. 4] The frequency-resolved test is presented as 'more restrictive' than integrated covariance agreement, but its conclusion depends strongly on the modeled off-diagonal structure of the residual covariance. In the no-time-domain-filter reanalysis (Sec. S2.2), χ²_SV=29.6 (ν=76, p≈1) with the full propagated covariance but χ²=155.5 (p=2.09×10^-7) with diagonal-only covariance; the paper calls the full covariance 'conservative.' The main-text result (χ²_SV=86.2, p=0.198) and the claim of 'no resolved systematic residual' therefore carry limited power and hinge on retained correlations. Please quantify the sensitivity of the main-text statistic to the covariance model, or temper the 'more restrictive' claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Main text (general)] The typeset text contains duplicated blocks: the opening of the Theory section, the experimental data-analysis paragraph, and the captions of Figs. 1–4 each appear twice. This must be cleaned in the revised version.
  2. [References] Refs. [14] and [34] are the same Mayne paper; deduplicate. Ref. [28] should read 'Peres–Horodecki' with proper capitalization.
  3. [Sec. S2.2, Table S2] In Table S2 the experimental entry '0.400±1.09×10^3' is hard to parse; use consistent notation, e.g., (0.400±1.09)×10^3, and align the model/experiment columns.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'exact linear-Gaussian estimator' should be glossed as 'exact within the calibrated linear-Gaussian model' to match the body's careful qualification in the Discussion.
  5. [Results] The conventional two-trajectory estimator is compared against the full-band Riccati target while the three-trajectory estimator is compared against the matched finite-band prediction. Because the estimators are band-limited (130 Hz–2 kHz), please also report the matched finite-band forward target for the two-trajectory comparison to separate band truncation from estimator bias.
  6. [Sec. S2.3] The ×4 'mode-mixing' factor in Eq. (S105) is carried over from Ref. [21]; please state whether any uncertainty is associated with this factor, since it scales the thermal-force noise level entering the filters.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The three-trajectory estimator is not circular, but the experimental validation is a consistency test: the Riccati reference and the estimator filters share parameters fixed from the same displacement record.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Suspended-mirror experiment and data analysis; Discussion/Eq. (10); Table S1]
    "A common set of representative values, feff = 283.5 Hz and Qeff = 250, was fixed for all six intervals before evaluating any trajectory-difference covariance. ... Although SV is not generally the filtering-error spectrum, for a single-output record and a fixed state-space realization it has the form SV(ω) = W(ω)Sy(ω)."

    The Riccati prediction used as the validation reference is computed from the same fixed-parameter state-space model that builds the causal, future-likelihood, and smoothing filters. Those parameters (feff, Qeff, δ) are themselves fixed from the ordinary displacement spectrum of the same 10-s record used for verification. Since the three-trajectory spectral estimator has the form SV = W·Sy, and the matched finite-band reference is the same filter W applied to the model spectrum, any state-space model whose output spectrum is calibrated to the measured spectrum will force agreement between the reconstructed and predicted SV. The paper concedes 'A single-output spectrum cannot, by itself, identify an arbitrary internal realization.' Thus χ²_V = 0.66 (p = 0.884) demonstrates self-consistency b

full rationale

The central theoretical contribution, Eq. (3)/Eq. (S33), is derived from the standard orthogonality property of smoothing (Eqs. S28–S32) and is parameter-free: it algebraically cancels the unknown future-likelihood covariance V^(E) without fitting to the experimental record or to the Riccati reference. That part of the paper is not circular. The circularity is confined to the experimental validation: the abstract claims agreement with a Riccati prediction 'based on parameters fixed independently,' but the body shows that the key operating parameters (feff, Qeff, δ) were fixed from the ordinary displacement spectrum of the same record used for verification, and the estimator and reference share those parameters. A model error that leaves the displacement spectrum unchanged would shift both the reconstructed covariance and the Riccati prediction coherently, so the reported closure statistics are consistency tests rather than independent verification. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation ('single-output spectrum cannot, by itself, identify an arbitrary internal realization'), but the abstract's 'fixed independently' overstates the evidential strength. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The auxiliary Ornstein-Uhlenbeck states and the 3/24-pole realizations are standard Markovianization constructs, not new matter/fields/forces. The ledger's free parameters are the model inputs fixed from the same or auxiliary records; the load-bearing modeling choices are the structural-damping law, the ×4 pitch-mode factor, and the exclusion of the residual frequency-noise channel.

free parameters (6)
  • f_eff = 283.5 Hz (effective trapped-mode frequency) = 283.5(67) Hz
    Fixed from the ordinary displacement spectrum of the same 10-s record used for verification; enters both the filters and the Riccati reference (Table S1).
  • Q_eff = 250 (effective quality factor) = 250(13)
    Fixed from the same displacement spectrum; absorbs feedback damping as an effective parameter (Table S1).
  • δ = Δ/κ = 0.0703 (normalized detuning) = 0.0703 ± 0.0034
    Assigned by zero-crossing branch selection on the same band-passed displacement trace; the two-branch ambiguity is resolved by a model-correlation test (Sec. S2.1).
  • R_RIN,0 = 5.21 (shot-noise-normalized intensity-noise ASD ratio) = 5.21, range [4.30, 6.12]
    Central value is the midpoint of two same-condition out-of-loop records; genuinely independent of the covariance reconstruction but adopted as the central fixed input (Sec. S2.3).
  • OU shaping coefficients a_j, C_j (3-pole approximation) = Table S4: a_j/2π = 10, 100, 1000 Hz
    Chosen so the finite sum approximates the 1/Ω structural-damping PSD over 130 Hz–2 kHz; a modeling choice that shapes both the filter model and the reference.
  • ×4 pitch-mode mixing factor in S^susp_FF = 4
    Hand-selected multiplicative factor in the thermal-force PSD, attributed to mode mixing with the pitch mode (Eq. S105); not derived from a first-principles calculation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Two-filter smoothing identities and smoothing-error orthogonality (projection theorem) hold for the linear-Gaussian model.
    Used to derive Eqs. (S24), (S31), (S32), and the central Eq. (S33); classical results cited from Refs. 13, 14, 36, 37.
  • domain assumption For symmetrized first and second moments, the positive Gaussian Wigner representation obeys the same linear-estimation algebra as a classical Gaussian process.
    The entire estimator operates at the symmetrized-moment level; the quantum subtleties of smoothing (Refs. 15–17) are cited but not resolved.
  • domain assumption Suspension thermal noise follows structural damping, S^susp_FF ∝ 1/Ω, with the anelastic suspension model and the ×4 pitch-mode factor.
    Eq. (S105) and Sec. S2.3; based on Refs. 18–21, but the ×4 factor is calibration-specific.
  • domain assumption Cavity quadratures can be adiabatically eliminated (κ much larger than mechanical frequencies in band).
    Eqs. (S94)–(S95) in Sec. S3.1; standard for this regime but a modeling reduction.
  • domain assumption Feedback-cooling added noise is negligible; the loop is absorbed into effective γ_eff.
    Sec. S3.1: 'the feedback-cooling loop is not included as an additional dynamical loop; its added force noise is neglected.'
  • domain assumption Residual laser-frequency noise is subdominant in the verification band and is not included as a fitted state-space noise source.
    Secs. S2.3 and S3.3; explicitly flagged as the main residual observability caveat because no out-of-loop boost-on measurement exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unbiased Estimation of Conditional Covariance for Quantum Optomechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCVJ63YK

@misc{pith2026260706431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unbiased Estimation of Conditional Covariance for Quantum Optomechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCVJ63YK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06431}
}
abstract

Continuous measurements can prepare macroscopic mechanical oscillators in conditional quantum states, but their covariance is difficult to verify. The conventional retrodictive estimator assumes a forward--backward covariance symmetry and can be biased, because physical dynamics such as feedback damping reduces the observability of the state from future records. Here, we derive an exact linear-Gaussian estimator from causal, retrodictive, and smoothed trajectories. For a milligram-scale mirror, it agrees with a Riccati prediction based on parameters fixed independently, while the conventional estimate exhibits a covariance-space bias of $d_M\simeq3.5$. Our method paves the way toward unbiased testing of macroscopic entanglement within a calibrated linear-Gaussian model, applicable to both tabletop mirrors and kg-scale gravitational-wave test masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows how strongly the conventional two￾trajectory estimator is biased when the symmetry as￾sumption V (E) ≃ V fails. We quantify the deterministic covariance mismatch by the covariance-space distance dM(Vconv, V ) = " 1 2 X i (log λi) 2 #1/2 . (8) FIG. 1. Bias of the conventional retrodictive esti￾mator. The color scale shows the covariance-space distance dM between the conventional two-trajectory covariance Vconv … 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_p004_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]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Nanohertz Pendulum toward Macroscopic Entanglement under Structural Damping

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Structural damping's 1/f tail raises the entanglement-threshold cooperativity by 49%, and a stepped-fiber 7-mg pendulum with Γ/2π = 361(39) nHz delivers G_q ≈ 2.5, exceeding the required gain G_req = 1.49.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wieczorek, S

    W. Wieczorek, S. G. Hofer, J. Hoelscher-Obermaier, R. Riedinger, K. Hammerer, and M. Aspelmeyer, Opti- mal state estimation for cavity optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 223601 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    D. J. Wilson, V. Sudhir, N. Piro, R. Schilling, A. H. Ghadimi, and T. J. Kippenberg, Measurement-based control of a mechanical oscillator at its thermal deco- herence rate, Nature524, 325 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion, Nature563, 53 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, and A. Schliesser, Observ- ing and verifying the quantum trajectory of a mechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 163601 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Müller-Ebhardt, H

    H. Müller-Ebhardt, H. Rehbein, R. Schnabel, K. Danz- mann, and Y. Chen, Entanglement of macroscopic test masses and the standard quantum limit in laser interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 013601 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    D. Miki, N. Matsumoto, A. Matsumura, T. Shichijo, Y. Sugiyama, K. Yamamoto, and N. Yamamoto, Gen- erating quantum entanglement between macroscopic ob- jects with continuous measurement and feedback control, Phys. Rev. A107, 032410 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    C. Meng, G. A. Brawley, S. Khademi, E. M. Bridge, J. S. Bennett, and W. P. Bowen, Measurement-based preparation of multimode mechanical states, Sci. Adv. 8, eabm7585 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Huang, A

    G. Huang, A. Beccari, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippen- berg, Room-temperature quantum optomechanics using an ultralow noise cavity, Nature626, 512 (2024)

    2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    R. E. Kalman and R. S. Bucy, New results in linear filter- ing and prediction theory, Journal of Basic Engineering 83, 95 (1961)

    1961

  2. [10]

    Gammelmark, B

    S. Gammelmark, B. Julsgaard, and K. Mølmer, Past quantum states of a monitored system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160401 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Zhang and K

    J. Zhang and K. Mølmer, Prediction and retrodiction with continuously monitored gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A96, 062131 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Hatakeyama, R

    K. Hatakeyama, R. Fukuzumi, A. Matsumura, D. Miki, and K. Yamamoto, Measurement-Based Estimation of Causal Conditional Variances and Its Applica- tion to Macroscopic quantum phenomenon, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16821 10.48550/arXiv.2603.16821 (2026), arXiv v2 (2026), arXiv:26...

    2026 doi

  5. [13]

    H. E. Rauch, F. Tung, and C. T. Striebel, Maximum likelihood estimates of linear dynamic systems, AIAA J. 3, 1445 (1965)

    1965

  6. [14]

    D. Q. Mayne, A solution of the smoothing problem for linear dynamic systems, Automatica4, 73 (1966)

    1966

  7. [15]

    Tsang, Generalized conditional expectations for quan- tum retrodiction and smoothing, Phys

    M. Tsang, Generalized conditional expectations for quan- tum retrodiction and smoothing, Phys. Rev. A105, 042213 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Guevara and H

    I. Guevara and H. M. Wiseman, Quantum state smooth- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180407 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    K. T. Laverick, P. Warszawski, A. Chantasri, and H. M. Wiseman, Quantum state smoothing cannot be assumed classical even when the filtering and retrofiltering are classical, PRX Quantum4, 040340 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    G. I. González and P. R. Saulson, Brownian motion of a mass suspended by an anelastic wire, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.96, 207 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    A. R. Neben, T. P. Bodiya, C. Wipf, E. Oelker, T. Cor- bitt, and N. Mavalvala, Structural thermal noise in gram- scale mirror oscillators, New Journal of Physics14, 115008 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    S. A. Fedorov, V. Sudhir, R. Schilling, H. Schütz, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, Evidence for structural damping in a high-stress silicon nitride nanobeam and its implications for quantum optomechanics, Physics Letters A382, 2251 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Matsumoto, M

    N. Matsumoto, M. Sugawara, S. Suzuki, N. Abe, K. Ko- mori, Y. Michimura, Y. Aso, S. B. Cataño-Lopez, and K. Edamatsu, Demonstration of displacement sensing of a mg-scale pendulum for mm- and mg-scale gravity mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071101 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Whittle, E

    C. Whittle, E. D. Hall, S. Dwyer, N. Mavalvala, V. Sud- hir,et al., Approaching the motional ground state of a 10-kg object, Science372, 1333 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Corbitt, C

    T. Corbitt, C. Wipf, T. Bodiya, D. Ottaway, D. Sigg, N. Smith, S. Whitcomb, and N. Mavalvala, Optical di- lution and feedback cooling of a gram-scale oscillator to 6.9 mk, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 160801 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    S. B. Cataño-Lopez, J. G. Santiago-Condori, K. Edamatsu, and N. Matsumoto, High-qmilligram- scale monolithic pendulum for quantum-limited gravity measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221102 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Komori, D

    K. Komori, D. Ďurovčíková, and V. Sudhir, Quantum theory of feedback cooling of an anelastic macromechan- ical oscillator, Phys. Rev. A105, 043520 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, On the theory of the brownian motion, Physical Review36, 823 (1930)

    1930

  19. [27]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insep- arability criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2722 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Simon, Peres–horodecki separability criterion for con- tinuous variable systems, Phys

    R. Simon, Peres–horodecki separability criterion for con- tinuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2726 (2000)

    2000

  21. [30]

    Note that in v5 of arXiv:2008.10848, the difference be- tween the prediction and retrodiction power spectra was used instead of the power spectrum of the difference be- tween the two estimates, thereby omitting the required cross-spectrum

    2008 arXiv

  22. [31]

    H. Miao, S. Danilishin, H. Müller-Ebhardt, H. Rehbein, K. Somiya, and Y. Chen, Probing macroscopic quantum states with a sub-heisenberg accuracy, Phys. Rev. A81, 012114 (2010)

    2010

  23. [32]

    R. A. Thomas, M. Parniak, C. Østfeldt, C. B. Møller, C. Bærentsen, Y. Tsaturyan, A. Schliesser, J. Appel, E. Zeuthen, and E. S. Polzik, Entanglement between 7 distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems, Nat. Phys.17, 228 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Matsumoto, K

    N. Matsumoto, K. Sakai, K. Hatakeyama, K. Izumi, D. Miki, S. Iso, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, Space-based cm/kg-scale Laser Interferometer for Quantum Gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12899 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12899 (2025), arXiv:2507.12899 [quant-ph]

    2025 doi

  25. [34]

    Mayne, A solution of the smoothing problem for linear dynamic systems, Automatica4, 73 (1966)

    D. Mayne, A solution of the smoothing problem for linear dynamic systems, Automatica4, 73 (1966)

    1966

  26. [35]

    Fraser and J

    D. Fraser and J. Potter, The optimum linear smoother as a combination of two optimum linear filters, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control14, 387 (1969)

    1969

  27. [36]

    R. K. Mehra,On Optimal and Suboptimal Linear Smoothing, Contractor Report NASA-CR-97072 (Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 1968)

    1968

  28. [37]

    J. E. W. Jr, A. S. Willsky, and N. R. S. Jr, On the fixed- interval smoothing problem†, Stochastics5, 1 (1981), https://doi.org/10.1080/17442508108833172

    1981 doi

  29. [38]

    Khademi, J

    S. Khademi, J. J. Slim, K. T. Laverick, J. Chang, J.Guo, S.Gröblacher, H.M.Wiseman,andW.P.Bowen, Post-processed estimation of quantum state trajectories (2025), arXiv:2510.16754 [quant-ph]

    2025

  30. [39]

    Matsumoto, K

    N. Matsumoto, K. Komori, S. Ito, Y. Michimura, and Y. Aso, Direct measurement of optical-trap-induced de- coherence, Phys. Rev. A94, 033822 (2016)

    2016

  31. [40]

    E. H. Moore, On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 26, 394 (1920)

    1920

  32. [41]

    Unbiased Estimation of Conditional Covariance for Quantum Optomechanics

    R. Penrose, A generalized inverse for matrices, Proceed- ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society51, 406 (1955). 8 Supplemental Material for “Unbiased Estimation of Conditional Covariance for Quantum Optomechanics” Katsuta Sakai1,2 and Nobuyuki Matsumoto1 1Department of Phy...

    1955

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.