Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single controllable qubit, coupled to an otherwise conventional sensor, exponentially reduces the number of measurements needed to learn classical signals.

desk verdict A strong central idea and a real experimental proof-of-principle, but the advertised 'conventional' lower bound is proven only for Gaussian protocols; worth refereeing carefully with full appendices. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13521 v1 pith:BZJAQXKY submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

Ishaan Kannan , Sridhar Prabhu , Saeed A. Khan , Mandar M. Sohoni , Xingrui Song , Saswata Roy , Alen Senanian , Valla Fatemi
show 2 more authors
Peter L. McMahon Jordan Cotler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITcs.LGmath.IT
keywords quantumsensingexponentialadvantagesamplecomplexityFouriercoefficientestimationsingle-qubitcontrolphase-spaceinferencetemporalcorrelationssuperconductingcircuit
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 sets out to show that one controllable qubit, added to an otherwise conventional quantum sensor, can exponentially reduce the number of measurements needed to learn properties of a classical signal. It establishes this for learning Fourier coefficients of a displacement distribution, for multi-time correlations of a time-varying signal, and for polynomial functionals of a signal. If true, near-term devices with a single coherent qubit and modest control would gain an exponential sample-complexity edge over equal-energy Gaussian sensing across tasks such as dark-matter-stream characterization, radar, and wireless decoding. The paper also reports a proof-of-principle superconducting experiment in which the qubit-assisted sensor learns Fourier amplitudes with roughly $10^7$ times fewer measurements than an idealized squeezed-homodyne baseline.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the accessible feature information (AFI), defined by Q$\Psi$ as the squared $L^2(P_0)$ norm of the conditional expectation $\mathbb{E}[h(X)|Y]$ of the target feature given the measurement outcome. A small AFI for an entire architecture yields a matching lower bound on the number of queries (the semiclassical measurement lemma), and the same quantity is saturated by an optimal estimator, so a ratio $\exp(\Omega(k))$ between the AFI of the qubit-assisted and Gaussian families certifies exponential advantage. Mechanically, the lower bound uses the fact that an energy-$E$ Gaussian experiment produces a Gaussian outcome whose covariance must satisfy $C \succeq (8E+4)^{-1}AA^T$, so its response to the $k$th Fourier character is suppressed by $\exp(-\Omega(k^2/E))$; the qubit protocol imprints the character $\chi_k$ directly through echoed conditional displacements, $ECD(\beta)=D(\beta/2)|g\rangle\langle e|+D(-\beta/2)|e\rangle\langle g|$, whose response amplitude decays only polynomially in $k$.

What would settle it

Take the binary discrimination task behind Figure 2 at equal energy and replace the qubit-assisted protocol with a squeezed probe followed by photon-number-resolving detection. If the sample complexity needed to reach $70\%$ accuracy grows polynomially in $k$ rather than as $\exp(\Omega(k))$, the exponential-advantage claim fails outside the Gaussian class. Equivalently, compute the AFI of a photon-number-resolving receiver for the Fourier-coefficient observable: an AFI that is only polynomially small in $k$ would contradict the theorem's universality for conventional protocols.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a small amount of quantum coherence and control is a qualitatively new sensing resource. For a classical signal that acts on a bosonic probe as a random displacement $D(\alpha)$, a protocol using probe energy $O(k)$, one ancilla qubit, and one control operation can learn the $k$th Fourier coefficient with $O(k)$ signal queries, while any conventional protocol in the class the paper formalizes (Gaussian probes with generaldyne measurements, plus adaptivity) requires $\exp(\Omega(k))$ queries. The same mechanism gives a single qubit of quantum memory an exponential advantage for estimating $m$-point temporal correlations, and gives ordinary Gaussian probes an exponential advantage over fully classical coherent-state probes for angular Fourier moments. The experiments, using a transmon qubit dispersively coupled to a microwave cavity, support the claimed scaling and show a factor of about $10^7$ in shot count at $k=20$ relative to an idealized squeezed-homodyne benchmark. All of these separations are derived from a single framework, Quantum Phase-Space Inference (Q$\Psi$), whose central quantity, the accessible feature information (AFI), simultaneously certifies a lower bound for an experimental family and an optimal protocol that attains it.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential lower bounds are proven only for Gaussian sensing protocols (states and measurements built from coherent states, squeezing, and homodyne or heterodyne readouts); if 'conventional sensor' includes non-Gaussian receivers such as photon-number-resolving detectors, the advertised scope is not established by the paper's proofs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Learning the $k$th Fourier coefficient of a classical signal takes $O(k)$ queries with a single control qubit, where the paper proves Gaussian sensors require $\exp(\Omega(k))$ queries (Theorem 1).
  • Adding one qubit of quantum memory makes $m$-point temporal correlation estimation an $O(1)$-query task, while memoryless protocols with equal energy need $\exp(\Omega(m))$ queries (Theorem 3).
  • Gaussian quantum probes already give an exponential advantage over fully classical coherent-state probes: $O(1)$ versus $\exp(\Omega(k))$ queries for angular Fourier coefficients (Theorem 2).
  • In the superconducting experiment, discriminating two signals with $70\%$ accuracy at $k=20$ takes about $10^2$ shots with the qubit-assisted protocol versus about $10^9$ for an idealized equal-energy Gaussian protocol, a seven-order-of-magnitude reduction.
  • In numerical simulations, a shallow qubit-based receiver identifies a 64-QAM symbol with about $100$ times fewer shots than a two-mode squeezed receiver and roughly $10^4$ times fewer than heterodyne detection at the same field strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theorem-level lower bounds are proved within the formal class of Gaussian sensing protocols, so the plain-language phrase 'conventional sensor' should be read as 'Gaussian sensor' until non-Gaussian receivers are ruled out; the natural next test is a photon-number-resolving receiver at equal energy.
  • Because Q$\Psi$ recasts experimental design as optimization over real-valued phase-space overlaps, the framework may lend itself to automated search for single-qubit protocols targeting other observables, such as higher-order spectra, rather than hand-built circuits.
  • Theorem 3's memory advantage suggests that stationary, separable sensors with one coherent ancilla could replace entangled multi-mode probes in noise spectroscopy, radar, and temporal-correlation tasks, an extrapolation to hardware the paper does not test.
  • If the single-qubit advantage persists under realistic photon loss at larger $k$, combining these protocols with error mitigation could open a route to practical quantum-enhanced sensing; the paper does not analyze this regime.
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 claims that a single controllable qubit coupled to a conventional single-mode sensor yields exponential reductions in the number of signal queries needed to learn classical-signal features. Theorem 1 asserts an O(k)-query protocol with O(k) probe energy plus one ancilla qubit and one control operation for learning the kth Fourier coefficient of a displacement-channel distribution, against an exp(Omega(k)) lower bound for any conventional protocol of the same energy. Theorems 2 and 3 extend the hierarchy to Gaussian-versus-classical probes and to a single qubit of quantum memory for temporal correlations. The authors introduce the QPsi/AFI framework, report a superconducting cavity-qubit demonstration with claimed 10^7-fold query reduction, and present numerical simulations for axion dark-matter and wireless-communication applications.

Significance. If the theorem were established for the stated class, this would be a notable advance: an exponential learning advantage from one qubit and one control gate for elementary signal-learning tasks, backed by a concrete experimental platform and an explicit framework. Strengths include a clear energy-accounting convention, an open data/code repository, detailed experimental parameters, and a unified AFI formalism that produces matching upper and lower bounds. The main caveat is that the central lower bound is proved only for Gaussian sensing protocols, while the abstract and Theorem 1 advertise 'any conventional protocol.' The paper also leaves the proof of Theorem 1 to appendices that are absent from the version under review, which prevents full verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1, Definition 18, Lemma 9] The central lower bound is proved for the Gaussian sensing class defined in Definition 18 (Gaussian probe states, generaldyne measurements, classical adaptivity), and the energy-Fisher constraint in Lemma 9 is specifically a Gaussian-measurement statement. The abstract and Theorem 1 state the hardness for 'any conventional protocol/sensor' without this qualifier. A non-Gaussian receiver, such as photon-number-resolving detection on a coherent or squeezed probe, is not included in the proof, so the advertised scope exceeds the proven one. Please either extend the lower bound to the larger class or consistently qualify the central claims as applying to Gaussian conventional protocols; the same qualifier should appear in the abstract, Theorem 1, and Figure 2(c).
  2. [Appendix E2/F2] The proof of Theorem 1 is deferred to paired sections E2 (lower bound) and F2 (upper bound) of the appendices, but these sections are not present in the manuscript version under review; only the roadmap and the definitions and lemmas in Appendix C appear. Consequently, the central exponential lower bound—in particular the Fourier-suppression argument that converts the Gaussian outcome lemma into an exp(Omega(k)) query bound for adaptive protocols—cannot be checked. The published version must include these proofs as complete theorems with all constants stated, or the version under review is not self-contained enough for acceptance.
  3. [Appendix B4, Figure 2(c)] The experimental demonstration of the 10^7-fold query reduction mixes directly measured data with a simulated, noiseless Gaussian baseline. In Figure 2(c) and Appendix B3, the QFS sample count at roughly 100 shots is experimental, but the conventional baseline is an idealized simulation, and the factor 10^7 is an extrapolated projection rather than a directly measured number of queries. Moreover, in the quantum-memory demonstration (Appendix B4, step 3), the qubit rotation angle is set using nu = 0.41 with the statement that the parameters 'were chosen to maximize the quantum advantage over the baseline'; a parameter chosen after seeing the comparison is not a fixed prediction. Please state clearly which numbers are measured, which are simulated, and how the free parameters were selected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract renders '10^7-fold reductions' as '107-fold reductions'; this is a formatting error that should be corrected.
  2. [Section II, Figure 2(c)] The phrase 'any conventional Gaussian approach' in the figure caption already carries the Gaussian qualifier, while Theorem 1 and the abstract use 'any conventional protocol' without it; the terminology should be made consistent throughout.
  3. [Appendix C2, Lemma 9] The equivalence C >= (8E+4)^-1 A A^T if and only if A^T C^+ A <= (8E+4) I is asserted without proof for general matrix A; please justify via the Schur complement or state it as a separate lemma.
  4. [Appendix C4, Definition 18] The energy constraint in the definition of Gaussian sensing should explicitly state whether E includes all ancilla modes and the measurement dilation, since Lemma 9's proof uses the energy of the joint state.
  5. [Section III.A] The text says QPsi extends beyond quantum Fisher information, but the central lower bound for Theorem 1, as presented, is derived via quantum Fisher information in Lemma 9; clarify that the AFI framework generalizes QFI-based bounds while the specific application still uses a Fisher-information step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential-separation proofs are self-contained; self-citations supply modeling and hardware context, not the separation itself.

full rationale

The central claims are supported by self-contained proofs rather than by inputs renamed as predictions. Theorem 1's upper bound is an explicit single-qubit cat/ECD protocol whose O(k) query complexity follows from the physical response function, while the exp(Ω(k)) lower bound is derived in Appendix E2 from Lemma 9, which bounds the covariance of any Gaussian generaldyne outcome by C ⪰ (8E+4)^{-1} A A^T using quantum Fisher information and the energy constraint, combined with standard Le Cam/KL transcript bounds. These ingredients do not assume the theorem being proved. The QΨ/AFI apparatus is a proved equivalence: the semiclassical measurement lemma gives N = Ω(η^{-2} Λ^{-1}) and Theorem D.27 gives a matching O(η^{-2} Λ^{-1} log(1/δ)) sample-complexity upper bound, so the AFI ratio certifies an advantage by proof, not by definition. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [55] for the QSL displacement-channel formalism and Ref. [67] for the device and ECD gate model) provide modeling language and experimental primitives; the exponential separations themselves are proven inside this paper. The known scope caveat—that the advertised 'any conventional protocol' lower bound is proved only for Gaussian sensing (Definition 18) and does not by itself rule out non-Gaussian receivers—is a correctness/scope concern, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central exponential separations rest on the displacement-channel model, the restriction of conventional protocols to Gaussian sensing, equal-energy accounting, and the availability of a qubit with ECD control. No free parameters enter the asymptotic theorems; the listed parameters are experimental and simulation choices that affect the magnitude of the demonstrations but not the scaling results.

free parameters (2)
  • Memory-demonstration rotation angle nu = 0.41
    Chosen by hand to maximize the demonstrated quantum advantage in Appendix B4; the text states the choice is not unique. It affects the experimental Figure 3(c) but not the asymptotic Theorem 3.
  • QFS wireless simulation parameters = E_cap = 10; q_j optimized over four orientation families
    Optimized on the evaluation task in Appendix B6. These choices set the reported 64-QAM shot counts, which are simulation benchmarks rather than certified asymptotic bounds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Classical-field sensing is equivalent to displacement channel learning (Fact 6, from Ref 55).
    The paper models all signals as inducing displacement channels rho -> integral P(alpha) D(alpha) rho D(alpha)^dag d^2 alpha. If the Hamiltonian has nonlinear terms in the field, this model fails and the theorems do not apply.
  • domain assumption Conventional sensing protocols are exactly Gaussian sensing protocols (Gaussian probe states plus generaldyne measurements), Definition 18.
    The lower bounds in Theorems 1 and 3 are proven for this class. The abstract's 'conventional sensor' phrasing omits this restriction, making the advertised scope broader than the proven statement.
  • domain assumption Energy, measured as mean photon number in the sensing mode, is the resource held fixed across protocols.
    All separations compare equal mean photon number E in the sensing mode, while the qubit and nonlinear control are given to the quantum-enhanced class without being counted in E.
  • domain assumption A single qubit with an echoed conditional displacement (ECD) gate set is available for the quantum-enhanced protocols.
    The upper bounds require strong cross-Kerr nonlinearity to realize ECD gates. Superconducting circuits provide this, but many optical sensing platforms do not, so the near-term relevance is hardware-specific.
  • domain assumption For Theorem 3, the sensor decoheres on a timescale much shorter than Delta while the ancilla qubit remains coherent to time t_m.
    This is the memory resource assumption. The experimental device in Appendix B4 does not realize it, since the oscillator T1 = 250 microseconds exceeds the qubit T1 = 30 microseconds.
  • standard math Standard continuous-variable quantum mechanics and classical information inequalities (Le Cam, Pinsker, chain rules) are used throughout.
    Used in Appendices C through E to derive response functions, Fisher bounds, and query-complexity lower bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZJAQXKY

@misc{pith2026260813521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZJAQXKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13521}
}
abstract

Quantum technology has the potential to transform scientific discovery, but quantum advantages often require processing capabilities well beyond the reach of experimental platforms. We show that coupling a single controllable qubit to an otherwise conventional sensor can exponentially reduce the number of measurements required to learn classical signals. These rigorous quantum advantages apply to fundamental sensing tasks, including learning Fourier coefficients, extracting temporal correlations from time-varying signals, and estimating transformations of physical observables. Using a superconducting cavity--qubit architecture, we experimentally demonstrate $10^7$-fold reductions in the number of measurements required for Fourier-amplitude and time-varying signal learning. Our $\textit{quantum feature sensing}$ algorithms further enable orders-of-magnitude improvements in simulations of weak-signal dark matter detection and wireless communication applications. These quantum advantages are derived from Quantum Phase-Space Inference (Q$\Psi$), a unifying theory of quantum-enhanced experiments that simultaneously converts a set of experimental objectives and constraints into tight lower bounds and optimal quantum-enhanced learning algorithms while producing a certificate of quantum advantage. Q$\Psi$ extends beyond the regimes captured by quantum Fisher information and provides a framework for systematically identifying rigorous quantum advantages in practical experimental tasks. Together, our results establish that near-term quantum technology can exponentially enhance our ability to learn from classical signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The theorem has a useful interpretation

    Applying Hoeffding’s inequality to the real and imaginary parts and taking a union bound gives Pr " bλ(β)−E bλ(β) >2 r log(4/δ) N # ≤δ .(F215) Combining the sampling bound with the bias bound proves the theorem. The theorem has a useful interpretation. For any distributionP, the finite-GKP learner succeeds to the extent thatPis contained in the GKP dynami...

  2. [2]

    MultiparameterQΨand optimization Multiparameter estimation is a rich subject in canonical quantum metrology, and central to many realistic sensing tasks

    QΨand future quantum advantages in experimental science a. MultiparameterQΨand optimization Multiparameter estimation is a rich subject in canonical quantum metrology, and central to many realistic sensing tasks. The usual approach promotes the quantum Fisher information to a matrix and the quantum Cramer-Rao bound to a matrix-valued inequality. Upon doin...

  3. [3]

    D. T. Smithey, M. Beck, M. G. Raymer, and A. Faridani, Measurement of the Wigner distribution and the density matrix of a light mode using optical homodyne tomography: Application to squeezed states and the vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1244 (1993)

    1993

  4. [4]

    A quadratic advantage over infinite-energy conventional quantum sensing In Section E4, we demonstrated a quadratic lower bound for estimating the variance of a single-mode quantum state. We considered the physically-motivated task of learning the strength of a weak thermal background by bounding the sample complexity of discriminating the two single-mode ...

  5. [5]

    Entanglement-free multimode advantage for learning characteristic functions with one qubit In Section E5, we identified a gap in the entanglement-free lower bounds of Ref. [1]. Here we show that the gap is operationally meaningful. When the displacement distribution is sufficiently concentrated in phase-space, single-qubit control of the bosonic sensor en...

  6. [6]

    conventional

    Learning with depth-kquantum control Here we complete the exponential depth-based separation by proving that sensing protocols with control depthkcan efficiently distinguish the hypotheses instantiated in Section E6. Lemma 18.There is a depth-kprotocol, as in Definition 14, that can distinguish the signals induced by the distributions in Equation(E268)wit...

  7. [7]

    Here, we have covered estimation of Fourier coefficients, moments, temporal correlations, and polynomial func- tionals

    Applications of Quantum Feature Sensing In this work, we have established that Quantum Feature Sensing, the family of quantum processing-enhanced bosonic sensing protocols that emerge from QΨ, can enable quantum advantages for basic sensing primitives. Here, we have covered estimation of Fourier coefficients, moments, temporal correlations, and polynomial...

  8. [8]

    Convex optimization, when experimental constraints are convex, or

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    QΨ-guided machine learning, more generally? Can this lead to automated discovery of quantum advantages, where quantum experimental problems and realistic constraints are inserted into classical machine learning, and optimal experimental designs emerge alongside rigorous certif...

  2. [10]

    C. Oh, S. Chen, Y. Wong, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, J. A. Nielsen, Z.-H. Liu, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, U. L. Andersen, L. Jiang, and others, Entanglement-Enabled Advantage for Learning a Bosonic Random Displacement Channel, Physical Review Letters133(2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Vogel and H

    K. Vogel and H. Risken, Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase, Phys. Rev. A40, 2847(R) (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    Hradil, Quantum state estimation, Physical Review A55, R1561 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9609012

    Z. Hradil, Quantum state estimation, Physical Review A55, R1561 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9609012

    1997 arXiv

  5. [13]

    I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, Journal of Modern Optics44, 2455–2467 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    Luis and L

    A. Luis and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Complete Characterization of Arbitrary Quantum Measurement Processes, Physical Review Letters83, 3573 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, R. Somma, O. Landon-Cardinal, Y.-K. Liu, and D. Poulin, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nature Communications1, 149 (2010), arXiv:1101.4366 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gross, Y.-K

    D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Quantum State Tomography via Compressed Sensing, Physical Review Letters105, 150401 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. Córcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Steffen, Self-consistent quantum process tomography, Physical Review A87, 062119 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Aaronson, Shadow Tomography of Quantum States, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2018)(2018)

    S. Aaronson, Shadow Tomography of Quantum States, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2018)(2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Huang, M

    H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and others, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science376, 1182–1186 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Montanaro, Learning stabilizer states by Bell sampling (2017), arXiv:1707.04012 [quant-ph]

    A. Montanaro, Learning stabilizer states by Bell sampling (2017), arXiv:1707.04012 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aharonov, J

    D. Aharonov, J. Cotler, and X.-L. Qi, Quantum algorithmic measurement, Nature Communications13(2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory, in2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 574–585

    2022

  16. [24]

    S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, The Complexity of NISQ, Nature Communications14, 6001 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    S.Chen, C.Oh, S.Zhou, H.-Y.Huang,andL.Jiang,TightBoundsonPauliChannelLearningwithoutEntanglement, Physical Review Letters132, 10.1103/physrevlett.132.180805 (2024)

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Cotler, W

    J. Cotler, W. Gong, and I. Kannan, Noisy quantum learning theory, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Kannan, H

    I. Kannan, H. Putterman, and J. Cotler, Exponential speedups in fault-tolerant processing of quantum experiments (2026), arXiv:2605.02057

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Improvement of Frequency Standards with Quantum Entanglement, Physical Review Letters79, 3865–3868 (1997)

    1997

  21. [29]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Degen, F

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

    2017

  23. [31]

    Y.-D. Wu, Y. Zhu, G. Chiribella, and N. Liu, Efficient learning of continuous-variable quantum states, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033280 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Bittel, F

    L. Bittel, F. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and A. A. Mele, Energy-independent tomography of Gaussian states (2025), arXiv:2508.14979 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. A. Mele, A. A. Mele, L. Bittel, J. Eisert, V. Giovannetti, L. Lami, L. Leone, and S. F. E. Oliviero, Learning quantum states of continuous-variable systems, Nature Physics21, 2002–2008 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    A. A. Mele and Y. Herasymenko, Efficient Learning of Quantum States Prepared With Few Fermionic Non-Gaussian Gates, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/prxquantum.6.010319 (2025)

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    Z.-H. Liu, R. Brunel, E. E. B. Østergaard, O. Cordero, S. Chen, Y. Wong, J. A. H. Nielsen, A. B. Bregnsbo, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, and others, Quantum learning advantage on a scalable photonic platform, Science389, 1332 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    S. Chen, M. Fanizza, F. Girardi, L. Lami, F. A. Mele, M. Walter, and F. Witteveen, Optimal tomography of bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states (2026), arXiv:2607.11847 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. Seif, S. Chen, S. Majumder, H. Liao, D. S. Wang, M. Malekakhlagh, A. Javadi-Abhari, L. Jiang, and Z. K. Minev, Entanglement-enhanced learning of quantum processes at scale (2024), arXiv:2408.03376

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yu, Assouad, Fano, and Le Cam, inFestschrift for Lucien Le Cam: Research Papers in Probability and Statistics, edited by D

    B. Yu, Assouad, Fano, and Le Cam, inFestschrift for Lucien Le Cam: Research Papers in Probability and Statistics, edited by D. Pollard, E. Torgersen, and G. L. Yang (Springer, New York, NY, 1997) pp. 423–435

    1997

  31. [39]

    H. Zhao, L. Lewis, I. Kannan, Y. Quek, H.-Y. Huang, and M. C. Caro, Learning Quantum States and Unitaries of Bounded Gate Complexity, PRX Quantum5(2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Physical Review A33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  34. [42]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Physical Review A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit, Physical 130 Review Letters71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  36. [44]

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

    1996

  37. [45]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit, Science306, 1330–1336 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Toward Heisenberg-Limited Spectroscopy with Multiparticle Entangled States, Science304, 1476 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Physical Review Letters96(2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  41. [49]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Conversion of conventional gravitational- wave interferometers into quantum nondemolition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics, Physical Review D65, 022002 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astronomy, Nature Communications1, 121 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and R. X. Adhikari, Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics7, 613–619 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Physics7, 406–411 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrol- ogy, Nature Communications3(2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    C. C. V. de Pradenne, I. Kannan, H. Putterman, and J. Cotler, Restrictions on non-Clifford fault tolerance and ruling out beyond-SQL quantum metrology (2026), arXiv:2607.27342

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zwierz, C

    M. Zwierz, C. A. Pérez-Delgado, and P. Kok, General Optimality of the Heisenberg Limit for Quantum Metrology, Physical Review Letters105, 180402 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Giovannetti and L

    V. Giovannetti and L. Maccone, Sub-Heisenberg Estimation Strategies Are Ineffective, Physical Review Letters108, 210404 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    M. J. W. Hall and H. M. Wiseman, Does Nonlinear Metrology Offer Improved Resolution? Answers from Quantum Information Theory, Physical Review X2, 041006 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, At the Limits of Criticality-Based Quantum Metrology: Apparent Super-Heisenberg Scaling Revisited, Physical Review X8, 021022 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Kessler, I

    E. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. Sushkov, and M. Lukin, Quantum Error Correction for Metrology, Physical Review Letters112, 10.1103/physrevlett.112.150802 (2014)

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Nature Communications9(2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Cotler, D

    J. Cotler, D. L. Danielson, and I. Kannan, Quantum Advantage for Sensing Properties of Classical Fields (2026), arXiv:2602.17591

    2026

  56. [64]

    L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Qubit Noise Spectroscopy for Non-Gaussian Dephasing Environments, Physical Review Letters116(2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Y. Sung, F. Beaudoin, L. M. Norris, F. Yan, D. K. Kim, J. Y. Qiu, U. von Lüpke, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and others, Non-Gaussian noise spectroscopy with a superconducting qubit sensor, Nature Communications 10, 3715 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    and Sung, Youngkyu and Winik, Roni and Qiu, Jack Y

    von Lüpke, Uwe and Beaudoin, Félix and Norris, Leigh M. and Sung, Youngkyu and Winik, Roni and Qiu, Jack Y. and Kjaergaard, Morten and Kim, David and Yoder, Jonilyn and Gustavsson, Simon and Viola, Lorenza and Oliver, William D., Two-Qubit Spectroscopy of Spatiotemporally Corr...

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Malnou, D

    M. Malnou, D. A. Palken, B. M. Brubaker, L. R. Vale, G. C. Hilton, and K. W. Lehnert, Squeezed vacuum used to accelerate the search for a weak classical signal (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. B. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, and others, A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions, Nature590, 238–242 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    A. J. Brady, C. Gao, R. Harnik, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Entangled sensor-networks for dark-matter searches, PRX Quantum3, 030333 (2022), arXiv:2203.05375 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Shi and Q

    H. Shi and Q. Zhuang, Ultimate precision limit of noise sensing and dark matter search, npj Quantum Information 9, 10.1038/s41534-023-00693-w (2023)

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparameter Estimation in Networked Quantum Sensors, Physical Review Letters120, 080501 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Eldredge, M.Foss-Feig, J

    Z. Eldredge, M.Foss-Feig, J. A.Gross, S.L. Rolston, andA. V.Gorshkov, Optimaland secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Physical Review A97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    T. Qian, J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal Measurement of Field Properties with Quantum Sensor Networks, Physical Review A103, L030601 (2021), arXiv:2011.01259 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. Cory, Hamiltonian Learning and Certification Using Quantum Resources, 131 Physical Review Letters112, 10.1103/physrevlett.112.190501 (2014)

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    Prabhu, S

    S. Prabhu, S. A. Khan, X. Song, M. Ouellet, R. Yanagimoto, S. Roy, A. Senanian, L. G. Wright, V. Fatemi, and P. L. McMahon, Quantum computational displacement sensing (2026), arXiv:2604.13177

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

    K. S. Chou,Teleported operations between logical qubits in circuit quantum electrodynamics (Ph.D. Thesis)(Yale University, 2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nature Physics 18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    J. W. Foster, Y. Kahn, R. Nguyen, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Dark matter interferometry, Physical Review D 103(2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Lynden-Bell and R

    D. Lynden-Bell and R. M. Lynden-Bell, Ghostly streams from the formation of the Galaxy’s halo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.275, 429 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, J. Preskill, Y. Chen, and L. McCuller, Stochastic Waveform Estimation at the Fundamental Quantum Limit, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/h91r-4ws9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    A. O. Sushkov, Quantum Science and the Search for Axion Dark Matter, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.4.020101 (2023)

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1155–1208 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6(2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Applied Physics Reviews6(2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    C.C.Gerry, P.L.Knight,andM.Beck,Introductory Quantum Optics,Vol.1(CambridgeuniversitypressCambridge, 2005)

    2005

  79. [87]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Physical Review Letters118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.010501 (2017)

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    S. K. Lamoreaux, K. A. van Bibber, K. W. Lehnert, and G. Carosi, Analysis of single-photon and linear amplifier detectors for microwave cavity dark matter axion searches, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.035020 (2013)

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    A. V. Dixit, S. Chakram, K. He, A. Agrawal, R. K. Naik, D. I. Schuster, and A. Chou, Searching for Dark Matter with a Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.141302 (2021)

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum Computation over Continuous Variables, Physical Review Letters82, 1784–1787 (1999)

    1999

  83. [91]

    J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Revealing the dark matter halo with axion direct detection, Physical Review D97, 10.1103/physrevd.97.123006 (2018)

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    G. A. Álvarez and D. Suter, Measuring the Spectrum of Colored Noise by Dynamical Decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  85. [93]

    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 dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics 7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  86. [94]

    Rosskopf, J

    T. Rosskopf, J. Zopes, J. M. Boss, and C. L. Degen, A quantum spectrum analyzer enhanced by a nuclear spin memory, npj Quantum Information3, 33 (2017)

    2017

  87. [95]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, L. M. Norris, and L. Viola, Multiqubit spectroscopy of Gaussian quantum noise, Physical Review A95, 10.1103/physreva.95.022121 (2017)

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    Szańkowski, P and Ramon, G and Krzywda, J and Kwiatkowski, D and Cywiński, Ł, Environmental noise spec- troscopy with qubits subjected to dynamical decoupling, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 333001 (2017)

    2017

  89. [97]

    Shao and C

    M. Shao and C. L. Nikias, Signal Processing with Fractional Lower-Order Moments: Stable Processes and Their Applications, Proceedings of the IEEE81, 986 (1993)

    1993

  90. [98]

    Collaboration, Y

    P. Collaboration, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, and others, Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity (2019), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.