pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12323 · v4 · pith:2PJFCFXWnew · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum-Enhanced Single-Parameter Phase Estimation with Adaptive NOON States

Simanshu Kumar , Nandan S Bisht This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologyNOON statesphase estimationclassical Fisher informationquantum opticsgradient descentHeisenberg limitadaptive sensing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimizing NOON-state circuit parameters yields up to 1598 percent higher classical Fisher information for five-photon phase estimation.

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

The paper develops a computational method to tune the settings in a quantum optical experiment that uses entangled photons for estimating an unknown phase shift. It employs gradient descent inside a full simulation of the optical circuit to maximize the classical Fisher information collected from all possible photon coincidence outcomes. This produces large gains over previous experimental choices, especially as photon number rises, and brings the performance closer to the fundamental quantum limit while increasing the fraction of usable data collected per laser pulse. A reader would care because the results indicate that entangled-photon sensing could move from proof-of-principle demonstrations to practical use at moderate photon numbers with existing laboratory equipment.

Core claim

An end-to-end differentiable quantum-optical framework learns optimal circuit parameters by maximising the classical Fisher information across all coincidence channels for photon numbers N=2 to 5. Starting from reproductions of prior experimental coincidence fringes, gradient descent on eight trainable parameters produces raw CFI gains of +153 percent at N=2 up to +1775 percent at N=5, together with post-selection rate gains up to +3269 percent. These translate to an 8-fold to 133-fold increase in useful measurement events per pulse. Quantum Fisher information calculations show the optimised state reaches 82 percent of the Heisenberg limit at N=2 and improves from 36 percent to 58 percent at

What carries the argument

A differentiable quantum-optical simulator that applies gradient descent to eight circuit parameters in order to maximise the summed classical Fisher information obtained from all photon coincidence detection channels.

If this is right

  • Raw classical Fisher information rises by +153 percent at N=2 and by as much as +1775 percent at N=5.
  • Post-selection rates increase by up to +3269 percent, producing 8 times to 133 times more useful measurement events per pulse.
  • The quantum Fisher information of the optimised probe reaches 82 percent of the Heisenberg limit at N=2 and 58 percent at N=5.
  • An inter-channel performance trade-off is pronounced at N=2 but becomes weaker at higher photon numbers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same gradient-based search could be applied to other entangled resources such as squeezed states or different measurement bases to seek comparable gains.
  • The weakening trade-off at larger N suggests that adaptive parameter tuning becomes increasingly valuable as photon number grows.
  • Experimental teams could now test the N=5 parameters in the lab to determine whether the predicted event-rate multiplication appears in real hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation accurately captures every optical loss, mode mismatch, and detector imperfection that would appear when the same circuit is built and operated in a laboratory.

What would settle it

Construct the circuit with the numerically optimised parameters for N=5, run the phase-estimation experiment, and measure whether the observed classical Fisher information or phase uncertainty matches the simulated improvement over the earlier Afek et al. working point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12323 by Nandan S Bisht, Simanshu Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Adaptive NOON-state cir￾cuit schematic. The two-mode linear￾optical circuit: state preparation (|α⟩ coher￾ent, |r⟩ squeezed vacuum), input phase ro￾tations R(dcoh) and R(dsq), first beamsplit￾ter BS(θ1, φ1), phase encoding R(φest) on mode 0, and second beamsplitter BS(θ2, φ2). Eight parameters are trainable; φest is scanned to produce coincidence fringes. 2.6 Wigner Function Analysis The Wigner function W(… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Raw CFI comparison: Afek initialisation vs. optimised parameters for all N = 2–5. Grey bars: Afek initialisation. Coloured bars: gradient-optimised. Red dashed line: Heisenberg limit HL= N2 . Percentage labels on optimised bars; colour per N: blue (N = 2), orange (N = 3), green (N = 4), red (N = 5). At N = 2, |1, 1⟩ improves (+153%) while |2, 0⟩ degrades (−59%), reflecting the inter-channel trade-off. At N… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fringe gallery: Afek initialisation vs. optimised parameters for all N = 2– 5 coincidence patterns. Each row shows one coincidence pattern (N1, N2). Left column: Afek working point. Right column: gradient-optimised parameters. Solid coloured curves: normalised coincidence probability P(N1, N2; φ)/Pmax (left y-axis). Dashed grey curves: classical CFI profile F(φ) (right y-axis, arbitrary scale per panel). T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pareto trade-off: fringe quality vs. post-selection rate for N = 2–5. Open circle ◦: Afek initialisation. Star ⋆: optimised. Arrows show the direction of change upon optimisation. x-axis: post-selection rate Pmax. y-axis: fringe quality F norm peak /N2 (Heisenberg limit = 1). (a) N = 2: inter-channel trade-off visible. N = 3: both patterns improve simultaneously. (b) N = 4, 5: large rightward shift (10× hi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wigner function gallery of the probe state for all N = 2–5. The probe state is the two-mode state after BS1 but before phase encoding, constituting the non￾classical sensing resource. Each row: one N value. Columns (left to right): mode 0 Afek, mode 0 Optimised, mode 1 Afek, mode 1 Optimised. Colour: blue (W < 0, non-classical), white (W = 0), red (W > 0, classical). White contour: W = 0 boundary. Dotted c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wigner negativity N of the probe state: quantitative comparison. (a) Negativity volume for mode 0 (coherent branch), N = 2–5. Grey: Afek; coloured: Opt. (b) Negativity volume for mode 1 (squeezed branch). At N ≥ 3, absolute N increases from ≲ 10−5 (Afek) to 0.003–0.006 (Opt.), confirming genuine enhancement of quantum character. 2. The probe state after BS1 develops interference fringes. For mode 0 after B… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase-space portrait of quantum states (N = 2). Heatmap: Wigner function of Afek state. White dashed: Afek constant-W contours; coloured solid: optimised contours; thick solid: W = 0 boundary of the optimised state. (a) Input mode 0: coherent state |α⟩ after R(dcoh). (b) Input mode 1: squeezed vacuum |r⟩; optimisation rotates the squeezing ellipse (r : 0.35 → 0.62). (c,d) Probe modes after BS1: entangled, … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: State evolution through the circuit (N = 2): Afek (top) vs. optimised (bottom). Columns: successive circuit stages. Cols 1–2 (before BS1): classical inputs (W ≥ 0); optimised inputs show larger α and r. Central arrow: BS1 (θ1 = π/4). Cols 3–4 (probe state, after BS1): negative Wigner regions (blue) certify non-classicality 25; optimised probe has larger amplitude consistent with improved raw CFI. 6. Analys… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: summarises the raw CFI improve￾ment as a function of N. N = 2 N = 3 N = 4 N = 5 Total photon number N 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Raw CFI improvement (%) 1,1 2,0 2,1 3,0 3,1 2,2 3,2 improvement degradation a Raw CFI change N = 2 N = 3 N = 4 N = 5 Total photon number N 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Post-selection rate improvement (%) 1,1 2,0 2,1 3,0 3,1 2,2 3,2 b Post-selection rate change N = 2 N = 3 N… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Optimisation convergence: normalised CFI vs. training step for N = 2–5. Each curve shows the differen￾tiable CFI estimator normalised by its step-0 value (Afek initialisation). All curves con￾verge within 100 Adam steps. Higher N shows larger normalised gain, consistent with the Afek initialisation being increasingly sub￾optimal at higher photon numbers. Training time: ∼ 220 s (N = 2) to ∼ 400 s (N = 5) o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Parameter drift from the Afek initialisation for N = 2–5. Bars: ∆θi = θ opt i − θ Afek i . The dominant change across all N is an increase in r and log γ, reflecting the optimiser’s strategy of increasing photon flux to improve post-selection rates. Beamsplitter angles show larger drift at N ≥ 3, indicating measurement-basis optimisation is increasingly important at high N. Afek rates. This means variatio… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Marginal photon-number distributions P(n0) for mode 0, N = 2–5. Top: Afek initialisation. Bottom: optimised parameters. Red dashed line: n0 = N (target photon number). After optimisation, distributions broaden toward larger n0, reflecting the increased r and α. This redistribution is the direct mechanism for improved post-selection rates: more probability weight lands in the (N1, N2) coincidence windows. … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quantum Fisher Information analysis for all N = 2–5. (a) Probe quality FQ/N2 , where FQ = 4 Var(ˆn0) is the exact QFI of the post-BS1 probe state (Eq. 3). Dashed line: Heisenberg limit (= 1); shaded region: classically achievable val￾ues. Percentage labels show the absolute change (pp = percentage points) upon op￾timisation. At N = 3, 4 the optimiser de￾creases probe quality slightly while massively incre… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology promises phase sensitivity surpassing the shot-noise limit by exploiting entanglement and photon-number correlations. NOON states-maximally path-entangled $N$-photon superpositions $(|N,0\rangle + |0,N\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ -achieve the Heisenberg limit $1/N$ for single-parameter estimation, as demonstrated experimentally by Afek et al. (2010) using hybrid coherent-plus-squeezed light up to $N=5$. We present an end-to-end differentiable quantum-optical framework-implemented in Strawberry Fields (Killoran et al., 2019) with a TensorFlow backend -that learns optimal circuit parameters by maximising the classical Fisher information (CFI) across all coincidence channels for $N=2,3,4,5$. Starting from proper numerical reproductions of the Afek et al. coincidence fringes, verified by FFT analysis and parity measurements, we apply gradient descent (Adam) to the eight trainable circuit parameters. Raw CFI improvements grow dramatically with photon number: $+153\%$ ($N=2$), $+834\%$ to $+956\%$ ($N=3$), $+829\%$ to $+1598\%$ ($N=4$), and $+1775\%$ ($N=5$), alongside post-selection rate improvements of $+153\%$ to $+3269\%$, and an $8\times$ to $133\times$ improvement in useful measurement events per pulse across $N=2$-$5$. A fundamental inter-channel trade-off is identified at $N=2$ but weakens at higher $N$ where the Afek initialisation is further from optimal. These results provide numerically rigorous benchmarks for adaptive single-parameter quantum sensing and demonstrate that the Afek working point is significantly suboptimal at $N\geq 3$. QFI calculations confirm that the optimised probe reaches $82\%$ of the Heisenberg limit at $N=2$ and improves from $36\%$ to $58\%$ at $N=5$, while useful measurement events per pulse improve by $8\times$ to $133\times$ across all $N$, making quantum-enhanced sensing at $N\geq 3$ experimentally practical.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an end-to-end differentiable quantum-optical simulation framework implemented in Strawberry Fields with a TensorFlow backend. It reproduces Afek et al. (2010) coincidence fringes for NOON-state phase estimation at N=2–5, then uses Adam gradient descent on eight trainable circuit parameters to maximize the classical Fisher information across coincidence channels, reporting large CFI gains (+153% to +1775%), post-selection improvements, and 8×–133× increases in useful events per pulse. QFI calculations show the optimized probe reaching 82% of the Heisenberg limit at N=2 and improving from 36% to 58% at N=5, concluding that the Afek working point is suboptimal for N≥3 and that quantum-enhanced sensing becomes experimentally practical at higher N.

Significance. If the simulation model is faithful, the work supplies concrete numerical benchmarks demonstrating that adaptive optimization can substantially outperform the original Afek et al. configuration, particularly at N≥3. The differentiable-circuit approach and explicit identification of an inter-channel trade-off at N=2 constitute a useful methodological contribution for guiding future experimental designs in quantum metrology.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and simulation framework] Abstract and § on simulation framework: the headline claim that the optimized parameters render quantum-enhanced sensing at N≥3 'experimentally practical' rests on the assumption that the Strawberry Fields/TensorFlow model captures all relevant imperfections (losses, mode mismatch, detector effects). No sensitivity analysis to additional unmodeled noise sources such as phase diffusion or timing jitter is provided; without it the reported 8×–133× gains in useful events and the QFI percentages may not survive hardware translation.
  2. [QFI calculations] QFI calculations (mentioned in Abstract): the reported improvement from 36% to 58% of the Heisenberg limit at N=5 is load-bearing for the significance claim, yet the manuscript does not specify whether these QFI values are computed from the full multi-channel optimized state or under idealized assumptions that ignore the post-selection and coincidence filtering used in the CFI optimization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The precise definition of 'useful measurement events per pulse' and how it is extracted from the simulated coincidence channels should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than left implicit.
  2. [Results] The FFT and parity verification of the reproduced Afek fringes would be strengthened by inclusion of quantitative error metrics or uncertainty bands on the plotted data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments highlight important distinctions between simulation results and experimental translation, as well as the need for clarity on our QFI calculations. We respond to each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications and a limitations discussion in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation framework] Abstract and § on simulation framework: the headline claim that the optimized parameters render quantum-enhanced sensing at N≥3 'experimentally practical' rests on the assumption that the Strawberry Fields/TensorFlow model captures all relevant imperfections (losses, mode mismatch, detector effects). No sensitivity analysis to additional unmodeled noise sources such as phase diffusion or timing jitter is provided; without it the reported 8×–133× gains in useful events and the QFI percentages may not survive hardware translation.

    Authors: We agree that the Strawberry Fields model used here incorporates only the imperfections already present in the Afek et al. (2010) reproduction (losses, mode mismatch, detector effects) and does not include additional sources such as phase diffusion or timing jitter. The reported CFI gains, event-rate improvements, and QFI percentages are therefore simulation-specific. We will revise the abstract and simulation-framework section to explicitly state the model assumptions, add a dedicated limitations paragraph discussing how unmodeled noise could degrade performance, and provide a qualitative sensitivity estimate for phase diffusion. This will moderate the phrasing around “experimentally practical” while preserving the core result that the Afek working point is suboptimal. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [QFI calculations] QFI calculations (mentioned in Abstract): the reported improvement from 36% to 58% of the Heisenberg limit at N=5 is load-bearing for the significance claim, yet the manuscript does not specify whether these QFI values are computed from the full multi-channel optimized state or under idealized assumptions that ignore the post-selection and coincidence filtering used in the CFI optimization.

    Authors: The QFI values are obtained from the full density operator of the optimized probe state prior to any post-selection or coincidence filtering; they therefore represent the ultimate quantum limit for that state. The CFI optimization, by contrast, is performed only on the post-selected coincidence channels. We will add an explicit statement in the methods section (and a clarifying sentence in the abstract) that distinguishes the two quantities, together with the numerical procedure used to evaluate the QFI (symmetric logarithmic derivative on the full state). This removes the ambiguity noted by the referee. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: explicit CFI optimization yields independent gains

full rationale

The paper numerically reproduces Afek et al. coincidence fringes, then applies Adam gradient descent on eight circuit parameters to maximize multi-channel classical Fisher information inside a Strawberry Fields/TensorFlow model. Reported CFI gains (+153% to +1775%), post-selection improvements, useful-event multipliers (8×–133×), and QFI reaching 82% of the Heisenberg limit at N=2 (or 58% at N=5) are direct numerical outputs of this optimization together with a separate QFI evaluation on the resulting probe state. These quantities are defined independently of the final performance numbers; the optimization does not rename or tautologically reproduce its own inputs. The simulation framework is cited from external prior work (Killoran et al., 2019) with no load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation chain is therefore a standard computational parameter search and remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on the fidelity of the quantum-optical simulator and on the assumption that CFI maximization in simulation predicts laboratory performance.

free parameters (1)
  • eight trainable circuit parameters
    Adjusted by Adam gradient descent to maximize classical Fisher information across coincidence channels.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Strawberry Fields with TensorFlow backend faithfully models the linear-optical circuit, photon-number-resolving detectors, and loss channels for N-photon NOON states.
    Invoked when computing CFI and QFI from simulated measurement statistics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5940 in / 1502 out tokens · 48841 ms · 2026-05-21T00:29:25.613332+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. OAM-Induced Lattice Rotation Reveals a Fractional Optimum in Fault-Tolerant GKP Quantum Sensing

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Fractional OAM charge ℓ=1.5 optimizes twisted GKP lattices, cutting error probability by 23.9× versus square lattices at fixed Fisher information.

  2. OAM-Induced Lattice Rotation Reveals a Fractional Optimum in Fault-Tolerant GKP Quantum Sensing

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Fractional OAM charge ℓ=1.5 induces an optimal 67.5° GKP lattice rotation that reduces error rate 23.9× with <0.2% loss in Fisher information and yields 41% higher metrological capacity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    High-NOON states by mixing quantum and classical light.Science328, 879–881 (2010).doi:10.1126/science.1188172

    Afek, I., Ambar, O., & Silberberg, Y. High-NOON states by mixing quantum and classical light.Science328, 879–881 (2010).doi:10.1126/science.1188172

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1188172 2010

  2. [2]

    Caves, C. M. Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer.Physi- cal Review D23, 1693–1708 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.1693 21

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.1693 1981

  3. [3]

    Killoran, N. et al. Strawberry Fields: A software platform for photonic quan- tum computing.Quantum3, 129 (2019). doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129 2019

  4. [4]

    Bergholm, V. et al. PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hy- brid quantum-classical computa- tions.arXiv:1811.04968(2018). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.04968

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.04968 2018

  5. [5]

    Advances in quantum metrology

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. Advances in quantum metrology. Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011). doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.35

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.35 2011

  6. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Mac- cone, L. Quantum metrology.Physi- cal Review Letters96, 010401 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.010401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.010401 2006

  7. [7]

    Dowling, J. P. Quantum opti- cal metrology—the lowdown on high-N00N states.Contempo- rary Physics49, 125–143 (2008). doi:10.1080/00107510802091298

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802091298 2008

  8. [8]

    Lee, H., Kok, P., & Dowling, J. P. A quantum Rosetta Stone for interferometry.Journal of Mod- ern Optics49, 2325–2338 (2002). doi:10.1080/09500340210123173

    work page doi:10.1080/09500340210123173 2002

  9. [9]

    Physical Review Letters85, 2733–2736 (2000).doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2733

    Boto, A.N.etal.Quantuminterferomet- ric optical lithography: exploiting en- tanglement to beat the diffraction limit. Physical Review Letters85, 2733–2736 (2000).doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2733

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.2733 2000

  10. [10]

    Y., Higgins, B

    Xiang, G. Y., Higgins, B. L., Berry, D. W., Wiseman, H. M., & Pryde, G. J. Entanglement-enhanced measure- ment of a completely unknown opti- cal phase.Nature Photonics5, 43–47 (2011).doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.268

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.268 2011

  11. [11]

    Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics.Nature 409, 46–52 (2001).doi:10.1038/35051009

    work page doi:10.1038/35051009 2001

  12. [12]

    Gerry, C. C. & Hach, E. E. Genera- tion of NOON states via cross-Kerr in- teraction and homodyne measurement. Physical Review A82, 063804 (2010). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.063804

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.82.063804 2010

  13. [13]

    Quantum circuit learning

    Mitarai, K., Negoro, M., Kitagawa, M., & Fujii, K. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A98, 032309 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032309 2018

  14. [14]

    V., Schulte, M., Hammerer, K., & Zoller, P

    Kaubruegger, R., Vasilyev, D. V., Schulte, M., Hammerer, K., & Zoller, P. Quantum variational op- timisation of Ramsey interferom- etry and atomic clocks.Physical Review Letters123, 260505 (2019). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.260505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.260505 2019

  15. [15]

    & Sanders, B

    Hentschel, A. & Sanders, B. C. Machine learning for precise quan- tum measurement.Physical Re- view Letters104, 063603 (2010). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.063603

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.063603 2010

  16. [16]

    Lumino, A. et al. Experimen- tal phase estimation enhanced by machine learning.Physical Re- view Applied10, 044033 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.044033

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.10.044033 2018

  17. [17]

    Y., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V

    Niu, M. Y., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., & Neven, H. Universal quan- tum control through deep reinforcement learning.npj Quantum Information5, 33 (2019).doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0141-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0141-3 2019

  18. [18]

    Ashida , author Z

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, R., Górecki, W., & Gutˇ a, M. Multi-parameter quantum metrology.Advances in Physics69, 345–435 (2020). doi:10.1080/00018732.2021.1896786 22

    work page doi:10.1080/00018732.2021.1896786 2020

  19. [19]

    K., Ou, Z

    Hong, C. K., Ou, Z. Y., & Mandel, L. Measurement of subpicosecond time in- tervals between two photons by interfer- ence.Physical Review Letters59, 2044 (1987).doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2044

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2044 2044

  20. [20]

    Paris, M. G. A. Quantum estimation for quantumtechnology.International Jour- nal of Quantum Information7, 125–137 (2009).doi:10.1142/S0219749909004839

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749909004839 2009

  21. [21]

    W.Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory

    Helstrom, C. W.Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory. Academic Press, New York (1976).doi:10.1016/S0065- 2539(08)60258-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065- 1976

  22. [22]

    Braunstein, S. L. & Caves, C. M. Statistical distance and the geome- try of quantum states.Physical Re- view Letters72, 3439–3443 (1994). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.72.3439 1994

  23. [23]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization.arXiv:1412.6980(2014). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 2014

  24. [24]

    Physical Review 40(5), 749–759 (1932)

    Wigner, E. On the quantum correc- tion for thermodynamic equilibrium. Physical Review40, 749–760 (1932). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.40.749

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.40.749 1932

  25. [25]

    Quantum channel of con- tinuous variable teleportation and nonclassicality of quantum states.Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 4(2):114, feb 2002

    Kenfack, A. & Życzkowski, K. Negativ- ity of the Wigner function as an indi- cator of non-classicality.Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Op- tics6, 396–404 (2004).doi:10.1088/1464- 4266/6/10/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1464- 2004

  26. [26]

    Cahill, K. E. & Glauber, R. J. Density operators and quasiprobability distribu- tions.Physical Review177, 1882–1902 (1969).doi:10.1103/PhysRev.177.1882

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.177.1882 1902

  27. [27]

    M., & Lam, P

    Bradshaw, M., Assad, S. M., & Lam, P. K. A tight Cramér-Rao bound for joint parameter estimation with a pure two-mode squeezed probe.Physics Letters A382, 1213–1219 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2018.02.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2018.02.011 2018

  28. [28]

    & Paris, M

    Olivares, S. & Paris, M. G. A. Bayesian estimation in homodyne interferometry. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics42, 055506 (2009). doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/5/055506

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/5/055506 2009

  29. [29]

    Bayesian quantum multiphase estimation algorithm.Physical Re- view Applied16, 014035 (2021)

    Gebhart, V., Smerzi, A., & Pezè, L. Bayesian quantum multiphase estimation algorithm.Physical Re- view Applied16, 014035 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.16.014035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.16.014035 2021

  30. [30]

    F., Kok, P., & Dunning- ham, J

    Knott, P., Proctor, T., Hayes, A., Ralph, J. F., Kok, P., & Dunning- ham, J. Local versus global strate- gies in multiparameter estimation.Phys- ical Review A94, 062312 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.062312

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.062312 2016

  31. [31]

    J., Knott, P

    Proctor, T. J., Knott, P. A., & Dunning- ham, J. A. Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors.Physi- cal Review Letters120, 080501 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.080501 23

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.080501 2018