Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Quantum-Optimal Frequency Estimation of Stochastic AC Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Estimating the frequency separation of two stochastic AC fields is ultimately bounded by a quantum Fisher information of about $2/\omega_r^2$, so closer signals become easier, not harder, to resolve.

desk verdict A genuinely new environment-state bound for stochastic AC frequency estimation, but the headline 2/omega_r^2 separation limit is proven only for a fixed pi-pulse control, not as a global quantum-optimal bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19412 v2 pith:CEPTPWJK submitted 2024-11-28 quant-ph

Anirban Dey , Sara Mouradian , Cosmo Lupo , Zixin Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumFisherinformationfrequencyestimationstochasticACfieldsdephasingchannelDickestatesGHZHeisenbergscalingcontrol
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

This paper derives the ultimate quantum limits for estimating the frequency of a stochastic AC field and for separating two close frequencies in such a field. Its central new result is that the quantum Fisher information for the frequency separation $\omega_r$ is approximately $2/\omega_r^2$, so the smaller the separation, the more precisely it can in principle be estimated—the opposite of the classical bandwidth intuition that resolving close frequencies demands long observation times. The argument works by mapping frequency estimation onto estimation of a global dephasing channel, then bounding any probe's precision by the quantum Fisher information of an auxiliary environment state. Superpositions of Dicke states approach the bound in certain regimes, while GHZ states give an $N^2$ Heisenberg scaling over unentangled states in the low-bandwidth limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the environment-state decomposition of a collective dephasing channel: the probe sees a random phase $\phi$ drawn from $q(\phi)$, and one defines $\sigma_\omega = \int d\phi\, q(\phi)|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|$ on an auxiliary orthogonal basis. By the data-processing inequality, no adaptive protocol using any probe state can have quantum Fisher information larger than that of $\sigma_\omega$, turning the search over states into a single calculation of the quantum Fisher information of a Gaussian phase distribution. The second ingredient is the $\pi$-pulse control sequence with detuning $\delta_s$ chosen so $\delta_s t = 2\pi$, which produces the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}(t) = (2/\pi)\sum_i [A_i\cos((\delta_s\pm\delta_r)t)+B_i\sin((\delta_s\pm\delta_r)t)]\sigma_z$ and makes the separation phase $\phi_{\omega_r}\approx (A_2-A_1)t\sin(\omega_r t)/\pi^2$; that phase's Gaussian variance gives the separation bound. Spin number-superposition states $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}\sum_{n=0}^N |D_N^n\rangle$, where $|D_N^n\rangle$ is a Dicke state with $n$ excitations, are the states shown to approach the bound.

What would settle it

On a bi-frequency stochastic field with known $\omega_r$, run the prescribed $\pi$-pulse sequence with $\delta_s t = 2\pi$ on a GHZ or spin number-superposition probe, measure in the Fourier basis, and compare the estimator variance to the predicted Cramér–Rao bound with $J_{\omega_r} = 2/\omega_r^2$; if any control or state yields precision beyond that bound, or if this measurement falls short for reasons not attributable to technical noise, the claimed ultimate limit is settled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a set of exact quantum Fisher information formulas for stochastic AC frequency sensing, capped by the separation bound $J_{\omega_r} = t^2/(2\tan^2(\omega_r t/2)) \approx 2/\omega_r^2$ for two close signals. The paper shows that for stochastic amplitudes, the accumulated phase is Gaussian, so the whole channel is a collective dephasing channel with an environment state $\sigma_\omega$ that carries all estimable information. The quantum Fisher information of that environment state is an upper bound for any probe state, and the paper evaluates it exactly for single-frequency, centroid, and separation estimation. It then shows that spin number-superposition states $|\tilde{+}_N\rangle$, the spin analogue of a bosonic number-superposition state, approach the bound at large $N$ in some regimes, while GHZ states fall short of the optimum but still deliver $N^2$ Heisenberg scaling in the low-bandwidth limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $\pi$-pulse control sequence, with detuning chosen so $\delta_s t = 2\pi$, realizes the effective Hamiltonian used in the derivation and is the optimal control for $N$-qubit probes; the paper takes this control from the single-qubit case and does not prove its optimality here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For two close stochastic AC signals, the achievable variance in estimating $\omega_r$ scales as $\omega_r^2/2$, so the resolution limit improves as the frequencies move closer together, within the regime where the approximations hold.
  • GHZ states provide an $N^2$ enhancement over single-qubit probes for single-frequency, centroid, and separation estimation in the low-bandwidth limit, despite the channel being non-unitary.
  • The spin number-superposition state saturates the environment-state bound for certain noise strengths and large qubit number, identifying a concrete state family and Fourier-basis measurement that achieves the limit.
  • To leading order the optimal separation bound $2/\omega_r^2$ is independent of the noise amplitude $\sigma$ and the interrogation time $t$, so the limiting factor is the separation itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the authors do not develop: because the accumulated phase remains Gaussian for any number of frequency components, the same environment-state method should yield exact quantum Fisher information bounds for multi-frequency stochastic fields beyond two tones.
  • The inverse-square scaling in $\omega_r$ is reminiscent of superresolution imaging of two incoherent point sources, where the quantum Fisher information for separation also improves as sources approach; we read both as manifestations of measurement noise vanishing near an eigenstate, and expect a unified treatment to be possible.
  • Testable design consequence: the optimal qubit number $N$ for a GHZ probe depends on the noise strength $\sigma$, since larger noise favors smaller $N$, so a practical sensor would tune $N$ against the noise level rather than always maximizing it.
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 treats frequency estimation of stochastic AC fields as estimation of a parameter in a collective dephasing channel. The central technical step is an environment-state representation of the channel, combined with the data-processing inequality, to upper-bound the quantum Fisher information (QFI) achievable by any probe state and adaptive protocol. The authors derive QFI bounds for a single frequency, for the centroid of a bi-frequency signal, and for the frequency separation, with the headline result that the separation QFI is approximately 2/ωr², i.e. inversely proportional to the separation. They also analyze GHZ states, which give Heisenberg scaling in the low-bandwidth limit, and superpositions of Dicke states, which are claimed to approach the bounds in certain regimes. The supplementary material contains derivations of the effective Hamiltonian under π-pulse control, the environment-state QFIs, the GHZ-state calculations, and a noise-robustness analysis.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a useful framework: it reduces a non-unitary AC sensing problem to a channel-estimation problem, gives parameter-free QFI bounds in which the amplitude variance σ cancels, and reproduces known single-qubit and coherent-signal limits (Refs. [12,22]) in the appropriate limits. The data-processing argument is conceptually clean and the extension from single-qubit to collective probes is potentially important for quantum-enhanced frequency resolution. However, the main claim of a global 'quantum-optimal' bound of 2/ωr² is conditional on a specific control choice whose optimality is not proven, and the claimed saturation by Dicke-superposition states is not demonstrated in the plotted regime. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's advertised conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Estimating the frequency separation (Eqs. 21–25)] The central claim that the QFI for frequency separation is ultimately bounded by approximately 2/ωr² is conditional, not unconditional. The environment-state argument of Eqs. (5)–(7) bounds the QFI only for the fixed channel whose phase distribution q(ϕ) is generated by the chosen control. Here q(ϕ) is generated by the π-pulse sequence with δs t = 2π taken from Ref. [12]; different controls produce different q(ϕ) and hence different environment-state QFIs. Since the paper does not optimize J(σω) over controls, nor prove that this sequence is optimal for N-qubit collective probes, the words 'quantum-optimal' and 'ultimate' in the abstract and around Eq. (25) overstate what is proven. The proven statement is a bound for this control family; a control-optimality analysis, or a carefully qualified claim, is needed.
  2. [Fig. 3 and SM 'Spin number-position states'] The claim that the 2/ωr² bound is achievable by superpositions of Dicke states is not demonstrated for the separation problem. For the plotted parameters (t = 0.7, ωr = 0.7), the numerically computed QFI of |˜+_N> is several orders of magnitude below 2/ωr² ≈ 4.08 for all N ≤ 60, and the paper provides no asymptotic evaluation in the regime N ≫ 2π/σ_φ or ωr t ≪ 1 where saturation is claimed. The bosonic saturation result of Ref. [39] is invoked by analogy but not transferred with a proof. Please add either an explicit N→∞ analysis or numerical data in the asymptotic regime.
  3. [Abstract and Eqs. (22)–(25)] The label 'exact' is not applied consistently. The single-frequency environment-state QFI in Eq. (11) is exact for the Gaussian model, but Eq. (25) and the simplified bound 2/ωr² are derived under the approximations δs t = 2π, δr ≪ δs, and ωr t ≪ 1 (see the SM 'Frequency separation' section). The abstract's 'exact quantum Fisher information bounds' should be qualified so that readers do not take the small-separation asymptotic expression as a global exact result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM 'Two frequencies' after Eq. (54)] The displayed relation 'ω2 = ωs − ωs' contains a typo and should read 'ω2 = ωs − ωr'.
  2. [Main text near Eq. (22)] The phrase 'Assuming δs ≪ 1' mixes a frequency with a dimensionless number; the needed small parameter is ωr t ≪ 1, equivalently δr ≪ δs.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The quantity on the vertical axis is not defined; if the plotted quantity is J_ω σ_ω or J_ωr σ_ω, this should be stated explicitly in the caption.
  4. [SM after Eq. (166)] The expression 'Jωs = N²σ²t⁶ωs²/(18σ²)' has a spurious σ² in the denominator; it should read 'Jωs = N²σ²t⁶ωs²/18'.
  5. [Main text near Eq. (12) and Fig. 2] The state |˜+_N> is called both a 'number-superposition state' and a 'number-position state'; please use one term consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 2/ω_r² separation bound is a derived QFI consequence of the Gaussian phase distribution, with no fitted parameters; the unproven control-optimality point is a scope caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central separation result, Eq. (25), is obtained by an explicit self-contained calculation: the effective Hamiltonian (21) gives the accumulated phase (22), whose Gaussian variance is (23)–(24), and the classical QFI of that Gaussian distribution evaluates directly to J_ωr = t²/(2 tan²(ω_r t/2)) ≈ 2/ω_r². No parameter is fitted to data, and the cancellation of σ and t in the small-bandwidth limit is an algebraic property of the Gaussian QFI, not an imposed normalization. The environment-state bound (5)–(7) is a legitimate data-processing-inequality upper bound for the fixed dephasing channel defined by q(ϕ), so the derivation is internally consistent. The paper does import the π-pulse control scheme from Ref. [12] and calls the resulting bound 'quantum-optimal'; since it does not prove optimality over all possible controls, the 'ultimate' claim is conditional on that control choice. That is a correctness/scope caveat rather than a circularity, because the bound is not assumed as an input but derived for the stated channel. The cited prior work by one of the present authors, Ref. [39], is used for the achievability claim that Dicke-state superpositions saturate the bound in the large-N limit; that cited result is an independent theorem about bosonic dephasing channels with stated assumptions, and it is not used to define or derive the bound itself. Thus no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central bounds rest on the Gaussian stochastic amplitude model, the fixed-frequency assumption, the global-dephasing assumption, and the standard data-processing argument. The control optimality is assumed rather than proven. No new physical entities are introduced; the environment state is a mathematical representation. σ is a model parameter, not a fitted constant, and it cancels in the separation bound.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Signal amplitudes A_i, B_i are independent zero-mean Gaussian random variables with common variance σ² (the stochastic AC model).
    Used throughout to compute the phase distribution q(φ) and all QFI formulas; see 'The model and quantum parameter estimation' section.
  • domain assumption Signal frequencies are fixed across experimental shots; only amplitudes fluctuate.
    The paper states this in the model and in the Conclusions: 'We have considered stochastic amplitudes and fixed frequencies.' This is required for the control scheme to work.
  • domain assumption All N qubits experience the same accumulated phase in a given run, yielding a global (correlated) dephasing channel.
    Eqs. (5) and (68) model the probe evolution as U_φ^{⊗N}; this global-dephasing assumption underlies the environment-state bound.
  • standard math The data-processing inequality applies to adaptive protocols with any number of channel uses and LOCC operations, so the QFI of the environment state σ_ω bounds any probe.
    Invoked after Eqs. (6)-(7); this is a standard quantum-information result (Katariya-Wilde, Huang-Lami-Wilde).
  • domain assumption The spin number-superposition state |\tilde+_N> approaches the environment bound as N→∞, by analogy with the bosonic result of [39].
    The paper states this analogy and shows numerical convergence in Figs. 2-3, but no closed-form proof is given for finite N.
  • ad hoc to paper The π-pulse sequence with δs t=2π is the optimal control for estimating the frequency separation of stochastic AC signals.
    Assumed in the 'Estimating the frequency separation' section; taken from the single-qubit protocol [12], but optimality for N-qubit entangled probes is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Optimal Frequency Estimation of Stochastic AC Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEPTPWJK

@misc{pith2026241119412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Optimal Frequency Estimation of Stochastic AC Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEPTPWJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19412}
}
abstract

Resolving frequencies in a time-dependent field is classically limited by the measurement bandwidth. Using tools from quantum metrology and quantum control may overcome this limit, yet the full advantage afforded by entanglement so far remains elusive. Here we map the problem of frequency measurement to that of estimating a global dephasing quantum channel. In this way, we determine the ultimate quantum limits of {frequency estimation in stochastic AC} sensing. We find exact {quantum Fisher information bounds} for estimating frequency and frequency differences of stochastic fields. In particular, given two close signals with frequency separation $\omega_r$, we find that the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for the separation estimation is approximately $2/\omega_r^2$, {i.e.}~\emph{inversely} proportional to the separation parameter. The bounds are achievable in certain regimes by superpositions of Dicke states. GHZ states are suboptimal but improve precision over unentangled states, achieving Heisenberg scaling in the low-bandwidth limit. This work establishes a robust framework for stochastic AC signal sensing that can be extended to arbitrary time-dependent and stochastic fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: depiction of the magnetic field signals in time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Top) QFI for the spin number-state as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Top) QFI for the spin number-superposition state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Gefen, A

    T. Gefen, A. Rotem, and A. Retzker. Overcoming reso- lution limits with quantum sensing. Nature Communica- tions, 10(1):4992, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [22]

    Robust asymptotic entanglement under mul- tipartite collective dephasing

    Edoardo G Carnio, Andreas Buchleitner, and Manuel Gessner. Robust asymptotic entanglement under mul- tipartite collective dephasing. Physical Review Letters , 115(1):010404, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [39]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 72:3439–3443, May 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [1]

    A phase-shift value ϕ is chosen randomly according to the probability density q(ϕ) in Eq. (5)

    work page

  5. [2]

    environment state

    The probe state has the phase operator U ⊗N ϕ ap- plied to it, and the value of ϕ is discarded. To find an optimality bound, we define an environmental state σω σω := Z ∞ −∞ dϕ q(ϕ) |ϕ⟩ ⟨ϕ| , (6) here {|ϕ⟩}ϕ can be seen as an auxiliary orthogonal basis carrying the information about the phase-shift value ϕ. Then, E decomposes as E = G(ρ ⊗ σω) = Z ∞ −∞ dϕ ...

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    Advances in quantum metrology

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Advances in quantum metrology. Nature photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [4]

    Quantum metrology

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Quantum metrology. Physical review letters , 96(1):010401, 2006

    2006

  8. [5]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    2004

Show all 54 references
  1. [6]

    High-sensitivity di- amond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution

    Jacob M Taylor, Paola Cappellaro, Lilian Childress, Liang Jiang, Dmitry Budker, PR Hemmer, Amir Yacoby, Ronald Walsworth, and MD Lukin. High-sensitivity di- amond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution. Nature Physics, 4(10):810–816, 2008

    2008

  2. [7]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro. Quantum sensing. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 89:035002, Jul 2017

    2017

  3. [8]

    Scanning magnetic field microscope with a diamond single-spin sensor

    CL Degen. Scanning magnetic field microscope with a diamond single-spin sensor. Applied Physics Letters , 92(24), 2008

    2008

  4. [9]

    Optimized quantum sens- ing with a single electron spin using real-time adaptive measurements

    Cristian Bonato, Machiel S Blok, Hossein T Dinani, Dominic W Berry, Matthew L Markham, Daniel J Twitchen, and Ronald Hanson. Optimized quantum sens- ing with a single electron spin using real-time adaptive measurements. Nature nanotechnology , 11(3):247–252, 2016

    2016

  5. [10]

    Munro, and Shiro Saito

    Tohru Tanaka, Paul Knott, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Shane Dooley, Hiroshi Yamaguchi, William J. Munro, and Shiro Saito. Proposed robust entanglement-based magnetic field sensor beyond the standard quantum limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:170801, Oct 2015

    2015

  6. [11]

    Estimation of gradients in quantum metrology

    Sanah Altenburg, Micha l Oszmaniec, Sabine W¨ olk, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Estimation of gradients in quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. A , 96:042319, Oct 2017

    2017

  7. [13]

    Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit using 10-spin noon states

    Jonathan A Jones, Steven D Karlen, Joseph Fitzsimons, Arzhang Ardavan, Simon C Benjamin, G Andrew D Briggs, and John JL Morton. Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit using 10-spin noon states. science, 324(5931):1166–1168, 2009

    2009

  8. [14]

    Optimal asymptotic precision bounds for nonlinear quantum metrology under collective dephasing

    Francisco Riberi and Lorenza Viola. Optimal asymptotic precision bounds for nonlinear quantum metrology under collective dephasing. APL Quantum , 2(2), 2025

    2025

  9. [15]

    Flo- quet time crystals as quantum sensors of ac fields

    Fernando Iemini, Rosario Fazio, and Anna Sanpera. Flo- quet time crystals as quantum sensors of ac fields. Phys. Rev. A, 109:L050203, May 2024

    2024

  10. [16]

    Quantum sensing of magnetic fields with molecular spins

    Claudio Bonizzoni, Alberto Ghirri, Fabio Santanni, and Marco Affronte. Quantum sensing of magnetic fields with molecular spins. npj Quantum Information , 10(1):41, 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Schloss, Scott T

    Guoqing Wang, Yi-Xiang Liu, Jennifer M. Schloss, Scott T. Alsid, Danielle A. Braje, and Paola Cappel- laro. Sensing of arbitrary-frequency fields using a quan- tum mixer. Phys. Rev. X , 12:021061, Jun 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    Quantum-limited metrol- ogy in the presence of collisional dephasing

    YC Liu, GR Jin, and L You. Quantum-limited metrol- ogy in the presence of collisional dephasing. Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 82(4):045601, 2010

    2010

  13. [19]

    Wolf and P

    F. Wolf and P. O. Schmidt. Quantum sensing of oscil- lating electric fields with trapped ions. Measurement: Sensors, 18:100271, 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    De- coherence and entanglement in a bosonic josephson junc- tion: Bose-enhanced quantum zeno control of phase dif- fusion

    Yuri Khodorkovsky, Gershon Kurizki, and A Vardi. De- coherence and entanglement in a bosonic josephson junc- tion: Bose-enhanced quantum zeno control of phase dif- fusion. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics, 80(2):023609, 2009

    2009

  15. [21]

    Nonlinear atom in- terferometer surpasses classical precision limit

    Christian Gross, Tilman Zibold, Eike Nicklas, Jerome Esteve, and Markus K Oberthaler. Nonlinear atom in- terferometer surpasses classical precision limit. Nature, 464(7292):1165–1169, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Quantum frequency estimation with trapped ions and atoms

    U Dorner. Quantum frequency estimation with trapped ions and atoms. New Journal of Physics , 14(4):043011, 2012

    2012

  17. [24]

    Spectroscopy of spontaneous spin noise as a probe of spin dynamics and magnetic resonance

    SA Crooker, DG Rickel, A V Balatsky, and DL Smith. Spectroscopy of spontaneous spin noise as a probe of spin dynamics and magnetic resonance. Nature, 431(7004):49–52, 2004

    2004

  18. [25]

    Indeed, this is a common scenario in quan- tum sensors where state preparation may take as long as, or longer than the integration time

    or Larmor precession [26]), but the amplitude may fluctuate. Indeed, this is a common scenario in quan- tum sensors where state preparation may take as long as, or longer than the integration time. Such signals have a coherence time longer than the individual experiment durati...

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Optimal adap- tive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent hamiltonians

    Shengshi Pang and Andrew N Jordan. Optimal adap- tive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent hamiltonians. Nature communications, 8(1):14695, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    Optical magne- tometry

    Dmitry Budker and Michael Romalis. Optical magne- tometry. Nature physics, 3(4):227–234, 2007

    2007

  21. [28]

    Magnetotel- luric power line noise removal using temporally varying sinusoidal subtraction of the grid utility frequency

    Radek Klanica, Josef Pek, and Graham Hill. Magnetotel- luric power line noise removal using temporally varying sinusoidal subtraction of the grid utility frequency. Pure and Applied Geophysics , 180(9):3303–3317, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    I. I. Ryzhov, V. O. Kozlov, N. S. Kuznetsov, I. Yu. Chest- nov, A. V. Kavokin, A. Tzimis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, G. G. Kozlov, and V. S. Zapasskii. Spin noise signatures of the self-induced larmor precession. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:022064, Jun 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Mouradian, Neil Glikin, Eli Megidish, Kai-Isaak Ellers, and Hartmut Haeffner

    Sara L. Mouradian, Neil Glikin, Eli Megidish, Kai-Isaak Ellers, and Hartmut Haeffner. Quantum sensing of in- termittent stochastic signals. Phys. Rev. A , 103:032419, Mar 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Overcom- ing frequency resolution limits using a solid-state spin quantum sensor

    Qingyun Cao, Genko T Genov, Yaoming Chu, Jianming Cai, Yu Liu, Alex Retzker, and Fedor Jelezko. Overcom- ing frequency resolution limits using a solid-state spin quantum sensor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20416 , 2025

    2025

  25. [32]

    This was inspired by the work of Tsang [44] who showed that by using a structured measurement, one can surpass the diffraction limit in the spatial domain when estimat- ing the spatial separation of two sources

  26. [33]

    Quantum estimation for quantum technology

    Matteo GA Paris. Quantum estimation for quantum technology. International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion, 7(supp01):125–137, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Us- ing entanglement against noise in quantum metrology

    Rafal Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and Lorenzo Maccone. Us- ing entanglement against noise in quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 113:250801, Dec 2014. 7

    2014

  28. [35]

    Barry, Jennifer M

    John F. Barry, Jennifer M. Schloss, Erik Bauch, Matthew J. Turner, Connor A. Hart, Linh M. Pham, and Ronald L. Walsworth. Sensitivity optimization for NV- diamond magnetometry. Rev. Mod. Phys., 92(1):015004, March 2020

    2020

  29. [36]

    Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. , 6(2), June 2019

    2019

  30. [37]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer. Rydberg atom quantum technologies. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 53(1):012002, December 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Semiconductor spin qubits

    Guido Burkard, Thaddeus D Ladd, Andrew Pan, John M Nichol, and Jason R Petta. Semiconductor spin qubits. Reviews of Modern Physics , 95(2):025003, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    article no

    IR Afnan, R Banerjee, Samuel L Braunstein, I Brevik, Carlton M Caves, B Chakraborty, Ephraim Fischbach, Lee Lindblom, GJ Milburn, SD Odintsov, et al. article no. 0048. Ann. Phys., 247:447, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Vishal Katariya and Mark M. Wilde. Geometric distin- guishability measures limit quantum channel estimation and discrimination. Quantum Information Processing , 20(2):78, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Zixin Huang, Ludovico Lami, and Mark M. Wilde. Exact quantum sensing limits for bosonic dephasing channels. PRX Quantum , 5:020354, Jun 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    For independent dephasing channels, see e.g. Refs. [45, 46]; Ref. [47]

  36. [44]

    Quantum Information: An Introduc- tion

    Masahito Hayashi. Quantum Information: An Introduc- tion. Springer, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    transition probability

    Armin Uhlmann. The “transition probability” in the state space of a *-algebra. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 9(2):273–279, 1976

    1976

  38. [46]

    [41, 42]

    The SM includes Refs. [41, 42]

  39. [47]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu. Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources. Phys. Rev. X , 6:031033, Aug 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging

    Cosmo Lupo and Stefano Pirandola. Ultimate precision bound of quantum and subwavelength imaging. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:190802, Nov 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Quantum metrology at the heisenberg limit with the presence of independent dephasing

    Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Shiro Saito, and William J Munro. Quantum metrology at the heisenberg limit with the presence of independent dephasing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00176, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Exponen- tial entanglement advantage in sensing correlated noise

    Yu-Xin Wang, Jacob Bringewatt, Alireza Seif, Anthony J Brady, Changhun Oh, and Alexey V Gorshkov. Exponen- tial entanglement advantage in sensing correlated noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05878 , 2024. Modelling Stochastic AC signals as a dephasing channel Evolution of a sta...

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    In the system considered here, the evolution is an accumulated phase

    The dynamical evolution is governed by the Hamiltonians given in Eq.(2) or (3). In the system considered here, the evolution is an accumulated phase. ϕ = Z H(t)dt

  44. [52]

    Given that there are N qubits in the system, for each “run” of the experiment, all the qubits experience the same phase accumulation: therefore the unitary is U ⊗N

  45. [53]

    These will result in different phases being imposed

    The Hamiltonian considered in this work is , each run of the experiment will have Eq.2 or 3 applied with different amplitudes. These will result in different phases being imposed. This distribution of phases we model as q(ϕ)

  46. [54]

    − A2 (1 − cos (ωt))2 + (ωϕ − A sin (ωt))2 2σ2 (1 − cos (ωt))2 # (88) = (2πσ 2)−1ω 1 − cos (ωt) Z dA exp

    The overall result is that we have a collective dephasing channel described by Eq. 5. Effective Hamiltonian Single frequency Firstly, for a single frequency signal, we reproduce in detail the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian Heff ≈ 2 π (A cos[(δt)] + B sin[δt]) σz. (29)...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.