pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.10615 · v4 · submitted 2024-10-14 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.atom-ph· physics.data-an

Adaptive, symmetry-informed Bayesian metrology for precise quantum technology measurements

Matt Overton , Jes\'us Rubio , Nathan Cooper , Daniele Baldolini , David Johnson , Janet Anders , Lucia Hackerm\"uller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.data-an
keywords quantum metrologyBayesian parameter estimationsymmetry-informed optimizationadaptive measurementultracold atomsprecision gain quantifierlow-data regime
0
0 comments X

The pith

Symmetry-informed Bayesian estimation reduces fractional variance in quantum parameter estimates by a factor of five.

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

The paper develops a strategy for parameter estimation in quantum systems under limited data by combining experimental control parameters with the system's natural symmetries. A Bayesian quantifier of precision gain directs adaptive optimization of the measurement procedure. General expressions are given for optimal estimators of any parameter. When applied to an ultracold caesium-atom trap inside an optical fibre hole, the approach produces a five-fold drop in fractional variance relative to standard procedures, or reaches a target precision with only one-third the data points. Readers in quantum technology care because this directly speeds up data collection for sensing, computing, and metrology tasks.

Core claim

The authors introduce a systematic strategy for low-data parameter estimation that integrates experimental controls and natural symmetries under the guidance of a Bayesian precision-gain quantifier, enabling adaptive tailoring to each experiment. General expressions for optimal estimators are supplied for arbitrary parameters. In the caesium-atom micromachined-hole experiment the method yields a five-fold reduction in the fractional variance of the estimated parameter, equivalently achieving target precision with one-third the data points required by the standard procedure.

What carries the argument

The Bayesian quantifier of precision gain, which evaluates and guides adaptive choices of control parameters while folding in identified natural symmetries of the physical model.

If this is right

  • Optimal estimators are available in closed form for any chosen parameter once the symmetry-informed Bayesian quantifier is applied.
  • The same target precision is reached with one-third the measurements, directly accelerating data collection in quantum devices.
  • The approach applies to any quantum technology setup in which symmetries can be identified beforehand.
  • Enhanced device performance follows for applications in quantum computing, communication, and metrology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If symmetry identification is uncertain, the reported gains may shrink unless a sensitivity analysis to mis-specification is performed.
  • The strategy could be tested on other low-data quantum sensing platforms such as gravitational-wave detectors or nitrogen-vacancy centres to check transferability.
  • Combining the method with model-selection tools would allow automatic discovery of which symmetries to include when the system is only partially understood.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the relevant natural symmetries of the physical system can be correctly identified in advance and that the Bayesian precision-gain quantifier remains valid when the underlying model is only approximately known.

What would settle it

Repeat the caesium-atom experiment while deliberately using a mismatched set of assumed symmetries and check whether the five-fold variance reduction vanishes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.10615 by Daniele Baldolini, David Johnson, Janet Anders, Jes\'us Rubio, Lucia Hackerm\"uller, Matt Overton, Nathan Cooper.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows that these conclusions hold even for a low shot number. There, the aforementioned NSR is repre￾sented as a function of k. A crucial implication is that the NSR achieved by the standard technique (blue inverted triangles) using k = 30 shots is rendered by the adap￾tive protocol (green circles) with only k = 9 shots, i.e., about one third of the resources. This is our fourth result. Interestingly, [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High precision measurements are essential to solve major scientific and technological challenges, from gravitational wave detection to healthcare diagnostics. Quantum sensing delivers greater precision, but an in-depth optimisation of measurement procedures has been overlooked. Here we present a systematic strategy for parameter estimation in the low-data limit that integrates experimental control parameters and natural symmetries. The method is guided by a Bayesian quantifier of precision gain, enabling adaptive optimisation tailored to the experiment. We provide general expressions for optimal estimators for any parameter. The strategy's power is demonstrated in a quantum technology experiment, in which ultracold caesium atoms are confined in a micromachined hole in an optical fibre. We find a five-fold reduction in the fractional variance of the estimated parameter, compared to the standard measurement procedure. Equivalently, our strategy achieves a target precision with a third of the data points previously required. Such enhanced device performance and accelerated data collection will be essential for applications in quantum computing, communication, metrology, and the wider quantum technology sector.

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 paper presents a systematic adaptive Bayesian strategy for parameter estimation in quantum metrology that integrates experimental control parameters with natural symmetries of the physical system. It supplies general expressions for optimal estimators and demonstrates the method experimentally on ultracold caesium atoms confined in a micromachined optical-fibre hole, reporting a five-fold reduction in fractional variance (or equivalently a three-fold reduction in required data points) relative to a standard measurement procedure.

Significance. If the central experimental claim holds after the missing robustness checks, the work would offer a practical route to higher data efficiency in quantum sensing, directly relevant to applications in quantum computing, communication and metrology. The provision of general expressions for optimal estimators is a positive methodological contribution that could be reused beyond the specific demonstration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental demonstration section] Experimental demonstration (section reporting the caesium-atom results): the five-fold fractional-variance reduction is stated without accompanying error bars, data-exclusion criteria, model-assumption validation or statistical tests; because this numerical improvement is the central empirical claim, the absence of these elements prevents assessment of whether the reported gain is statistically distinguishable from the standard procedure.
  2. [Method description section] Method description (section introducing the symmetry-informed Bayesian quantifier): the claimed precision gain rests on the premise that the relevant natural symmetries can be identified correctly a priori and that the quantifier remains valid under inevitable model mismatch; no sensitivity analysis to symmetry mis-specification or to deviations from the assumed Hamiltonian is supplied, yet this premise directly determines whether the reported variance reduction survives in a real experiment.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the Bayesian precision-gain quantifier should be defined explicitly at first use and kept consistent with the general estimator expressions.
  2. Figure captions for the experimental data should state the number of independent runs and any fitting assumptions used to extract the reported variances.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects for strengthening the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental demonstration section] Experimental demonstration (section reporting the caesium-atom results): the five-fold fractional-variance reduction is stated without accompanying error bars, data-exclusion criteria, model-assumption validation or statistical tests; because this numerical improvement is the central empirical claim, the absence of these elements prevents assessment of whether the reported gain is statistically distinguishable from the standard procedure.

    Authors: We agree that the experimental results section requires additional statistical details to enable a full assessment of the reported improvement. In the revised manuscript we will add error bars to the fractional variance estimates (derived via bootstrap resampling of the experimental data), specify any data exclusion criteria applied, validate the key model assumptions against the measured data, and include statistical tests (such as a two-sample t-test or permutation test) to establish that the observed five-fold reduction is statistically distinguishable from the standard procedure. These elements will be incorporated into the main text and supplementary material. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method description section] Method description (section introducing the symmetry-informed Bayesian quantifier): the claimed precision gain rests on the premise that the relevant natural symmetries can be identified correctly a priori and that the quantifier remains valid under inevitable model mismatch; no sensitivity analysis to symmetry mis-specification or to deviations from the assumed Hamiltonian is supplied, yet this premise directly determines whether the reported variance reduction survives in a real experiment.

    Authors: The symmetries employed in the caesium experiment are directly determined from the well-established atomic physics of the system. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a quantitative sensitivity analysis would strengthen the methodological contribution. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection (and supporting simulations in the supplement) that examines the degradation of the precision gain under controlled mis-specification of the symmetry group and small deviations from the ideal Hamiltonian. Where possible we will also re-analyse subsets of the experimental data under perturbed models to illustrate robustness under realistic mismatch. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Bayesian quantifier and experimental gain are independent of fitted outputs

full rationale

The derivation chain relies on a Bayesian precision-gain quantifier applied to an adaptive strategy that incorporates identified symmetries and control parameters. The reported five-fold variance reduction is obtained by direct comparison to a standard measurement procedure on the caesium-atom data; the quantifier is not defined in terms of the estimated parameter itself, nor is any prediction shown to be statistically forced by a fitted subset. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appears in the abstract or described method. The central claim therefore retains independent content from the Bayesian framework and the external experimental benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; the paper introduces a 'Bayesian quantifier of precision gain' whose explicit functional form, any free parameters it contains, and the precise symmetry assumptions are not stated in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1212 out tokens · 20530 ms · 2026-05-23T18:41:06.174730+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Atom-interferometric gravitational-wave detection using heterodyne laser links, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033632 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Badurina, E

    L. Badurina, E. Bentine, D. Blas, K. Bongs, D. Bortoletto, T. Bowcock, K. Bridges, W. Bowden, O. Buchmueller, C. Burrage, J. Coleman, G. Elertas, J. Ellis, C. Foot, V. Gibson, M. Haehnelt, T. Harte, S. Hedges, R. Hob- son, M. Holynski, T. Jones, M. Langlois, S. Lellouch, M. Lewicki, R. Maiolino, P. Majewski, S. Malik, J. March- Russell, C. McCabe, D. Newb...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Zhang, W

    R. Zhang, W. Xiao, Y. Ding, Y. Feng, X. Peng, L. Shen, C. Sun, T. Wu, Y. Wu, Y. Yang, Z. Zheng, X. Zhang, J. Chen, and H. Guo, Recording brain activities in un- shielded earth’s field with optically pumped atomic mag- netometers, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba8792 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

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

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    E. Boto, N. Holmes, J. Leggett, G. Roberts, V. Shah, S. S. Meyer, L. D. Mu˜ noz, K. J. Mullinger, T. M. Tier- ney, S. Bestmann, G. R. Barnes, R. Bowtell, and M. J. Brookes, Moving magnetoencephalography towards real- world applications with a wearable system., Nature 555, 657–66 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    F. A. Narducci, A. T. Black, and J. H. Burke, Advances toward fieldable atom interferometers, Adv. Phys. X 7, 1946426 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J. Lee, R. Ding, J. Christensen, R. R. Rosenthal, A. Ison, D. P. Gillund, D. Bossert, K. H. Fuerschbach, W. Kindel, P. S. Finnegan, J. R. Wendt, M. Gehl, A. Kodigala, H. McGuinness, C. A. Walker, S. A. Kemme, A. Lentine, G. Biedermann, and P. D. D. Schwindt, A compact cold-atom interferometer with a high data-rate grating magneto-optical trap and a photon...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Adams, S

    B. Adams, S. Kinge, K. Bongs, and Y. H. Lien, Magneto- optical trap performance for high-bandwidth applications, Phys. Rev. A 108, 063111 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phutti- tarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Camp- bell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. Noel, and M. Saffman, Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-...

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    10, 32 (2023)

    Wintersperger, Karen, Dommert, Florian, Ehmer, Thomas, Hoursanov, Andrey, Klepsch, Johannes, Mauerer, Wolfgang, Reuber, Georg, Strohm, Thomas, Yin, Ming, and Luber, Sebastian, Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspec- tive, EPJ Quantum Technol. 10, 32 (2023). 7

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C. Zou, S. Liu, F. Yan, Y. Xu, and D. Yu, Quantum-enhanced metrology with large fock states, Nat. Phys. 20, 1874–1880 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Y. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quan- tum metrology with imperfect measurements, Nat. Com- mun. 13, 6971 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Horodecki, L

    P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Five open problems in quantum information theory, PRX Quantum 3, 010101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    S. G. Turyshev, U. E. Israelsson, M. Shao, N. Yu, A. Kusenko, E. L. Wright, C. W. F. Everitt, M. Kase- vich, J. A. Lipa, J. C. Mester, R. D. Reasenberg, R. L. Walsworth, N. Ashby, H. Gould, and H. J. Paik, Space- based research in fundamental physics and quantum tech- nologies, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 1879 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Kaltenbaek, A

    R. Kaltenbaek, A. Acin, L. Bacsardi, P. Bianco, P. Bouyer, E. Diamanti, C. Marquardt, Y. Omar, V. Pruneri, E. Rasel, et al., Quantum technologies in space, Exp. As- tron. 51, 1677 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Belenchia, M

    A. Belenchia, M. Carlesso, ¨Omer Bayraktar, D. De- qual, I. Derkach, G. Gasbarri, W. Herr, Y. L. Li, M. Rademacher, J. Sidhu, D. K. Oi, S. T. Seidel, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Marquardt, H. Ulbricht, V. C. Usenko, L. W¨ orner, A. Xuereb, M. Paternostro, and A. Bassi, Quantum physics in space, Phys. Rep. 951, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Ye and P

    J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Quantum sensing for particle physics, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 329 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory (Prentice Hall, 1993)

    work page 1993

  20. [20]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 7, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum Limits in Optical Interfer- ometry, Prog. Opt. 60, 345 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Re- view: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, arXiv:2408.15323 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Y. L. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum metrology with imperfect measurements, Na- ture Communications 13, 6971 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V. Lep- age, A. A. Lasek, C. H. Barnes, and S. Lloyd, Quantum advantage in postselected metrology, Nature communica- tions 11, 3775 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Rubio and J

    J. Rubio and J. A. Dunningham, Quantum metrology in the presence of limited data, New J. Phys. 21, 043037 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Valeri, E

    M. Valeri, E. Polino, D. Poderini, I. Gianani, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental adaptive Bayesian estimation of multiple phases with limited data, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 92 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Morelli, A

    S. Morelli, A. Usui, E. Agudelo, and N. Friis, Bayesian parameter estimation using Gaussian states and measure- ments, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Rubio, J

    J. Rubio, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Global quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 190402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Salmon, S

    W. Salmon, S. Strelchuk, and D. Arvidsson-Shukur, Only Classical Parameterised States have Optimal Measure- ments under Least Squares Loss, Quantum 7, 998 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. S. Fran¸ ca, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, Quantum metrology in the finite-sample regime, arXiv:2307.06370 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    W. v. d. Linden, V. Dose, and U. v. Toussaint, Bayesian Probability Theory: Applications in the Physical Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Brivio, S

    D. Brivio, S. Cialdi, S. Vezzoli, B. T. Gebrehiwot, M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Experimental estimation of one-parameter qubit gates in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012305 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Paesani, A

    S. Paesani, A. A. Gentile, R. Santagati, J. Wang, N. Wiebe, D. P. Tew, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thomp- son, Experimental Bayesian Quantum Phase Estimation on a Silicon Photonic Chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100503 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Lumino, E

    A. Lumino, E. Polino, A. S. Rab, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, N. Wiebe, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental phase estima- tion enhanced by machine learning, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 044033 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Kaubruegger, D

    R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Ham- merer, and P. Zoller, Quantum Variational Optimization of Ramsey Interferometry and Atomic Clocks, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041045 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Gianani, M

    I. Gianani, M. G. Genoni, and M. Barbieri, Assessing data postprocessing for quantum estimation, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 26, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Glatthard, J

    J. Glatthard, J. Rubio, R. Sawant, T. Hewitt, G. Baron- tini, and L. A. Correa, Optimal cold atom thermometry us- ing adaptive bayesian strategies, PRX Quantum 3, 040330 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Gerster, F

    L. Gerster, F. Mart ´ ınez-Garc ´ ıa, P. Hrmo, M. W. van Mourik, B. Wilhelm, D. Vodola, M. M¨ uller, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Experimental Bayesian Cal- ibration of Trapped-Ion Entangling Operations, PRX Quantum 3, 020350 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Valeri, V

    M. Valeri, V. Cimini, S. Piacentini, F. Ceccarelli, E. Polino, F. Hoch, G. Bizzarri, G. Corrielli, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental multiparam- eter quantum metrology in adaptive regime, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013138 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Oliveira, J

    A. Oliveira, J. Rubio, C. Noble, J. Anderson, J. Anders, and A. Mulholland, Fluctuation relations to calculate pro- tein redox potentials from molecular dynamics simula- tions, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 385 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Cimini, E

    V. Cimini, E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciar- rino, Benchmarking Bayesian quantum estimation, Quan- tum Sci. Technol. 9, 035035 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Belliardo, V

    F. Belliardo, V. Cimini, E. Polino, F. Hoch, B. Piccirillo, N. Spagnolo, V. Giovannetti, and F. Sciarrino, Optimiz- ing quantum-enhanced Bayesian multiparameter estima- tion of phase and noise in practical sensors, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Hewitt, T

    T. Hewitt, T. Bertheas, M. Jain, Y. Nishida, and G. Barontini, Controlling the interactions in a cold atom quantum impurity system, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035039 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Z. Ma, C. Han, Z. Tan, H. He, S. Shi, X. Kang, J. Wu, J. Huang, B. Lu, and C. Lee, Adaptive cold-atom magne- tometry mitigating the trade-off between sensitivity and dynamic range, Science Advances 11, eadt3938 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation The- 8 ory (Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    work page 1976

  48. [48]

    D’Agostini, Bayesian inference in processing experi- mental data: principles and basic applications, Rep

    G. D’Agostini, Bayesian inference in processing experi- mental data: principles and basic applications, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 1383 (2003)

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Bayesian quantum frequency estimation in presence of col- lective dephasing, New J. Phys. 16, 113002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. G´ orecki, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher in- formation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 363001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Bavaresco, P

    J. Bavaresco, P. Lipka-Bartosik, P. Sekatski, and M. Mehboudi, Designing optimal protocols in Bayesian quantum parameter estimation with higher-order opera- tions, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023305 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Rubio, First-principles construction of symmetry- informed quantum metrologies, Phys

    J. Rubio, First-principles construction of symmetry- informed quantum metrologies, Phys. Rev. A 110, L030401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, A. H. H´ ebert, A. Krahn, R. Groth, G. A. Phelps, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Fast single atom imaging for optical lattice arrays., Nat. Commun. 16, 1017 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    Q. Zhang, Y. Xia, W. Wu, C. Qiu, P. Chen, W. Li, H. Jing, and Y. Zhou, Observation of quantum strong Mpemba effect., Nat. Commun. 16, 301 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Rubio, Quantum scale estimation, Quantum Sci

    J. Rubio, Quantum scale estimation, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 8, 015009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    E. D. Ros, N. Cooper, J. Nute, and L. Hackermueller, Cold atoms in micromachined waveguides: A new platform for atom-photon interactions, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033098 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Cooper, E

    N. Cooper, E. D. Ros, C. Briddon, V. Naniyil, M. Green- away, and L. Hackermueller, Prospects for strongly cou- pled atom-photon quantum nodes, Sci. Rep. 9, 7798 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Schrinski, P

    B. Schrinski, P. Haslinger, J. Schmiedmayer, K. Horn- berger, and S. Nimmrichter, Testing collapse models with bose-einstein-condensate interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 107, 043320 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Clements, B

    K. Clements, B. Elder, L. Hackermueller, M. Fromhold, and C. Burrage, Detecting dark domain walls through their impact on particle trajectories in tailored ultrahigh vacuum environments, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123023 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum metrology, AVS Quantum Science 2, 024703 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Mehboudi, M

    M. Mehboudi, M. R. Jørgensen, S. Seah, J. B. Brask, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Fundamental Limits in Bayesian Thermometry and Attainability via Adaptive Strategies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 130502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Kurdzia lek, W

    S. Kurdzia lek, W. G´ orecki, F. Albarelli, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Using adaptiveness and causal superpositions against noise in quantum metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 090801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    J. G. Smith, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson- Shukur, Adaptive Bayesian quantum algorithm for phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042412 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    MacLellan, P

    B. MacLellan, P. Roztocki, S. Czischek, and R. G. Melko, End-to-end variational quantum sensing, arXiv:2403.02394 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Optimal phase estimation with arbitrary a priori knowledge, Phys

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Optimal phase estimation with arbitrary a priori knowledge, Phys. Rev. A 83, 061802 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    R. E. Kass and L. Wasserman, The Selection of Prior Distributions by Formal Rules, J Am Stat Assoc 91, 1343 (1996)

    work page 1996

  67. [67]

    Amari, Information Geometry and Its Applications , 1st ed., Applied mathematical sciences (Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 2016)

    S.-I. Amari, Information Geometry and Its Applications , 1st ed., Applied mathematical sciences (Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Bogaerts, D

    W. Bogaerts, D. P´ erez, J. Capmany, D. A. B. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Pro- grammable photonic circuits, Nature 586, 207 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Nieddu, V

    T. Nieddu, V. Gokhroo, and S. N. Chormaic, Opti- cal nanofibres and neutral atoms, Journal of Optics 18 (2016)

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    N. V. Corzo, J. Raskop, A. Chandra, A. S. Sheremet, B. Gouraud, and J. Laurat, Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays, Nature 566, 359 (2019)

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Troullinou, V

    C. Troullinou, V. G. Lucivero, and M. W. Mitchell, Quantum-enhanced magnetometry at optimal number density, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 133602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Z. Zhou, S. C. Carrasco, C. Sanner, V. S. Malinovsky, and R. Folman, Geometric phase amplification in a clock in- terferometer for enhanced metrology, arXiv: , 2405.10226 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Naniyil, Y

    V. Naniyil, Y. Zhou, G. Simmonds, N. Cooper, W. Li, and L. Hackermueller, Observation of collectivity enhanced magnetoassociation of 6Li in the quantum degenerate regime, New Journal of Physics 24, 113005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    D. A. Steck, Cesium D line data, revision 2.3.3, http: //steck.us/alkalidata (2024), accessed: 2024-09-10

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

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

    M. Tsang, Generalized conditional expectations for quan- tum retrodiction and smoothing, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042213 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    I. S. M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, An introduction to quantum machine learning, Contemp. Phys. 56, 172 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    L. J. Fiderer, J. Schuff, and D. Braun, Neural-Network Heuristics for Adaptive Bayesian Quantum Estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 020303 (2021)

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Koutn´ y, L

    D. Koutn´ y, L. Motka, Z. c. v. Hradil, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Neural-network quantum state to- mography, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012409 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezz` e, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 141 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Rinaldi, M

    E. Rinaldi, M. G. Lastre, S. G. Herreros, S. Ahmed, M. Khanahmadi, F. Nori, and C. S. Mu˜ noz, Parameter es- timation from quantum-jump data using neural networks, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035018 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.