Dispersive Qubit Readout of Temperature

Chunling Xu; Dong Xie

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Dispersive Qubit Readout of Temperature

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dispersive qubit readout reaches Heisenberg scaling for temperature when N bath-coupled qubits are read out through a lossy, weakly coupled cavity, with squeezing adding an exponential boost.

desk verdict Solid isolated-qubit thermometry, but the Heisenberg-scaling claim for bath-coupled qubits is not supported by the written derivation due to inconsistent signal formulas and an overestimated noise term. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13730 v1 pith:XAFIW2AC submitted 2024-12-18 quant-ph

Dong Xie , Chunling Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords dispersivequbitreadoutquantumthermometrysqueezedlightHeisenbergscalinghomodynedetectionFisherinformationcavityelectrodynamicsparameterestimation

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 asks whether the exponential gains that squeezed light brings to dispersive qubit readout can also improve the precision of thermometry. For a single qubit that is thermalized and then isolated from the bath, the answer is mostly no: thermal fluctuations wash out the squeezing advantage, and exponential improvement appears only in the limits of zero temperature, zero measurement time, or zero input photon number. The main positive claim is that when $N$ qubits remain in contact with the thermal bath and are read out through a high-loss, weakly coupled cavity, the temperature uncertainty reaches Heisenberg scaling, $\delta T\propto 1/N$, and injected squeezing multiplies the precision by $e^r$. If correct, this gives a concrete route to beating the standard quantum limit in quantum thermometry with existing dispersive-cavity hardware.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the steady-state homodyne readout of the cavity field under the Hamiltonian $H_c=\sum_{j=1}^N\chi\,\sigma_j^z a^\dagger a$. Temperature enters through the mean qubit polarization $\langle\sigma_j^z\rangle=-1/(2n+1)$, which shifts the cavity amplitude $\langle a\rangle$; detecting the output quadrature at phase $\Phi=\pi/2$ gives a temperature signal $S_T^m=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa\alpha_{\rm in}}\,N^2\chi(2n+1)|\partial_T n|}{N^2\chi^2+(2n+1)^2\kappa^2/4}$. The error-propagation formula $\delta T=\sqrt{\langle\Delta^2 Q\rangle}/S_T^m$ converts the output noise into temperature uncertainty. In the limit $\kappa\gg 2N\chi e^r/(2n+1)$, the squeezed-vacuum term dominates the variance $\langle\Delta^2 Q\rangle$ and the qubit-projection-noise term is dropped, leaving the noise $N$-independent while the signal grows with $N$; injected squeezing supplies the $e^{-r}$ reduction in noise.

What would settle it

Compute the quantum Fisher information of the full steady state of the cavity coupled to $N$ bath-contacted qubits; if that information grows only as $N$ rather than as $N^2$, then $\delta T\propto 1/N$ cannot be a fundamental precision limit and Eq. (43) would overestimate what is achievable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dispersive qubit readout—a scheme in which the state of a qubit shifts the resonance frequency of an optical cavity and is inferred from a phase-sensitive measurement of the output light—can be turned into a thermometer with Heisenberg scaling. If $N$ qubits remain in contact with a thermal bath while a strongly damped, weakly coupled cavity is read out in steady state, the temperature uncertainty is claimed to be $$ \delta T\simeq \frac{(2n+1)\$kappa^{2}$ $e^{{-r}}$}{8\sqrt{\kappa\alpha_{\rm in}}\,N\chi\,|\partial_T n|}, $$ with $n=(e^{\omega_q/T}-1)^{-1}$, so precision improves as $1/N$ and injected external squeezing improves it exponentially via $e^{-r}$. For a single qubit thermalized and then isolated from the bath, the paper finds that squeezing does not give an exponential gain unless temperature, measurement time, or input photon number tends to zero; for $N$ independent such qubits the precision recovers the standard quantum limit $\delta T\propto 1/\sqrt{N}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that when the cavity decay is fast and the qubit-cavity coupling is weak, the output noise is dominated by the squeezed vacuum and the fluctuations of the $N$ thermalized qubits can be neglected, even though $N$ independent thermalized qubits normally limit precision to $1/\sqrt{N}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the bath-coupled regime, the Heisenberg scaling $\delta T\propto 1/N$ holds only up to a crossover qubit number; beyond it the uncertainty grows linearly with $N$ (Eq. (44), Fig. 2).
Increasing the input photon number $\alpha_{\rm in}$ improves precision in every regime considered, so a stronger drive is a universal resource for this thermometer.
In the isolated-qubit case, even ideal readout saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound only in the limits $\alpha_{\rm in}\tau\to\infty$ or $r\to\infty$; otherwise thermal fluctuations prevent squeezed light from helping.
In the steady-state bath-coupled case, using intracavity squeezing gives the same precision as injected external squeezing alone, so the simpler IES-only setup is sufficient.

Reading between the lines

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

The claimed $1/N$ precision would imply that the full cavity-plus-qubits steady state carries $N^2$ worth of Fisher information; computing that quantity directly would connect the mechanism to standard quantum-metrology bounds.
The condition $\kappa\gg 2N\chi e^r/(2n+1)$ makes the useful qubit number depend on the ratio $\kappa/\chi$ and shrink as squeezing grows, so real devices should show a crossover $N^*$ beyond which both more qubits and stronger squeezing degrade precision.
The mechanism suggests a design principle for quantum thermometers: keep the probe coupled to the sample during the measurement and read it out through a fast-decaying, weakly coupled cavity, a configuration testable with existing circuit-QED hardware.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read of arXiv:2412.13730. The first half, on a single thermalized qubit read out by a squeezed cavity, is coherent and worth a look. The result that squeezed light only gives exponential temperature-precision gains in the limits T→0, τ→0, or α_in→0, and that the steady-state precision saturates the quantum Fisher information bound, is cleanly derived. That part is a legitimate new application of the Barzanjeh/Qin readout machinery to thermometry.

The second half, the claimed 1/N Heisenberg scaling for N qubits in contact with the bath, does not hold up as written. There are two concrete problems. First, the steady-state signal S_T is given inconsistently: Eq. (40) in the main text has N, Eq. (C10) in the appendix has N², and neither equals the derivative of ⟨Q⟩ from Eq. (C9). Taking that derivative gives a term proportional to Nχ|∂_T n| (N²χ² − u²κ²/4)/D², so the T-dependence of the denominator is not negligible. The prefactor in Eq. (43) is therefore not actually derived. Second, in the appendix the sum over N independent qubit noise operators is replaced by N times a single common noise operator, which overestimates the projection-noise contribution to the output variance by a factor of N. That changes the regime condition under which the output noise is N-independent.

The reader's worry about the quantum Fisher information is not the decisive point: an external probe can carry N² Fisher information even when the qubits are independent, if the signal grows linearly with N while the noise stays flat. The decisive problem is that the written derivation doesn't get you to Eq. (43). With the correct derivative, the signal still scales linearly with N in the large-κ limit, so the Heisenberg scaling might survive a corrected derivation, but the prefactor and the regime condition will change.

This paper is for people working on squeezed-light readout and quantum thermometry. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should demand a corrected Appendix C and a reconciled signal formula before the central claim is accepted. I would not cite it in its current form.

Send it to review with the expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dispersive qubit readout used as a thermometer. For a single thermalized qubit isolated from the bath, Sections II and III derive the temperature uncertainty obtained from homodyne detection with injected external squeezing (IES) and with IES plus intracavity squeezing (ICS), concluding that exponential improvement is possible only when the temperature, the measurement time, or the input photon number tends to zero. Section IV treats N independent isolated qubits and recovers the standard quantum limit, 1/sqrt(N). The central new claim is in Section V: when N qubits remain in contact with the thermal bath and the cavity loss rate is large while the qubit-cavity coupling is weak, the temperature precision scales as 1/N (Eq. 43), with an additional exponential improvement from squeezing. The paper also reports that for sufficiently large N the precision degrades (Eq. 44).

Significance. The question addressed is relevant: squeezing-enhanced dispersive readout is an active experimental topic, and extending it to thermometry is a natural and potentially useful step. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the isolated-qubit calculation is self-contained, and Eqs. (23) and (27) correctly show that the dispersive readout saturates the single-qubit quantum Fisher information bound in the appropriate limit; Section IV also correctly identifies the 1/sqrt(N) standard quantum limit for independent qubits. I do not regard the N-scaling of the single-qubit QFI as an automatic obstruction to the claimed 1/N result, because the cavity output is a collective probe that can in principle carry an N^2-scaling signal even for independent qubits. However, the written derivation of the Section V claim contains internal algebraic inconsistencies that are load-bearing, so the 1/N result is not established as it stands.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Eqs. (40), (C9), (C10)] The signal S_T^m is not the derivative of the steady-state quadrature. From Eq. (C9) with Phi=pi/2 one obtains d_T<Q> = sqrt(kappa alpha_in) N chi (d_T n) [(2n+1)^2 kappa^2 - 4N^2 chi^2] / [N^2 chi^2 + (2n+1)^2 kappa^2/4]^2, which is neither Eq. (40) nor Eq. (C10); moreover Eq. (40) and Eq. (C10) differ from each other by a factor N/2. Since Eq. (43) divides the output noise by this signal, the prefactor and the regime condition of the claimed 1/N scaling are not derived as written. In the large-kappa limit the exact derivative differs from the signal used in Eq. (43) by a factor such that the correct delta_T is ((2n+1)/2) times the value in Eq. (43), so even the final formula is not correct as stated.
[Appendix C, Eqs. (C3) and (C6)] The derivation replaces the sum sum_j delta_sigma_{jz} appearing in Eq. (C1) by N times a single operator delta_sigma_{jz}, and Eq. (C6) then contains N chi times one noise operator sigma_z_in. The qubit noise operators in Eq. (C4) are independent for different j, so the cavity-fluctuation variance should contain a sum of N independent single-qubit contributions, i.e., a factor N rather than N^2. Using N^2 chi^2 in Eqs. (C7)-(C8) overestimates the qubit-projection-noise contribution to the output variance by a factor N and therefore changes the regime condition kappa >> 2N chi e^r/(2n+1) and the large-N degradation formula in Eq. (44). This point is load-bearing for the 1/N claim and must be redone with the independent qubit noises.
[Section II and Appendix A, Eqs. (14), (15), (A6)-(A11)] The stated condition 'arctan(2 chi/kappa) = n pi' is not satisfiable for nonzero chi, because tan(n pi) = 0 forces 2 chi/kappa = 0. This condition is used to obtain the exponential factor e^{-2r} via cos(4 psi) = 1, so Eqs. (14), (15), (A6), (A7), (A10), and (A11) do not apply to the physical dispersive regime chi != 0. The authors should either give the correct phase-matching condition for real chi and kappa, or show that the qualitative conclusion of Sections II and III (no exponential improvement unless T, alpha_in, or tau tends to zero) survives a correct optimization.

minor comments (4)

[General] There are several typographical errors: 'eqiuation' in Eq. (44), 'limt' in Appendix A, and 'Qauntum' in Ref. [28]; these should be corrected.
[References] Reference [6] appears to be a duplicate of Ref. [5] and lacks full bibliographic information; the authors should either supply the complete reference or remove the duplicate.
[Figure 2] The caption of Fig. 2 does not state whether the curves are computed from Eq. (43), Eq. (44), or the general numerical solution, which makes the plot difficult to interpret.
[Notation] The symbol tau is used both as the upper limit of the integrated quadrature M and as the measurement time; the authors should define this consistently in one place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-contained derivation benchmarked against quantum Fisher information.

full rationale

The central claims are obtained by solving the specified quantum Langevin equations and inserting the solutions into the error-propagation definition; no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction. The single-qubit result is benchmarked against the quantum Fisher information bound (Eqs. (23)-(27)), and the equality in the appropriate limit is an independent consistency check rather than an input. The self-citations [14,29] concern prior thermometry settings and are not used to justify the dispersive-readout equations derived here. The N-qubit Heisenberg scaling in Eq. (43) is presented as a consequence of the collective phase shift Nχ in the steady-state response (Eqs. (37)-(40)) and the stated large-κ approximation, not as a premise. The algebraic discrepancy between Eq. (40) and Eq. (C10) and the derivative issue noted by a reader are correctness/derivation concerns, not circular reductions to the paper's inputs. Accordingly no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard input-output theory and Markovian reservoir assumptions; there are no fitted free parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing approximation is the neglect of N-dependent qubit projection noise in the large-kappa limit, which is not benchmarked against the quantum Fisher information of the N-qubit state.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The cavity and qubits obey Markovian quantum Langevin equations with delta-correlated noise (Eqs. 2, 33-36).
Standard input-output theory for cavity QED; used throughout Sections II, III, and V.
domain assumption Each qubit couples to its own thermal reservoir with decay Gamma and occupation n(T); the reservoirs are independent (Eqs. 34-36).
This makes the N qubits independent probes with a product steady state in the mean-field description; central for the scaling analysis in Section V.
ad hoc to paper Mean-field decorrelation in Appendix C: <sigma^- sigma^+ sigma_jin sigma^+_jin> is approximated by <sigma^- sigma^+> <sigma_jin sigma^+_jin> (before Eq. C7).
Used to evaluate the qubit noise contributions; may miss qubit-bath correlations that affect the scaling.
ad hoc to paper In the large-kappa limit the contribution of delta_sigma_jz fluctuations to the output variance is negligible compared to the squeezed-vacuum term, stated as the condition kappa much greater than 2N chi e^r / (2n+1) after Eq. (42).
This is the load-bearing assumption behind the 1/N scaling; it is asserted rather than derived from a quantum Fisher information benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersive Qubit Readout of Temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAFIW2AC

@misc{pith2026241213730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersive Qubit Readout of Temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAFIW2AC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13730}
}

read the original abstract

Squeezed light can exponentially increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of dispersive qubit readout, especially using a combination of injected external squeezing (IES) and intracavity squeezing (ICS). We further investigate whether IES and ICS can also exponentially improve the measurement precision of temperature. In the case of fully thermalized qubits isolated from thermal bath, the measurement precision of temperature can be improved exponentially when the temperature or measurement time or the input photon number approaches 0. In general, thermal fluctuations prevent the action of squeezed light. When multiple qubits maintain interacting with the thermal bath, the Heisenberg scaling can be achieved if the loss rate of the cavity is large and the coupling between the qubit and the optical cavity is weak enough. In the meantime, IES can also further promote the improvement of the measurement precision of the temperature exponentially.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13730 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The graph of the uncertainty of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

The dispersive setup is dominated by the Hamiltonian ( ℏ = 1)[23] H =ω ca†a + 1 2ω qσz +χσ za†a, (1) where a (a†) denote annihilation (creation) operators of the cavity mode with the frequency ω c, σz is the Pauli matrix of the qubit with the transition frequency ω q, and χ is the coupling strength between the qubit and the cavity mode. In a reference fra...

work page
[2]

Raussendorf and J

R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190504 (2007)

work page 2007
[3]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraﬀ, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quan- tum Limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

Krinner et al., Realizing repeated quantum error cor- rection in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669C674 (2022)

S. Krinner et al., Realizing repeated quantum error cor- rection in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669C674 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Iwasawa, K

K. Iwasawa, K. Makino, H. Yonezawa, M. Tsang, A. Davidovic, E. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Quantum- Limited Mirror-Motion Estimation,

work page
[7]

Iwasawa, K

K. Iwasawa, K. Makino, H. Yonezawa, M. Tsang, A. Davidovic, E. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Quantum- Limited Mirror-Motion Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 163602 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Abadie et al

J. Abadie et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration), A gravi - tational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys. 7, 962-965 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 32 references

[9]

Grote, K

H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slutsky, and H. Vahlbruch, First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational Wave Ob- servatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 181101 (2013)

2013
[10]

Didier, A

N. Didier, A. Kamal, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-Limited Qubit readout with Two- Mode Squeezed Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 093604 (2015)

2015
[11]

Barzanjeh, D

Sh. Barzanjeh, D. P. DiVincenzo, and B. M. Terhal, Dis- persive qubit measurement by interferometry with para- metric ampliﬁers, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134515 (2014)

2014
[12]

W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Exponentially Im- proved Dispersive Qubit Readout with Squeezed Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233605 (2024)

2024
[13]

in the main text, the uncertainty of the temperature is derived by δT = √ ⟨∆ 2Q⟩ Sm T = √ 2⟨δa† sδas⟩ + 1 − ⟨(δas)2⟩ − ⟨(δa† s)2⟩ Sm T . (C12) When the loss rate is larger than the number of the qubits and the squeezing parameter, i.e., κ ≫ 2N χ 2n+1er, the uncertainty of the ...
[14]

G. Liu, X. Cao, T.-C. Chien, C. Zhou, P. Lu, and M. Hatridge, Noise Reduction in Qubit Readout with a Two-Mode Squeezed Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064092 (2022)

2022
[15]

Kam and X

C.-F. Kam and X. Hu, Fast and high-ﬁdelity dispersive readout of a spin qubit via squeezing and resonator non- linearity, arXiv:2401.03617 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[16]

Xie, and C

D. Xie, and C. Xu, Thermometry with a dissipative heavy impurity, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033102 (2024)

2024
[17]

Mehboudi, A

M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermom- 9 etryin the quantum regime: recent theoretical progress, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 303001 (2019)

2019
[18]

Giazotto, T

F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. P. Pekola, Opportunities for mesoscopics in ther- mometry and refrigeration: Physics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 217 (2006)

2006
[19]

Jevtic, D

S. Jevtic, D. Newman, T. Rudolph, and T. M. Stace, Single-qubit thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012331 (2015)

2015
[20]

P. P. Hofer, J. B. Brask, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and N. Brunner, Quantum thermal machine as a thermometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 090603 (2017)

2017
[21]

Campisi, P

M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum ﬂuctuation relations: Foundations and appli- cations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011)

2011
[22]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

2017
[23]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020)

2020
[24]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Na- ture 595, 227 (2021)

2021
[25]

Blais, R.-S

A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraﬀ, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

2004
[26]

A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, Florian Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and ampliﬁcation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

2010
[27]

Cram´ er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princ e- ton University, Princeton, 1946)

H. Cram´ er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princ e- ton University, Princeton, 1946)

1946
[28]

Rao, Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applica - tions (Wiley, NewYork, 1973)

C.R. Rao, Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applica - tions (Wiley, NewYork, 1973)

1973
[29]

S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[30]

Gardiner, P

C. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Qauntum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, vol. 56 (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

2004
[31]

Xu, and A

D.Xie, C. Xu, and A. M. Wang, Quantum thermometry with a dissipative quantum Rabi system, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137:1323 (2022)

2022
[32]

D. S. Lvov, S. A. Lemziakov, E. Ankerhold, J. T. Pelto- nen, and J. P. Pekola, Thermometry Based on a Super- conducting Qubit, arxiv:2409.02784 (2024)

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The dispersive setup is dominated by the Hamiltonian ( ℏ = 1)[23] H =ω ca†a + 1 2ω qσz +χσ za†a, (1) where a (a†) denote annihilation (creation) operators of the cavity mode with the frequency ω c, σz is the Pauli matrix of the qubit with the transition frequency ω q, and χ is the coupling strength between the qubit and the cavity mode. In a reference fra...

work page

[2] [2]

Raussendorf and J

R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190504 (2007)

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraﬀ, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quan- tum Limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Krinner et al., Realizing repeated quantum error cor- rection in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669C674 (2022)

S. Krinner et al., Realizing repeated quantum error cor- rection in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669C674 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Iwasawa, K

K. Iwasawa, K. Makino, H. Yonezawa, M. Tsang, A. Davidovic, E. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Quantum- Limited Mirror-Motion Estimation,

work page

[7] [7]

Iwasawa, K

K. Iwasawa, K. Makino, H. Yonezawa, M. Tsang, A. Davidovic, E. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Quantum- Limited Mirror-Motion Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 163602 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Abadie et al

J. Abadie et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration), A gravi - tational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys. 7, 962-965 (2011)

work page 2011