Quantum multiphase estimation

Aaron Z. Goldberg; Ilaria Gianani; Luis L. S\'anchez-Soto; Marco Barbieri

Quantum multiphase estimation

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review seeks to establish that simultaneous estimation of multiple optical phases with specially tailored quantum states, epitomized by the generalized multimode NOON state, reaches a total-variance bound $\mathrm{Tr}(V)\ge…

desk verdict A competent review of multiphase estimation that consolidates the literature well; no new results, one minor typo, and the central claims hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07873 v1 pith:IPXP4QJK submitted 2025-02-11 quant-ph

Marco Barbieri , Ilaria Gianani , Aaron Z. Goldberg , Luis L. Sánchez-Soto This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords multiparameterquantummetrologymultiphaseestimationgeneralizedNOONstatesCramér-RaoboundFisherinformationintegratedphotonicsadaptiveBayesianHeisenberglimit

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is a review that tries to establish that estimating several optical phases at once, rather than one phase at a time, becomes a practical route to quantum-enhanced sensing when the probe is a suitably entangled state. Its central quantitative message is that a generalized multimode NOON state, distributing $N$ photons coherently over $d$ phase-shifted modes plus one reference, achieves $\mathrm{Tr}(V) \ge d^2/(4\bar n^2)$ for a total photon number $\bar n$, a factor $d$ better than $d$ independent NOON states and a Heisenberg scaling in $\bar n$ that classical coherent states cannot reach. The authors also report that integrated photonic interferometers using adaptive Bayesian and machine-learning estimators have reached the Cramér-Rao bound with tens to about a hundred probe repetitions. A sympathetic reader should take away that multiphase estimation is not just a formal generalization: it offers quantitative advantages and is within reach of current platforms.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the generalized multimode NOON state, a superposition of a reference Fock state and a balanced sum of states with all $N$ photons in each of the $d$ phase modes: $$|\psi_0\rangle=\$\beta$|N,0,\ldots,0\rangle+\frac{\$\alpha$}{\sqrt d}\sum_{m=1}^d |0,\ldots,N_m,\ldots,0\rangle.$$ Its importance is that its quantum Fisher information matrix has the form $Q_{ij}=4N^2|\alpha|^2(\delta_{ij}-|\alpha|^2)/d$, whose inverse is a multiple of the identity, so every phase is estimated with equal weight and the trace is minimized by setting $|\alpha|^2=\sqrt d/(1+\sqrt d)$. The companion mechanism is the explicit $d^2$-element POVM of Eq. (23), whose coefficients $\Upsilon_m^{(n)}$ are constructed so that the Fisher information matrix equals the QFI matrix, converting the state's curvature into an attainable measurement. For the classical comparison, a single shared phase reference makes the coherent-state QFI matrix nondiagonal and produces the $(d-1)/(4\bar n_\beta)$ saving over separate references; the same shared-reference logic is what lets one $N$-photon reference mode support $d$ phases in the quantum case.

What would settle it

The central scaling claim would be refuted by any probe with total energy $\bar n$ whose legitimate measurement yields $\mathrm{Tr}(V)<d^2/(4\bar n^2)$, or by a $d=3$, $N=2$ experiment with the optimal POVM that does not approach $\mathrm{Tr}(V)=1.5$ as the number of repetitions grows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that estimating all $d$ phases together, with a probe state that is entangled across the modes, is not merely a minor extension of single-phase estimation but a distinct resource regime. For the generalized multimode NOON state $|\psi_0\rangle=\beta|N,0,\ldots,0\rangle+\alpha|\psi_{\mathrm{NO}\cdots\mathrm{ON}}\rangle$, the quantum Fisher information matrix is $Q_{ij}=4N^2|\alpha|^2(\delta_{ij}-|\alpha|^2)/d$, and optimizing the superposition weight gives $\mathrm{Tr}(V)\ge d^2/(4\bar n^2)$, where $\bar n$ is the total photon number. This beats the $d^3/(4\bar n^2)$ bound of $d$ separate NOON states by a factor $d$ and improves on the coherent-state benchmark $d^2/(4\bar n)$. The authors also describe a $d^2$-element projective measurement saturating the bound, and review experiments: a polarization-encoded four-mode probe reaching $\mathrm{Tr}(V)=1.85\pm0.01$ against the quantum Cramér-Rao bound of $1.5$, and integrated three- and four-mode interferometers reaching the classical Cramér-Rao bound with tens to about a hundred repetitions. The take-home claim is that simultaneous multiphase estimation is both quantitatively advantageous and experimentally accessible.

Load-bearing premise

Everything in the paper assumes that the usual quantum limit on estimation precision, specifically the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound with the factor-2 attainability guarantee cited from Ref. [105], can actually be reached in the protocols and experiments discussed; if that bound is not attainable in some scenario, the comparisons between probe states and the experimental benchmarks would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For equal total photon number, a generalized multimode NOON probe lowers the total phase variance by a factor of $d$ compared with $d$ independent NOON states, reaching $\mathrm{Tr}(V)\ge d^2/(4\bar n^2)$ instead of $d^3/(4\bar n^2)$.
With coherent-state probes, a single shared phase reference reduces the uncertainty bound by $(d-1)/(4\bar n_\beta)$ relative to $d$ separate references, so simultaneous measurement helps even without entanglement.
For any positive semidefinite cost matrix $R$, some POVM achieves $\mathrm{Tr}(RV)=f\,\mathrm{Tr}(RQ^{-1})$ with $1\le f\le 2$, so the quantum Fisher information matrix remains the right figure of merit even when the phases are incompatible.
Integrated three- and four-mode interferometers, characterized and controlled with adaptive Bayesian, reinforcement-learning, or variational methods, reach the Cramér-Rao bound with roughly 20-30, 50, or 100 repetitions, depending on the probe and protocol.
When photon loss differs across arms, rebalancing the superposition coefficients of the generalized NOON state restores Heisenberg scaling for moderate loss, so the multiphase advantage survives realistic noise.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the authors do not pursue is to carry the generalized-NOON strategy into non-optical platforms, for example atomic ensembles or superconducting circuits, where a sum of number operators generates the phase shifts; the factor-$d$ advantage would then appear in multi-axis magnetometry or gradient sensing.
An implication left implicit is that a single shared reference mode may be a cheap substitute for distributed entanglement in sensor networks, since it already converts $d$ separate NOON-style measurements into a factor-$d$ improvement; comparing this with networked-sensor resource bounds would be a direct next step.
Because the factor-2 attainability theorem from Ref. [105] is not shown to be tight for large $d$, the sharpness of the $d^2/(4\bar n^2)$ scaling at $d>3$ is still open; a numerical search for the minimal achievable $\mathrm{Tr}(RV)$ under the optimal POVM would settle it.
The machine-learning and variational calibration methods reviewed here are demonstrated only up to three phases; porting them to higher-dimensional chips would test whether model-free estimation keeps the Cramér-Rao-bound-limited performance as the measurement POVM grows to $d^2$ elements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

You should know this is a review, not a research paper — no new theorems, states, or protocols. What it does well is consolidate a messy literature on simultaneous multiphase estimation: the QFI treatment of coherent states, multimode NOON states, the reference-mode comparison, and the experimental platforms (integrated photonics, adaptive Bayesian methods) are all presented with a clear structure and accurate attributions. The paper earns its place as a reference entry.

The only concrete error I found is in Section IV: the sentence comparing Eqs. (16) and (17) says the uncertainty is reduced by (d-1)/4 n_beta, but it should be d(d-1)/4 n_beta. The reader's report and the stress-test note both caught this; it's a typo, not a load-bearing flaw. The inverse QFI calculation that gives the d^2/(4 n^2) bound for generalized NOON states is internally consistent, and the factor-2 attainability caveat from Ref. [105] is not doing the work there because the generators for different modes commute, so the SLD bound is exactly saturable by the POVM of Ref. [78]. The experimental benchmarks in Section V compare against the classical CRB of the implemented measurement or report an explicit gap to the QCRB (1.85 vs 1.5), so they don't rest on the factor-2 statement.

Some self-citation appears, but it's appropriate for a review; the cited results are the relevant ones. The paper also flags the global-estimation caveat (Ref. [115]), so the local-estimation scope is disclosed.

Who is this for? A graduate student or a researcher entering multiphase estimation who wants the state of the art in one place. It deserves a serious referee. The typo should be fixed, but that's a copyedit-level intervention, not a substantive revision.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of quantum multiphase estimation. It introduces the general framework of local multiparameter quantum estimation theory, defines the quantum Fisher information matrix and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, and then analyzes several probe-state families: multimode coherent states, independent NOON states, and generalized multimode NOON states. The central quantitative claim is that a tailored generalized multimode NOON state can reduce the total phase variance by a factor of d compared with d independent NOON probes at the same total energy, as shown in Eqs. (18) and (22). The paper also reviews optimal measurement constructions, the role of phase references, the effect of photon loss, and recent integrated-photonics experiments, including demonstrations of Cramér-Rao-bound-limited estimation with adaptive Bayesian and machine-learning protocols.

Significance. As a review, the paper does not present new results, but it offers a coherent and largely accurate synthesis of a rapidly developing subfield. Its main strengths are the self-contained derivation of the QFI matrices for the relevant probe states, the clear statement of the factor-d advantage of simultaneous estimation, and the balanced coverage of experimental platforms, including the honest reporting of gaps between experimental variances and the QCRB. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the local-estimation scope and the global-estimation caveat via Ref. [115]. The central derivations in Section IV are internally consistent, and the identified numerical typo in the reference-mode comparison does not affect the main claim. The manuscript would be a useful reference for researchers entering the field, provided the minor issues below are corrected.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV, text after Eq. (17)] The sentence comparing Eqs. (16) and (17) states that the uncertainty can be diminished by (d−1)/(4 n̄_β), but the difference between the two bounds is actually d(d−1)/(4 n̄_β). Please correct the missing factor of d.
[Section IV, Eq. (21)] The displayed expression for Q^{-1} is ambiguous and, as typeset, appears to be a scalar multiple of the identity. The correct inverse has both a diagonal term and a constant off-diagonal term: Q^{-1}_{ij} = δ_{ij} d/(4N^2|α|^2) + 1/(4N^2|β|^2), so that Tr(Q^{-1}) = d^2/(4N^2|α|^2) + d/(4N^2|β|^2). Please rewrite the equation with explicit matrix notation.
[References [82], [108], and [109]] References [82], [108], and [109] all appear to cite the same paper (A. Z. Goldberg et al., Phys. Rev. A 102, 022230 (2020)). If [109] is intended to refer to a different work, please supply the correct citation; otherwise consolidate the duplicate references.
[Section IV, paragraph after Eq. (14)] The statement that the QCRB is 'relevant within a factor of 2' for any practical scenario is a strong claim. Please add the precise conditions from Ref. [105], namely that the bound applies to a weighted trace Tr(RV) for a fixed positive semidefinite weight matrix R in the asymptotic limit, so that readers do not overgeneralize it to the full matrix inequality.
[Sections II and V] There are a few typographical errors, including 'the the photon-number operator' in Section II and 'perform perform phase-estimation' in the first paragraph of Section V. These should be corrected during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's quantitative claims are explicit analytic calculations; self-citations are auxiliary and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a review, and its central quantitative content is reproduced algebraically rather than imported as a black box. In Section IV, the generalized multimode NOON state of Eq. (19) is an explicitly labeled ansatz, and the QFI matrix in Eq. (21) follows directly from the covariance definition in Eq. (12). The inverse QFI matrix, its trace, and the optimization over |alpha|^2 are all displayed: the trace is proportional to d/|alpha|^2 + 1/(1-|alpha|^2), minimized at |alpha|^2 = sqrt(d)/(1+sqrt(d)), giving Tr(V) >= d/(4N^2)(sqrt(d)+1)^2 = d^2/(4 nbar^2). This is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; every quantity is determined by the stated state and the standard multiparameter Cramer-Rao bound. The optimal POVM in Eq. (23) is cited from prior work by Humphreys et al., but the paper also notes the generators N_i commute for distinct modes, so exact saturation of the SLD bound is independently justified and does not rest on a self-citation chain. The parenthetical optimality claim citing Ref. [82] concerns a restricted family of states and is not load-bearing for the main comparison. The factor-2 attainability statement cites Ref. [105], an external result, and is not needed for the commuting-generator pure-state bounds. Experimental sections benchmark against classical Fisher information of implemented measurements or report explicit gaps to the QCRB, without claiming that fitted parameters are predictions. The paper's own caveat about global versus local estimation is disclosed. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input, and no load-bearing argument depends solely on self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; it relies entirely on the standard quantum estimation theory framework and published results. The axioms listed are the background assumptions needed for the review's synthesis to be valid.

assumptions (3)

standard math Local quantum estimation theory (quantum Fisher information and Cramér-Rao bounds) applies to the multiphase setting.
The entire review operates within this framework, first introduced in Sections II and III.
standard math The factor-2 saturation of the multiparameter quantum Cramér-Rao bound (Ref. [105]) holds for all protocols discussed.
Invoked in Section IV to justify optimizing the QFI matrix rather than exact saturability.
domain assumption Unbiased estimators are used throughout.
Stated in Section II: 'we consider unbiased estimators'.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum multiphase estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPXP4QJK

@misc{pith2026250207873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum multiphase estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPXP4QJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07873}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum phase estimation is fundamental to advancing quantum science and technology. While much of the research has concentrated on estimating a single phase, the simultaneous estimation of multiple phases can yield significantly enhanced sensitivities when using specially tailored input quantum states. This work reviews recent theoretical and experimental advancements in the parallel estimation of multiple arbitrary phases. We highlight strategies for constructing optimal measurement protocols and discuss the experimental platforms best suited for implementing these techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07873 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Schemes for three- and four-mode interferometers realized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Multiparameter quantum estimation with Gaussian states: efficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cram\'er-Rao bounds
quant-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A semidefinite program over quadratic phase-space observables computes the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound for Gaussian states with parameters encoded in both the first moments and the covariance matrix.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[105]

Tsang, F

M. Tsang, F. Albarelli, and A. Datta, Quantum semiparametric estimation, Phys. Rev. X10, 031023 (2020)

work page 2020
[78]

P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11 111, 070403 (2013)

work page 2013
[115]

Chesi, A

G. Chesi, A. Riccardi, R. Rubboli, L. Maccone, and C. Macchi- avello, Protocol for global multiphase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012613 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

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

2009
[2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011)

2011
[3]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody ´nski, Quantum limits in optical interferometry, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, 2015) Chap. 4, pp. 345– 435

2015
[4]

J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum parameter estimation, A VS Quantum Sci.2, 014701 (2020)

2020
[5]

Polino, M

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

2020

Show all 128 references

[6]

Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

M. Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

2022
[7]

D. V. Alodjants, A. P. amd Tsarev, D. A. Kuts, S. A. Podoshve- dov, and S. P. Kulik, Quantum optical metrology, Phys. Usp. 67, 668 (2024)

2024
[8]

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

1994
[9]

S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, Generalized un- certainty relations: Theory, examples, and Lorentz invariance, Ann. Phys. 247, 135 (1996)

1996
[10]

V. B. Braginski and Y. I. Vorontsov, Quantum-mechanical lim- itations in macroscopic experiments and modern experimental technique, Sov. Phys. Usp.17, 644 (1975)

1975
[11]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[12]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[13]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Ko lody´nski, and M. Gut ¸˘a, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Commun. 3, 1063 (2012)

2012
[14]

Xiao, L.-A

M. Xiao, L.-A. Wu, and H. J. Kimble, Precision measurement beyond the shot-noise limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 278 (1987)

1987
[15]

Grangier, R

P. Grangier, R. E. Slusher, B. Yurke, and A. LaPorta, Squeezed- light–enhanced polarization interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2153 (1987)

1987
[16]

Slussarenko, M

S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Uncondi- tional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology, Nat. Photon. 11, 700 (2017)

2017
[17]

S. T. Pradyumna, E. Losero, I. Ruo-Berchera, P. Traina, M. Zucco, C. S. Jacobsen, U. L. Andersen, I. P. Degio- vanni, M. Genovese, and T. Gehring, Twin beam quantum- enhanced correlated interferometry for testing fundamental physics, Commun. Phys. 3, 104 (2020)

2020
[18]

Cimini, E

V. Cimini, E. Polino, F. Belliardo, F. Hoch, B. Piccirillo, N. Spagnolo, V. Giovannetti, and F. Sciarrino, Experimen- tal metrology beyond the standard quantum limit for a wide resources range, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 20 (2023)

2023
[19]

Kalinin, T

N. Kalinin, T. Dirmeier, A. A. Sorokin, E. A. Anashkina, L. L. S´anchez-Soto, J. F. Corney, G. Leuchs, and A. V. Andri- anov, Quantum-enhanced interferometer using Kerr squeezing, Nanophotonics 12, 2945 (2023)

2023
[20]

I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuleti´c, Implemen- tation of cavity squeezing of a collective atomic spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073602 (2010)

2010
[21]

Hosten, N

O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kase- vich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum- projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature529, 505 (2016)

2016
[22]

Wolfgramm, A

F. Wolfgramm, A. Cer `e, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojevi ´c, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, Squeezed-light optical magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 053601 (2010)

2010
[23]

Wasilewski, K

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 133601 (2010)

2010
[24]

Horrom, R

T. Horrom, R. Singh, J. P. Dowling, and E. E. Mikhailov, Quantum-enhanced magnetometer with low- frequency squeezing, Phys. Rev. A86, 023803 (2012)

2012
[25]

R. J. Sewell, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, and M. W. Mitchell, Magnetic sensitivity be- yond the projection noise limit by spin squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253605 (2012)

2012
[26]

J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, C. Affeldt, O. D. Aguiar, P. Ajith, B. Allen, E. Amador Ceron, D. Amariutei, S. B. Anderson, W. G. Anderson, K. Arai, M. C. Araya, C. Arceneaux, S. Ast, ...

2013
[27]

M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. D. Blair, D. D. Brown, S. E. Dwyer, A. Effler, M. Evans, P. Fritschel, V. V. Frolov, A. C. Green, G. L. Mansell, F. Matichard, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, L. McCuller, T. McRae, J. Miller, A. Mul...

2019
[28]

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

2017
[29]

Aslam, H

N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications, Nature Rev. Phys.5, 157 (2023)

2023
[30]

Szczykulska, T

M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multi-parameter quantum metrology, Adv. Phys. X1, 621 (2016)

2016
[31]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From the- oretical tools to applications in quantum imaging, Phys. Lett. A 384, 126311 (2020)

2020
[32]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W

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

2020
[33]

Belliardo and V

F. Belliardo and V. Giovannetti, Incompatibility in quantum parameter estimation, New J. Phys. 23, 063055 (2021)

2021
[34]

Koschorreck, M

M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, and M. W. Mitchell, High resolution magnetic vector-field imaging with cold atomic ensembles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98 (2011)

2011
[35]

Baumgratz and A

T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Quantum enhanced estimation of a multidimensional field, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 030801 (2016)

2016
[36]

Altenburg, M

S. Altenburg, M. Oszmaniec, S. W ¨olk, and O. G¨ uhne, Esti- mation of gradients in quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042319 (2017)

2017
[37]

Apellaniz, I

I. Apellaniz, I. Urizar-Lanz, Z. Zimbor ´as, P. Hyllus, and G. T ´oth, Precision bounds for gradient magnetometry with atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. A97, 053603 (2018). 10

2018
[38]

Kaubruegger, A

R. Kaubruegger, A. Shankar, D. V. Vasilyev, and P. Zoller, Optimal and variational multiparameter quantum metrology and vector-field sensing, PRX Quantum 4, 020333 (2023)

2023
[39]

M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. S. Kim, Optimal estimation of joint parameters in phase space, Phys. Rev. A87, 012107 (2013)

2013
[40]

Hanamura, W

F. Hanamura, W. Asavanant, K. Fukui, S. Konno, and A. Fu- rusawa, Estimation of Gaussian random displacement using non-Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A104, 062601 (2021)

2021
[41]

G. S. Agarwal and L. Davidovich, Quantifying quantum- amplified metrology via Fisher information, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L012014 (2022)

2022
[42]

A. Z. Goldberg and D. F. V. James, Quantum-limited Euler angle measurements using anticoherent states, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032113 (2018)

2018
[43]

A. Z. Goldberg, A. B. Klimov, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S ´anchez- Soto, Rotation sensing at the ultimate limit, J. Phys.: Photonics 3, 022008 (2021)

2021
[44]

Eriksson, A

M. Eriksson, A. Z. Goldberg, M. Hiekkam ¨aki, F. Bouchard, J. Rehacek, Z. Hradil, G. Leuchs, R. Fickler, and L. L. S´anchez- Soto, Sensing rotations with multiplane light conversion, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024052 (2023)

2023
[45]

G ´orecki and R

W. G ´orecki and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Multiparameter quantum metrology in the Heisenberg limit regime: Many- repetition scenario versus full optimization, Phys. Rev. A106, 012424 (2022)

2022
[46]

M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezz `e, A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum-enhanced multiparameter estima- tion in multiarm interferometers, Sci. Rep. 6, 28881 (2016)

2016
[47]

B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Phys.7, 406 (2011)

2011
[48]

Yue, Y.-R

J.-D. Yue, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Quantum-enhanced metrology for multiple phase estimation with noise, Sci. Rep. 4, 5933 EP (2014)

2014
[49]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. A. C. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Restoring Heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment, Quantum 2, 110 (2018)

2018
[50]

S. Zhou, S. Michalakis, and T. Gefen, Optimal protocols for quantum metrology with noisy measurements, PRX Quantum 4, 040305 (2023)

2023
[51]

M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Quantum metrology and its application in biology, Phys. Rep. 615, 1 (2016)

2016
[52]

Tsang, R

M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu, Quantum theory of super- resolution for two incoherent optical point sources, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031033 (2016)

2016
[53]

Rehacek, Z

J. Rehacek, Z. Hradil, B. Stoklasa, M. Pa´ ur, J. Grover, A. Krzic, and L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, Multiparameter quantum metrology of incoherent point sources: towards realistic superresolution, Phys. Rev. A96, 062107 (2017)

2017
[54]

Rehacek, M

J. Rehacek, M. Pa´ ur, B. Stoklasa, Z. Hradil, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Optimal measurements for resolution beyond the Rayleigh limit, Opt. Lett. 42, 231 (2017)

2017
[55]

Ansari, B

V. Ansari, B. Brecht, J. Gil-Lopez, J. M. Donohue, J.ˇReh´aˇcek, Z. Hradil, L. L. S´anchez-Soto, and C. Silberhorn, Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution, PRX Quantum 2, 010301 (2021)

2021
[56]

Mazelanik, A

M. Mazelanik, A. Leszczy ´nski, and M. Parniak, Optical- domain spectral super-resolution via a quantum-memory- based time-frequency processor, Nat. Commun. 13, 691 (2022)

2022
[57]

Krokosz, M

W. Krokosz, M. Mazelanik, M. Lipka, M. Jarzyna, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and M. Parniak, Beating the spectroscopic Rayleigh limit via post-processed heterodyne detection, Opt. Lett. 49, 1001 (2024)

2024
[58]

T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparam- eter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 080501 (2018)

2018
[59]

W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss- Feig, Distributed quantum metrology with linear networks and separable inputs, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 043604 (2018)

2018
[60]

Gessner, A

M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz `e, Multiparameter squeez- ing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nat. Commun. 11, 3817 (2020)

2020
[61]

D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, Y. Kim, S.-W. Lee, R. C. Pooser, K. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Distributed quantum sensing of multiple phases with fewer photons, Nat. Commun. 15, 266 (2024)

2024
[62]

Pinel, P

O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and D. Braun, Quan- tum parameter estimation using general single-mode gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A88, 040102 (2013)

2013
[63]

P. J. D. Crowley, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Tradeoff in simultaneous quantum-limited phase and loss esti- mation in interferometry, Phys. Rev. A89, 023845 (2014)

2014
[64]

M. D. Vidrighin, G. Donati, M. G. Genoni, X.-M. Jin, W. S. Kolthammer, M. S. Kim, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion for quantum metrology, Nat. Commun. 5, 3532 (2014)

2014
[65]

Altorio, M

M. Altorio, M. G. Genoni, M. D. Vidrighin, F. Somma, and M. Barbieri, Weak measurements and the joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. A92, 032114 (2015)

2015
[66]

Szczykulska, T

M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Reaching for the quantum limits in the simultaneous estimation of phase and phase diffusion, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 044004 (2017)

2017
[67]

Jayakumar, M

J. Jayakumar, M. E. Mycroft, M. Barbieri, and M. Stobi ´nska, Quantum-enhanced joint estimation of phase and phase diffu- sion, New J. Phys. 26, 073016 (2024)

2024
[68]

L. T. Knoll and G. M. Bosyk, Simultaneous quantum estimation of phase and indistinguishability in a two-photon interferome- ter, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40, C67 (2023)

2023
[69]

Altorio, M

M. Altorio, M. G. Genoni, F. Somma, and M. Barbieri, Metrol- ogy with unknown detectors, Physical Review Letters 116, 100802 (2016)

2016
[70]

Helstrom and R

C. Helstrom and R. Kennedy, Noncommuting observables in quantum detection and estimation theory, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 20, 16 (1974)

1974
[71]

Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cram´er-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J

K. Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cram´er-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.35, 3111 (2002)

2002
[72]

S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Com- patibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052108 (2016)

2016
[73]

J. Yang, S. Pang, Y. Zhou, and A. N. Jordan, Optimal mea- surements for quantum multiparameter estimation with general states, Phys. Rev. A100, 032104 (2019)

2019
[74]

J. S. Sidhu, Y. Ouyang, E. T. Campbell, and P. Kok, Tight bounds on the simultaneous estimation of incompatible pa- rameters, Phys. Rev. X11, 011028 (2021)

2021
[75]

H. Chen, L. Wang, and H. Yuan, Simultaneous measurement of multiple incompatible observables and tradeoff in multipa- rameter quantum estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 98 (2024)

2024
[76]

Macchiavello, Optimal estimation of multiple phases, Phys

C. Macchiavello, Optimal estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062302 (2003)

2003
[77]

Spagnolo, L

N. Spagnolo, L. Aparo, C. Vitelli, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum inter- ferometry with three-dimensional geometry, Sci. Rep. 2, 862 (2012)

2012
[79]

Liu, X.-M

J. Liu, X.-M. Lu, Z. Sun, and X. Wang, Quantum multipa- rameter metrology with generalized entangled coherent state, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 115302 (2016)

2016
[80]

C. N. Gagatsos, D. Branford, and A. Datta, Gaussian systems for quantum-enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042342 (2016)

2016
[81]

Zhang and K

L. Zhang and K. W. C. Chan, Quantum multiparameter esti- mation with generalized balanced multimode noon-like states, Phys. Rev. A95, 032321 (2017)

2017
[83]

S. Hong, J. ur Rehman, Y.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Cho, S.-W. Lee, H. Jung, S. Moon, S.-W. Han, and H.-T. Lim, Quantum enhanced multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode N00N states, Nat. Commun. 12, 5211 (2021)

2021
[84]

Gebhart, A

V. Gebhart, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz `e, Bayesian quantum mul- tiphase estimation algorithm, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 014035 (2021)

2021
[85]

Pezz `e, M

L. Pezz `e, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Optimal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130504 (2017)

2017
[86]

L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, The gap persistence theorem for quantum multiparameter estimation (2024), arXiv:2208.07386 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[87]

Gessner, L

M. Gessner, L. Pezz `e, and A. Smerzi, Sensitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130503 (2018)

2018
[88]

McDonagh, C

C. McDonagh, C. S. Burke, and B. D. MacCraith, Optical chemical sensors, Chemical Reviews 108, 400 (2008)

2008
[89]

Schenato, L

L. Schenato, L. Palmieri, M. Camporese, S. Bersan, S. Cola, A. Pasuto, A. Galtarossa, P. Salandin, and P. Simonini, Dis- tributed optical fibre sensing for early detection of shallow landslides triggering, Scientific Reports 7, 14686 (2017)

2017
[90]

D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, Phase properties of the quan- tized single-mode electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. A39, 1665 (1989)

1989
[91]

Lynch, The quantum phase problem: a critical review, Phys

R. Lynch, The quantum phase problem: a critical review, Phys. Rep. 256, 367 (1995)

1995
[92]

Pe ˇrinova, A

V. Pe ˇrinova, A. Luk ˇs, and J. Pe ˇrina, Phase in Optics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998)

1998
[93]

Luis and L

A. Luis and L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, Quantum phase difference, phase measurements and Stokes operators, Prog. Opt. 41, 421 (2000)

2000
[94]

P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the emission and ab- sorption of radiation, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 114, 243 (1927)

1927
[95]

Susskind and J

L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Physics 1, 49 (1964)

1964
[96]

Carruthers and M

P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Phase and angle variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.40, 411 (1968)

1968
[97]

R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

1963
[98]

A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 2003)

2003
[99]

Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer, New York, 2002)

A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer, New York, 2002)

2002
[100]

R. A. Fisher, Theory of statistical estimation, Math. Proc. Cam- bridge 22, 700 (1925)

1925
[101]

Cram ´er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

H. Cram ´er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

1946
[102]

R. C. Rao, Information and the accuracy attainable in the esti- mation of statistical parameters, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 37, 81 (1945)

1945
[103]

Jarzyna and R

M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, Quantum interfer- ometry with and without an external phase reference, Phys. Rev. A 85, 011801 (2012)

2012
[104]

J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology–the lowdown on high-N00N states, Contemporary Physics, Contemp. Phys.49, 125 (2008)

2008
[106]

A. Z. Goldberg, J. L. Romero, ´A. S. Sanz, and L. L. S ´anchez- Soto, Taming singularities of the quantum Fisher information, Int. J. Quantum Inform. 19, 2140004 (2021)

2021
[107]

Ataman, Single- versus two-parameter fisher information in quantum interferometry, Phys

S. Ataman, Single- versus two-parameter fisher information in quantum interferometry, Phys. Rev. A102, 013704 (2020)

2020
[109]

A. Z. Goldberg, I. Gianani, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, A. M. Steinberg, and N. Spagnolo, Multiphase estimation without a reference mode, Phys. Rev. A102, 022230 (2020)

2020
[110]

Yue, Y.-R

J.-D. Yue, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Quantum-enhanced metrology for multiple phase estimation with noise, Scientific Reports 4, 5933 (2014)

2014
[111]

Namkung, D.-H

M. Namkung, D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, C. Lee, and H.- T. Lim, Optimal multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode noon states against photon loss, New Journal of Physics 26, 073028 (2024)

2024
[112]

Eldredge, M

Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal and secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A97, 042337 (2018)

2018
[113]

J. u. Rehman, S. Hong, S.-W. Lee, Y.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Cho, H. Jung, S. Moon, H. Shin, S.-W. Han, and H.-T. Lim, Optimal strategy for multiple-phase estimation under practical measure- ment with multimode noon states, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032612 (2022)

2022
[114]

Zhang, W

H. Zhang, W. Ye, S. Chang, Y. Xia, L. Hu, and Z. Liao, Quantum multiparameter estimation with multi-mode photon catalysis entangled squeezed state, Frontiers of Physics 18, 42304 (2023)

2023
[116]

Zhang and K

L. Zhang and K. W. C. Chan, Scalable generation of multi- mode noon states for quantum multiple-phase estimation, Sci- entific Reports 8, 11440 (2018)

2018
[117]

Polino, M

E. Polino, M. Riva, M. Valeri, R. Silvestri, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Ex- perimental multiphase estimation on a chip, Optica 6, 288 (2019)

2019
[118]

Valeri, E

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

2020
[119]

Lumino, E

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

2018
[120]

Rambhatla, S

K. Rambhatla, S. E. D’ Aurelio, M. Valeri, E. Polino, N. Spag- nolo, and F. Sciarrino, Adaptive phase estimation through a genetic algorithm, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033078 (2020)

2020
[121]

C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory, Robust online Hamiltonian learning, New J. Phys.14, 103013 (2012). 12

2012
[122]

Valeri, V

M. Valeri, V. Cimini, S. Piacentini, F. Ceccarelli, E. Polino, F. Hoch, G. Bizzarri, G. Corrielli, N. Spagnolo, R. Osel- lame, et al., Experimental multiparameter quantum metrology in adaptive regime, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013138 (2023)

2023
[123]

Laing and J

A. Laing and J. L. O’Brien, Super-stable tomography of any linear optical device, arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.2868 (2012)

2012 arXiv
[124]

Rahimi-Keshari, M

S. Rahimi-Keshari, M. A. Broome, R. Fickler, A. Fedrizzi, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Direct characterization of linear- optical networks, Opt. Express 21, 13450 (2013)

2013
[125]

Nolan, A

S. Nolan, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz `e, A machine learning ap- proach to Bayesian parameter estimation, npj Quantum Infor- mation 7, 169 (2021)

2021
[126]

L. J. Fiderer, J. Schuff, and D. Braun, Neural-network heuristics for adaptive Bayesian quantum estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 020303 (2021)

2021
[127]

Cimini, E

V. Cimini, E. Polino, M. Valeri, I. Gianani, N. Spagnolo, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, M. Barbieri, and F. Sciar- rino, Calibration of multiparameter sensors via machine learn- ing at the single-photon level, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 044003 (2021)

2021
[128]

Cimini, M

V. Cimini, M. Valeri, E. Polino, S. Piacentini, F. Ceccarelli, G. Corrielli, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Deep reinforcement learning for quantum multiparameter estima- tion, Advanced Photonics 5, 016005 (2023)

2023
[129]

Cimini, M

V. Cimini, M. Valeri, S. Piacentini, F. Ceccarelli, G. Cor- rielli, R. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Variational quantum algorithm for experimental photonic multiparameter estimation, npj Quantum Information 10, 26 (2024)

2024
[130]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cin- cio, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [105]

Tsang, F

M. Tsang, F. Albarelli, and A. Datta, Quantum semiparametric estimation, Phys. Rev. X10, 031023 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [78]

P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11 111, 070403 (2013)

work page 2013

[3] [115]

Chesi, A

G. Chesi, A. Riccardi, R. Rubboli, L. Maccone, and C. Macchi- avello, Protocol for global multiphase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012613 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [1]

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

2009

[5] [2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011)

2011

[6] [3]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody ´nski, Quantum limits in optical interferometry, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, 2015) Chap. 4, pp. 345– 435

2015

[7] [4]

J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum parameter estimation, A VS Quantum Sci.2, 014701 (2020)

2020

[8] [5]

Polino, M

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

2020