Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Directional search for light dark matter with quantum sensors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For wave-like dark matter, the phase difference imprinted on two distant quantum sensors encodes the direction and speed of the dark matter wind, and a non-local measurement extracts both this velocity and the dark-matter–standard-model…

desk verdict Useful quantum protocol for directional wave-like DM detection; the noiseless scaling is right, but the noise-free comparison to classical correlations hides a real limitation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19614 v2 pith:562OLHUM submitted 2025-06-24 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

Hajime Fukuda , Yuichiro Matsuzaki , Thanaporn Sichanugrist This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords darkmatterwindwave-likequantumsensornetworkphasedifferencenon-localmeasurementdirectionaldetectionmetrologyultra-light
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Ultra-light dark matter behaves as a wave, and the phase it imprints on a quantum sensor is usually discarded because a single phase carries no physical meaning. This paper argues that the phase difference between two sensors separated by about the dark matter's de Broglie wavelength is physically meaningful: it encodes both the dark matter–standard model coupling and the velocity and direction of the dark matter wind. The proposed protocol post-selects events with exactly one excited sensor and measures a non-local operator, giving an expectation value that depends on the wind velocity through $\sin(m\,\vec v_{\rm obs}\cdot\Delta\vec r)$. If correct, the method works for any detector whose output can be read out quantum mechanically, does not sacrifice the detector's sensitivity, and needs $1/(\epsilon\tau)^2$ fewer measurements than classical correlation schemes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the off-diagonal coherence $e^{i\vec k\cdot\Delta\vec r}$ in the two-sensor density matrix, which survives phase averaging and carries the wind information. It is read out with the non-local operator $M=-i|01\rangle\langle10|+i|10\rangle\langle01|$ after post-selecting the one-excitation subspace; the paper gives ancilla-based quantum circuits for both the post-selection and the $M$ measurement. The expectation value $\langle M\rangle$ is a sine transform of the dark-matter velocity distribution, and the baseline is optimized near $|\Delta\vec r|\sim 2\pi/(mv_0)$ so that the Gaussian envelope does not suppress the signal. Quantum teleportation plus entanglement distillation is invoked as the mechanism for bringing the two distant sensor states together while preserving the relative phase.

What would settle it

Take two quantum sensors with a baseline of roughly one de Broglie wavelength and measure both the one-excitation probability and the $M$ operator. If the $M$ contrast is zero, or fails to change sign when the baseline is rotated from parallel to perpendicular to the expected wind direction, while the excitation probability still tracks $(\epsilon\tau)^2$, then the relative phase did not survive transfer and the directional readout is not achievable as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Distant quantum sensors exposed to wave-like dark matter retain the dark-matter phase difference $e^{i\vec k\cdot\Delta\vec r}$ in their joint state even after averaging over the random phases of the individual dark-matter modes. The paper shows that projecting onto the one-excitation subspace and measuring $M=-i|01\rangle\langle10|+i|10\rangle\langle01|$ yields $\langle M\rangle=-\int d^3v\, f(\vec v)\sin(m\vec v\cdot\Delta\vec r)$, which for the standard Maxwellian halo becomes $\langle M\rangle=\exp(-m^2v_0^2\Delta r^2/4)\sin(m\,\vec v_{\rm obs}\cdot\Delta\vec r)$. Because the excitation probability gives the coupling $\epsilon$ while the phase of $\langle M\rangle$ gives the wind velocity $\vec v_{\rm obs}$, the two are extracted from the same events. The protocol is reported to saturate the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, and under depolarizing noise the directional signal survives even when the noise rate exceeds $\epsilon^2\tau^2$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on moving the quantum states of two detectors separated by up to kilometers onto a common processor without erasing the relative phase that the dark-matter wave imprinted on them; the paper assumes this phase survives and that all transfer losses act as symmetric depolarizing noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any quantum sensor whose output can be read out quantum mechanically—transmon qubits, NV centers, trapped ions, or cavity haloscopes—can supply both the dark-matter coupling and the wind velocity from the same data.
  • A baseline at the de Broglie scale can be oriented to isolate different components of the wind: along the local standard of rest velocity to measure $v_0$, or transverse to it to see the annual modulation from Earth's orbit.
  • Depolarizing noise does not destroy the directional signal; it only raises the required number of measurements, and the protocol keeps working even for noise rates much larger than $\epsilon^2\tau^2$.
  • Against the classical two-detector correlation method, the quantum protocol needs $1/(\epsilon\tau)^2$ fewer measurements for equal velocity resolution in the weak-signal limit.
  • The measurement saturates the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, so no strategy on the same two-sensor state can estimate the wind velocity with fewer measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\langle M\rangle$ is essentially the sine transform of the velocity distribution, sweeping the baseline vector in magnitude and orientation could map out the halo's velocity distribution, which the paper mentions only as future work.
  • The same phase-difference readout should apply to any coherent wave field seen by two detectors, so the idea may transfer to searches for axion gradients, gravitational waves, or other wave-like signals.
  • The decisive experimental question is whether correlated dephasing, not just depolarization, affects the transported states; a zero-contrast $M$ measurement with intact excitation probability would single out that failure mode.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol for directional detection of ultra-light wave-like dark matter using two spatially separated quantum sensors. Starting from a qubit interaction Hamiltonian, the authors argue that the two-qubit density matrix retains the relative phase m v·Δr in its off-diagonal elements, and that measuring the non-local operator M = -i|01><10| + i|10><01| after a single-excitation postselection yields the velocity integral in Eq. (19). For a Maxwellian halo this reduces to M = exp(-m^2 v0^2 Δr^2/4) sin(m v_obs·Δr) in Eq. (21). The authors derive sensitivity scalings, include a depolarizing-noise model, compare against classical correlation networks, and claim a measurement reduction of 1/(ετ)^2. Appendices discuss cavity detectors, quantum circuits for P1 and M, and Fisher-information optimality.

Significance. If the performance claims held, this would be a valuable new idea: it promises simultaneous measurement of the DM-SM coupling and the DM wind velocity from the same data, and it is formulated in a detector-independent way. The derivation is first-principles with no fitted parameters, the analytic expression Eq. (21) is checked against numerical integration in Fig. 1, and the associated public dataset is a useful addition. Appendix C correctly shows that the proposed measurement saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound in the noiseless limit. However, the central quantitative claim of superiority over classical correlations is not established once the paper's own depolarization model is included, and there is an unresolved sign inconsistency that affects the inferred wind direction. These issues are load-bearing for the stated conclusions and must be fixed before the manuscript can be recommended for acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (23)-(29)] The claimed reduction N_I/N^(total) ~ 1/(ετ)^2 is derived with noiseless formulas and is not consistent with the paper's own depolarization model. With S=2ε^2τ^2, the noisy postselection probability is p'_1=S+c and the measured mean is M'=S/(S+c) M, so the number of quantum measurements needed for fixed precision scales as N_Q ∝ (S+c)/S^2, whereas the classical correlation strategy of Eq. (26) scales as N_C ∝ 1/S^2. Thus N_Q/N_C = S+c, not (ετ)^2; for c >> S the advantage saturates at a constant factor ~1/c independent of the DM coupling, and for realistic kilometer-scale transfer infidelities (10^-2 to 10^-3) it is many orders of magnitude smaller than advertised. Please redo the comparison including c, or explicitly restrict the 1/(ετ)^2 claim to the noiseless limit and give a separate resource estimate for the noisy protocol.
  2. [Eqs. (19) and (21)] The sign of the analytic result is inconsistent. Evaluating Eq. (19) with the Maxwellian distribution of Eq. (20) gives M = -exp(-m^2 v0^2 Δr^2/4) sin(m v_obs·Δr), not the positive expression in Eq. (21). Since the DM wind direction is encoded in sin(m v_obs·Δr), using Eq. (21) as written flips the inferred wind direction. Please correct the sign in Eq. (21) (or, equivalently, in the definition of M and the circuit in Appendix B) and verify that Fig. 1 uses the same convention as the corrected formula.
  3. [Introduction, second paragraph] The statement that channel noise in state transfer 'can be mitigated by entanglement distillation techniques' is not supported by a quantitative analysis. Distillation consumes multiple raw entangled resources, and its success probability and output fidelity determine an effective depolarizing rate c; the manuscript does not estimate c for teleporting states over the required separations (up to order kilometers) or include this overhead in the comparison. Either supply a resource analysis with a target c, or present the noise robustness of Section III as a separate observation rather than as evidence supporting the comparison in Section IV.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The notation '# »Δr' for the detector separation is nonstandard and should be defined once in ordinary vector notation.
  2. [Sec. III, text after Eq. (21)] The statement that sensitivity is maximized when Δr is of order the de Broglie wavelength is imprecise: Eq. (21) contains the Gaussian factor exp(-m^2 v0^2 Δr^2/4), and the maximum of exp(-x^2/4) sin(x) occurs near x ≈ 1.1, i.e., Δr ≈ 0.18 λ, not at Δr ≈ λ. Please clarify the intended optimal separation and confirm the quoted N_3σ curves use it.
  3. [Eq. (23)] The relation between the single parameter c in the depolarization term c/2 (|10><10|+|01><01|) and the per-qubit depolarizing rate is not stated; a one-line derivation of Eq. (23) would remove ambiguity about the noise model.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (45)] The decomposition in Eq. (45) omits the explicit weight of the |00> component; the subsequent QFI computation is unaffected, but adding the prefactor would ease reproduction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Quantum advantage over classical correlations reduces by construction to a rescaling of the same two-point correlation by the postselection probability.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 'Comparison with classical correlations', Eqs. (26)-(29)]
    "The two-point correlation is of the same order as the quantum expectation value M in Eq. (19)... I≡Tr[σ (1) y σ(2) x ρ(τ)]≃2ϵ 2τ 2 Z d3vf(⃗ v) sin m⃗ v·# »∆r ... NI N(total)∼ 1 (ϵτ) 2."

    Eq. (19) gives M=-∫d3v f(v) sin(m v·Δr), while Eq. (26) gives I=2ϵ²τ²∫d3v f(v) sin(m v·Δr) up to sign. Hence M is the same two-point correlation as I, rescaled by the postselection probability p1=2ϵ²τ². The claimed measurement-count ratio N_I/N_total∼1/(ϵτ)² is precisely the inverse of this rescaling, so the 'quantum advantage' is built into the definition of M rather than derived from a physical difference. Moreover, in the one-excitation subspace M=σ_y^(1)σ_x^(2), a local product observable, and P1 is locally measurable; a classical strategy that postselects on P1 would measure the same normalized correlation with the same total event count. Thus the superiority claim reduces by construction to comparing postselected and unpostselected versions of the same classical correlation.

full rationale

The derivation of the DM-wind signal itself is self-contained: Eq. (14) follows from the assumed interaction and the standard random-phase halo model of Refs. [35,36], and the expectation value Eq. (21) is an analytic integral over an external Maxwellian halo with no fitted constants. Self-citations (Refs. [30,31,55]) are contextual and not load-bearing; the central qubit/cavity response is a published, parameter-free model, and removing these citations would not alter the derivation. The circularity is confined to the comparison claim. The paper's own equations show that the quantum operator M (Eq. 18) is, on the postselected subspace, the local product observable σ_y^(1)σ_x^(2), and its expectation value differs from the classical correlation I (Eq. 26) only by the postselection normalization 2ϵ²τ². The claimed advantage N_I/N_total∼1/(ϵτ)² is therefore the inverse of that normalization, i.e., an artifact of comparing a postselected O(1) signal with an unpostselected O(ϵ²τ²) signal. Separately, the paper does not fold its own depolarization model Eqs. (23)-(25) into the comparison, so the advantage is not quantified under the noise it introduces; that is a correctness gap rather than a circularity. Overall, the directional M prediction has independent content, but the headline superiority over classical correlations reduces by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics, the standard halo model, and the assumed feasibility of long-distance quantum state transfer. No free parameters are fitted; the noise rate c is a model parameter for illustration. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dark matter field can be described as a sum of plane waves with random Rayleigh-distributed amplitudes and uniformly random phases (Eqs. 7-8).
    This is the standard model for wave dark matter used in Refs. [35,36]; the directional signal depends on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption The standard halo model velocity distribution f(v) (Eq. 20) with Maxwellian shape and escape cutoff, and the analytic result neglects the escape cutoff.
    Used to derive the analytic M expression, Eq. (21), and Figure 1; numerical checks use the full distribution.
  • domain assumption Quantum states of detectors can be transferred over distances of order the de Broglie wavelength (up to km) and non-local measurements can be performed with low phase error, with noise modeled as depolarization (Eq. 23).
    This is the experimentally unproven premise; the protocol's signal is the off-diagonal coherence e^{ik·Δr} that must survive the transfer.
  • standard math Quantum mechanics, including the rotating wave approximation and density matrix phase averaging, is standard.
    Used throughout for detector evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Directional search for light dark matter with quantum sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/562OLHUM

@misc{pith2026250619614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Directional search for light dark matter with quantum sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/562OLHUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19614}
}
read the original abstract

The presence of dark matter (DM) stands as one of the most compelling indications of new physics in particle physics. Typically, the detection of wave-like DM involves quantum sensors, such as qubits or cavities. The phase of the sensors is usually discarded as the value of the phase itself is not physically meaningful. However, the difference of the phase between the sensors contains the information of the velocity and direction of the DM wind. We propose a measurement protocol to extract this information from the sensors using quantum states. Our method does not require specific experimental setups and can be applied to any type of DM detector as long as the data from the detectors can be taken quantum mechanically. We also show that our method does not spoil the sensitivity of the DM detectors and is superior to the classical method based on the correlations of the DM signals between the detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: The blue solid (dotted) line shows value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quantum circuit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum circuit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This circuit works as M measurement only when the state is projected by P1. Thus, let us consider the general state with a = d = 0. The final state before the measurement of the ancilla qubit is |ψM⟩ = 1 √ 2 (b − ic)|01⟩ ⊗ |0⟩ an + 1 √ 2 (b + ic)|01⟩ ⊗ |1⟩ an . (43) We…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Nonclassical (quantum) signatures of weakly coupled waves are suppressed by an extra power of the tiny conversion efficiency η (~10^-21 for axions, ~10^-33 for gravitons), so experiments cannot establish the quantizat...

  2. Quantum Error Correction-like Noise Mitigation for Wave-like Dark Matter Searches with Quantum Sensors

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A repeated syndrome-correction protocol on multi-sensor quantum arrays suppresses individual excitation noise, yielding a √N sensitivity gain at small N and standard-quantum-limit sensitivity at large N even though th...

  3. Quantum Computational-Sensing Advantage

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A perspective defines quantum computational sensing (QCS) and its advantage (QCSA), and organizes many recent sensing-plus-computing protocols into a single taxonomy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (5), as expected

    The response is the same as that obtained with the qubit detector, Eq. (5), as expected. We also briefly comment on transferring the informa- tion of the cavity state to a qubit degree of freedom for the subsequent state transfer over distance or subsequent measurements. Let us consider the Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian [56] as the interaction between the c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    D. N. Spergel, The Motion of the Earth and the Detection of Wimps, Phys. Rev. D37, 1353 (1988)

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter exper- iments based on elastic nuclear recoil, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    Morgan (DRIFT, UK Dark Matter), DRIFT: A direc- tionally sensitive dark matter detector, Nucl

    B. Morgan (DRIFT, UK Dark Matter), DRIFT: A direc- tionally sensitive dark matter detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A513, 226 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Directional statistics for WIMP direct detection

    B. Morgan, A. M. Green, and N. J. C. Spooner, Direc- tional statistics for WIMP direct detection, Phys. Rev. D71, 103507 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408047

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Directional Statistics for WIMP direct detection II: 2-d read-out

    B. Morgan and A. M. Green, Directional statistics for WIMP direct detection. 2. 2D read-out, Phys. Rev. D 72, 123501 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508134

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Green and B. Morgan, Optimizing WIMP di- rectional detectors, Astropart. Phys.27, 142 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609115

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Silket al.,Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, edited by G

    J. Silket al.,Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, edited by G. Bertone (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Miuchi, Challenges for the Directional Dark Matter Direct Detection, JAIS2024, 473 (2024), arXiv:2309.13923 [hep-ex]

    K. Miuchi, Challenges for the Directional Dark Matter Direct Detection, JAIS2024, 473 (2024), arXiv:2309.13923 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Garconet al., The cosmic axion spin precession ex- periment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance, Quantum Sci

    A. Garconet al., The cosmic axion spin precession ex- periment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance, Quantum Sci. Technol.3, 014008 (2017), arXiv:1707.05312 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chigusa, M

    S. Chigusa, M. Hazumi, E. D. Herbschleb, N. Mizuochi, and K. Nakayama, Light dark matter search with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamonds, JHEP03, 083, arXiv:2302.12756 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chigusa, T

    S. Chigusa, T. Moroi, K. Nakayama, and T. Sichanu- grist, Dark matter detection using nuclear magnetization in magnet with hyperfine interaction, Phys. Rev. D108, 095007 (2023), arXiv:2307.08577 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. A. Garcia, Direct detection of dark matter axions with directional sensitivity, JCAP10, 022, arXiv:1207.6129 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Knirck, A

    S. Knirck, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, J. Redondo, and F. D. Steffen, Directional axion detection, JCAP11, 051, arXiv:1806.05927 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Derevianko, Detecting dark-matter waves with a net- work of precision-measurement tools, Phys

    A. Derevianko, Detecting dark-matter waves with a net- work of precision-measurement tools, Phys. Rev. A97, 042506 (2018), arXiv:1605.09717 [physics.atom-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7 (2014), arXiv:2003.06557 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1121 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    N¨ olleke, A

    C. N¨ olleke, A. Neuzner, A. Reiserer, C. Hahn, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Efficient teleportation between remote single-atom quantum memories, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 140403 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Lago-Rivera, J

    D. Lago-Rivera, J. V. Rakonjac, S. Grandi, and H. de Riedmatten, Long distance multiplexed quan- tum teleportation from a telecom photon to a solid-state qubit, Nature Commun.14, 1889 (2023), arXiv:2209.06249 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Qiuet al., Deterministic quantum state and gate tele- portation between distant superconducting chips, Sci

    J. Qiuet al., Deterministic quantum state and gate tele- portation between distant superconducting chips, Sci. Bull.70, 351 (2025), arXiv:2302.08756 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pfaff, B

    W. Pfaff, B. J. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen,et al., Unconditional quan- tum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits, Science345, 532 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Hermans, M

    S. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borre- gaard, and R. Hanson, Qubit teleportation between non- neighbouring nodes in a quantum network, Nature605, 663 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, J. Schupp, V. Krcmarsky, H. Hainzer, and B. P. Lanyon, Light-matter entangle- ment over 50 km of optical fibre, npj Quantum Informa- tion5, 72 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Measurement-based entanglement under conditions of extreme photon loss, Physical review letters101, 130502 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. Baker- mans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Entangle- ment distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes, Science356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Rozpedek, R

    F. Rozpedek, R. Yehia, K. Goodenough, M. Ruf, P. C. Humphreys, R. Hanson, S. Wehner, and D. Elkouss, Near-term quantum-repeater experiments with nitrogen- vacancy centers: Overcoming the limitations of direct transmission, Physical Review A99, 052330 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of modern physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Detecting Hidden Photon Dark Matter Using the Direct Excitation of Transmon Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 211001 (2023), arXiv:2212.03884 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Search for QCD axion dark matter with transmon qubits and quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. D110, 115021 (2024), arXiv:2407.19755 [hep-ph]

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. Ito, R. Kitano, W. Nakano, and R. Takai, Quan- tum entanglement of ions for light dark matter detection, JHEP02, 124, arXiv:2311.11632 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  27. [35]

    Braineet al.(ADMX), Extended Search for the In- visible Axion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, Phys

    T. Braineet al.(ADMX), Extended Search for the In- visible Axion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]. 9

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Reveal- ing the Dark Matter Halo with Axion Direct Detection, Phys. Rev. D97, 123006 (2018), arXiv:1711.10489 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. Y. Cheong, N. L. Rodd, and L.-T. Wang, Quantum de- scription of wave dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 015028 (2025), arXiv:2408.04696 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the Invisible Ax- ion, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the Invisible Ax- ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1983

  31. [39]

    Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur

    D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Directional search for light dark matter with quan- tum sensors

    H. Fukuda, Y. Matsuzaki, and T. Sichanugrist, Dataset for “Directional search for light dark matter with quan- tum sensors”, Zenodo (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Sugiyama, Precision-guaranteed quantum metrology, Physical Review A91, 042126 (2015)

    T. Sugiyama, Precision-guaranteed quantum metrology, Physical Review A91, 042126 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quan- tum Technology, Int. J. Quant. Inf.07, 125 (2009), arXiv:0804.2981 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Komar, E

    P. Komar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    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, Physical Review A97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Mul- tiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Physical review letters120, 080501 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

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

    2018

  39. [47]

    Kasai, Y

    H. Kasai, Y. Takeuchi, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokura, Anonymous quantum sensing, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan91, 074005 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Kasai, Y

    H. Kasai, Y. Takeuchi, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokura, Di- rect moment estimation of intensity distribution of mag- netic fields with quantum sensing network, New Journal of Physics26, 123013 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring, (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0201067

    D. Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring, (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0201067

    2002

  42. [50]

    R. R. Allen, F. Machado, I. L. Chuang, H.-Y. Huang, and S. Choi, Quantum Computing Enhanced Sensing, (2025), arXiv:2501.07625 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Go- ing beyond bell’s theorem, inBell’s Theorem, Quan- tum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

    1989

  44. [52]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Matsuzaki, S

    Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 012103 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments, Physical re- view letters109, 233601 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Sekatski, S

    P. Sekatski, S. W¨ olk, and W. D¨ ur, Optimal distributed sensing in noisy environments, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023052 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Quantum Enhancement in Dark Matter Detection with Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021801 (2024), arXiv:2311.10413 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proceedings of the IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  50. [58]

    S. H. Autler and C. H. Townes, Stark Effect in Rapidly Varying Fields, Phys. Rev.100, 703 (1955)

    1955

  51. [59]

    D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, ac stark shift and dephasing of a superconducting qubit strongly coupled to a cavity field, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 123602 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Y. Y. Gao, M. A. Rol, S. Touzard, and C. Wang, Practi- cal guide for building superconducting quantum devices, PRX Quantum2, 040202 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.