Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum sensing of displacements with stabilized GKP states

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the small-big-small GKP stabilization protocol, with measurement in place of reset, estimates both quadrature displacements of a single bosonic mode with single-shot sensitivity approaching the multivariate quantum…

desk verdict A solid, useful metrology proposal whose main noise claim rests on a quadrature-independence approximation that should be rigorously checked before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20627 v1 pith:J625UBX7 submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph physics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics

Lautaro Labarca , Sara Turcotte , Alexandre Blais , Baptiste Royer This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics
keywords GKPcodesqunaughtstatesdisplacementsensingmultiparameterquantummetrologyCramer-Raoboundbackactionevadingmeasurementsreservoirengineeringbosonicerrorcorrection
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 proposes using the small-big-small (sBs) stabilization protocol for GKP grid states as a two-parameter displacement sensor. Each qubit measurement in the stabilization cycle yields one bit about either the position or momentum displacement of an unknown kick, while the same cycle returns the cavity to the sensor state, so the device can run continuously without reset. In the noiseless case the sensitivity approaches the multivariate quantum Cramer-Rao bound: with an envelope parameter $\Delta = 0.3$ and 10 bits per quadrature it reaches 13.4 dB of two-mode squeezing, 0.2 dB below the quantum limit. With realistic noise parameters the protocol still beats the Gaussian limit of displacement sensing with prior information, without postselection or entanglement. The authors claim this makes reservoir-engineered bosonic stabilization useful for force sensing, waveform estimation, and quantum channel learning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the small-big-small (sBs) stabilization protocol, a trotterized reservoir-engineering scheme whose unitaries $\hat{U}_{q,\Delta}$ and $\hat{U}_{p,\Delta}$ alternate small control displacements, qubit rotations, and one large control displacement. For metrology, the qubit reset is replaced by measurement and feedback, so the Kraus operators of each subround act as modular measurements of one quadrature while the small displacements provide stabilization. The paper shows that the averaged measurement probabilities take the approximate form $\bar{p}_{g/e,x}(q_0, p_0, T) \simeq \tfrac{1}{2}[1 \pm e^{-a_1\Delta^2}\sin(l c_\Delta x_0 e^{-a_2\Delta^2 (T-1)})]$, where the exponential damping encodes the backaction that erases the displacement while returning the state to the grid. Because the two quadrature measurements are nearly independent, the multivariate estimation problem separates into two single-parameter problems, and this separation is what lets the protocol approach the multivariate quantum Cramer-Rao bound.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the full joint bitstring distribution $p(b_q, b_p \mid q_0, p_0)$ for $\Delta = 0.25$ and $T \geq 10$: if the product approximation $p(b_q \mid q_0, 0)p(b_p \mid 0, p_0)$ yields sensitivities that differ from the full simulation by more than the paper's reported margins, the claimed near-QCRB performance is called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that displacement estimation can be merged with GKP stabilization so that every measurement performs two jobs at once: extracting a bit of information about the initial displacement and pumping the oscillator back toward the qunaught grid state. Concretely, after an unknown displacement $(q_0, p_0)$ is applied to a finite-energy qunaught state, repeated sBs rounds with qubit measurement and feedback produce a bitstring whose likelihood is nearly separable between the two quadratures. The authors find that the resulting sensitivity approaches the quantum bound $1/\sqrt{4\bar{n}+2}$: for $\Delta = 0.3$ and 10 bits per quadrature, the sensitivity equals that of two-mode squeezed vacuum states with 13.4 dB of squeezing, only 0.2 dB shy of the 13.6 dB quantum limit, and one bit per quadrature already beats coherent-state heterodyne detection. Under Gaussian priors the protocol surpasses the Gaussian limit with three to four bits per quadrature in the numerically explored envelope range, and two bits in the infinite-energy limit. With realistic noise modeled from measured superconducting-circuit lifetimes, the sensitivity approaches 10 dB and the Gaussian limit is still beaten unconditionally.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the q and p quadrature measurements are nearly independent and that all noise acts only during the large conditional displacements, so if those separations fail at smaller $\Delta$, longer $T$, or stronger noise, the claimed closeness to the quantum bound and the beating of the Gaussian limit would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sensor is backaction evading and can operate continuously without reset, making it suited to detecting itinerant signals such as fluctuating forces.
  • With 10 bits per quadrature the sensitivity reaches 13.4 dB of two-mode squeezing at $\Delta = 0.3$, within 0.2 dB of the quantum limit.
  • Under Gaussian priors the protocol beats the Gaussian limit of displacement sensing without postselection or entanglement, even with realistic noise.
  • The scheme is platform independent and can be implemented in any qubit-oscillator system, including trapped ions and mechanical oscillators.
  • The results imply a lower bound on stabilization speed: a slower sBs protocol would allow the sensitivity to surpass the quantum bound, so metrology constrains how slowly the grid state may be stabilized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit is that pairing sBs bit acquisition with a faster, purely dissipative recovery step could improve the information rate per unit time while keeping the same single-shot sensitivity.
  • The photon-efficiency advantage over two-mode squeezed vacuum states suggests a concrete testable extension: multimode GKP states may give a constant-factor photon saving when learning random displacement channels, beyond the exponential advantage already known for entangled Gaussian strategies.
  • Because the sensor is backaction evading and continuously self-resetting, it is a natural candidate for weak stochastic waveform and amplitude detection, such as dark-matter searches, though the authors note that amplitude estimation remains open.
  • A direct experimental check of the near-product form $p(b_q, b_p \mid q_0, p_0) \simeq p(b_q \mid q_0, 0) p(b_p \mid 0, p_0)$ would test the load-bearing separation on which the estimator construction relies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a metrology protocol that repurposes the small-big-small (sBs) stabilization protocol for finite-energy GKP qunaught states to estimate two quadrature displacements in a single shot. The authors show numerically, using Fock-basis simulations with code availability, that the noiseless sensitivity approaches the multivariate quantum Cramér-Rao bound (e.g., 13.4 dB vs 13.6 dB two-mode squeezing equivalent at 10 bits per quadrature), that the protocol is backaction evading, and that under a Lindblad noise model with experimentally measured lifetimes it can surpass the Gaussian limit of displacement sensing with prior information. The main claims are supported by direct simulation of the sBs Kraus operators; the analytical probability law in Eq. (1) is fitted and used only for qualitative discussion.

Significance. If the noisy advantage withstands the quadrature-decoupling approximation, the protocol would be a valuable example of reservoir engineering for quantum metrology, with potential applications in force sensing and waveform estimation. The paper provides reproducible numerical code and uses a concrete, experimentally grounded noise model. The noiseless saturation of the QCRB and the backaction-evading property are demonstrated convincingly. The main caveat is that the noisy advantage over the Gaussian limit is computed under a decoupling approximation that has not been fully validated in the noisy regime, and the noise model itself neglects errors in the small displacement and rotation operations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III D, Appendix D Step 2, Fig. 6b] The central noisy claim that the protocol 'unconditionally surpasses the Gaussian limit' (Section III D, Fig. 6b) is computed by approximating the q-quadrature marginal p(bq|q0) with p(bq|q0, p0=0), i.e., by fixing the p displacement to zero while averaging over p-outcomes (Appendix D, Step 2). In the noiseless case this decoupling is justified analytically (Appendix C), but no analogous justification is given for the noisy case. The only check reported (Appendix E.3) compares sensitivities at a few fixed nonzero p0 values, not the full prior-averaged Bayesian MSE used for the Gaussian-limit comparison. Since the noisy advantage is finite, any decoherence-induced coupling between the quadratures—through outcome-dependent feedback or correlated error propagation—could increase the true joint MSE and erase the claimed advantage. The authors should either validate the decoupling for the noisy regime by computing the full two-quadrature probabilities p(bq,bp|q0,p0) for representative noise parameters and evaluating the joint Bayesian MSE, or qualify the 'unconditional' claim.
  2. [Section III D] The realistic-noise simulations assume that all qubit rotations and small conditional displacements are noiseless, with Lindblad decoherence acting only during the big conditional displacements. While the authors argue that these operations are fast compared to decoherence timescales, the small displacements are executed many times per run (twice per bit), and errors in them could accumulate over the T rounds of the metrology protocol. Because the noisy performance in Fig. 6 is the basis for the claim of surpassing the Gaussian limit under 'realistic noise,' the simulation should either include these error channels (or provide an estimate of their effect) or the claim should be restricted to the stated idealized operations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III B] The phrase 'solid dashed lines' appears twice (referring to the Cramér-Rao bound curves in Fig. 3a); this should be simply 'dashed lines'.
  2. [Equation (1)] Since a1 and a2 are fitted parameters, the authors should state explicitly in the main text that the quantitative results (QCRB approach, noisy MSE) are obtained from exact Fock-basis simulations and do not depend on this fit.
  3. [Figure 4 and Eq. (A1)] The Gaussian limit in Eq. (A1) is given for the total two-quadrature MSE, but Fig. 4 plots only the q-quadrature MSE; the text should explain how the single-quadrature Gaussian limit is derived from Eq. (A1) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Appendix E.5] The sentence 'the fidelities without recovery no longer are the same' should be rewritten for clarity (e.g., 'the fidelities obtained without the recovery displacement are no longer identical').
  5. [Section III A] The discussion of the mean photon number inset (Fig. 2) appears in Section III A, but the sentence beginning 'As shown there, the mean photon number remains bounded' could benefit from an explicit reference to the inset to help the reader locate it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central numerical results are computed directly from the sBs Kraus operators; Eq. (1) fits are illustrative only.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing quantitative claims—sensitivity approaching the QCRB, Bayesian mean-square error beating the Gaussian limit, and backaction-evading performance—are obtained by constructing the sBs POVM from the Kraus operators K_{x,g/e}=<g/e|U'_{x,Delta}|+> and simulating the resulting bitstring probabilities in Fock space (Appendix D), not by feeding Eq. (1) back into the estimators. Eq. (1) (with fitted a1=0.4, a2~1.24) and the analogous fits in Appendix C are presented only as heuristic descriptions of averaged probabilities; they are not used to generate Figs. 3-6 or the QCRB/Gaussian-limit comparisons. The QCRB and Holevo-bound formulas are derived in Appendix B from standard SLD theory, and the Gaussian limits are quoted from independent Refs. [48,54]. Self-citations to the sBs protocol [45] are legitimate prior art: the unitaries were published earlier by Royer et al. and have been independently implemented in experiments [38,39,41]. The stated quadrature-decoupling approximation p(bq,bp|q0,p0) ~ p(bq|q0,0)p(bp|0,p0) (Appendix D) and the noiseless-small-operation assumption (Sec. III D) are explicit modeling limitations that could affect the noisy Gaussian-prior conclusion, but they are not circular reductions: the claimed numbers are not defined to equal the inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result reduces to a self-citation. Hence no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity, force, particle, or conserved quantity. Its free parameters are fit constants in approximate probability formulas and protocol design choices. The central claims rest on the prior sBs stabilization protocol, the approximate quadrature decoupling, and a simplified Lindblad noise model.

free parameters (4)
  • a1 = 0.4
    Fitted to numerical qubit measurement probabilities in Eq. (C7) and used in Eq. (1). This is an approximate description, not part of the exact simulation.
  • a2 = 1.24 in Eq. (1), 1.44 in Eq. (C8)
    Fitted to numerical decay of averaged measurement probabilities. Used for qualitative understanding of information decay, not for the central numerical claims.
  • a3 = 0.44
    Fitted in the more accurate probability expression Eq. (C8) in Appendix C.
  • Total bit budget T+M = 12
    Chosen by hand as 'arbitrary' in Section III C for the backaction-evading demonstration. Not optimized, but used for the finite-sample simulations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The sBs unitaries of Refs. [41,45] exactly stabilize the finite-energy qunaught state, and the Kraus operators of Eq. (C4) describe the measurement.
    The protocol is built directly on this prior stabilization result; it is treated as an external input rather than rederived.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadrature decoupling: p(bq,bp|q0,p0) is approximately p(bq|q0,0)p(bp|0,p0).
    This numerical observation underlies the efficient construction of maximum-likelihood and Bayesian estimators in Appendix D.
  • domain assumption Noise acts only during the big conditional displacements; small displacements and qubit rotations are noiseless.
    Explicit assumption in Section III D, justified by these operations being fast compared with decoherence timescales.
  • standard math The Lindblad master equation with qubit and cavity relaxation and dephasing collapse operators describes the decoherence.
    Standard open-quantum-system model; used for the noisy simulations in Section III D and Appendix E.
  • domain assumption The single-mode Gaussian sensing limits from Refs. [48,54] are valid benchmarks.
    The paper compares its numerical mean-square errors and sensitivities with these noiseless Gaussian limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (1) with fitted a1 and a2 represents the averaged measurement probabilities well enough for the qualitative discussion.
    The authors fit these constants to their own numerics and state only qualitative agreement; the exact simulations do not rely on this expression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum sensing of displacements with stabilized GKP states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J625UBX7

@misc{pith2026250620627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum sensing of displacements with stabilized GKP states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J625UBX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20627}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate how recent protocols developed for the stabilization of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) states can be used for the estimation of two-quadrature displacement sensing, with sensitivities approaching the multivariate quantum Cramer-Rao bound. Thanks to the stabilization, this sensor is backaction evading and can function continuously without reset, making it well suited for the detection of itinerant signals. Additionally, we provide numerical simulations showing that the protocol can unconditionally surpass the Gaussian limit of displacement sensing with prior information, even in the presence of realistic noise. Our work shows how reservoir engineering in bosonic systems can be leveraged for quantum metrology, with potential applications in force sensing, waveform estimation and quantum channel learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Wigner function and marginals of the finite-energy qunaught GKP state. b) Qubit-cavity pair. By entangling the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. , we plot these probabilities (full lines) for a dis￾placement in the q quadrature q0 = l/4, and displace￾ments in the p quadrature p0 ∈ {0, l/4}, for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the mean-square error in estimating the q quadrature and p quadrature displacements (full green and blue lines) with N = 15, T = 8 and M ∈ {4, 8} (darker lines for M = 8), averaged over 4000 samples of the whole sequence. As benchmark, the full red line shows the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Probabilities of measuring the qubit in the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Noiseless sensitivity at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sensitivity in the estimation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mean-square error and variance of the mean-square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Averaged recovery fidelity as a function of the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Sensitivity achieved in the estimation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fidelity of the sBs steady state with the finite-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of metrological performance in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Fidelity between the error-free state after a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Backaction evading performance in the presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Optimal Displacement Sensing with Spin-Dependent Squeezed States

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spin-dependent squeezed states reach the Heisenberg limit for amplitude and joint displacement estimation, and a stroboscopic first-order-sideband sequence prepares them with a demonstrated 15× speedup in trapped-ion ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [59]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, et al. , Logical states for fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with propagating light, Science 383, 289 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Displacement sensing. When only Gaussian states and resources are allowed, without prior information the best single-mode strategy in the estimation of two-quadrature displacements is to prepare the oscillator in a coherent state followed by het- erodyne measurement. In that case, the mean-square error in the estimation achieved is δ ˜Q2 + δ ˜P 2 = 2, whe...

  3. [2]

    We refer to this sequence as the backaction evad- ing protocol

    To cor- rect for estimation errors, we follow with M rounds of autonomous sBs, where the qubit is reset instead of mea- sured. We refer to this sequence as the backaction evad- ing protocol. Numerically, we test this by starting the protocol in the sensor state ρ# = |#⟩ ⟨#|, and applying a random displacement sampled from a Gaussian prior P [q0, p0] = Gσ(...

  4. [3]

    QEC assisted metrology In QEC assisted metrology protocols, a fundamental tradeoff exists between sensitivity and robustness. In its simplest form, this is captured by the expression (R ◦ EΓ ◦ ΛX )ρ = (Eg(Γ) ◦ Λf (X))ρ, (A3) where Λ X is the encoding quantum channel dependent on the parameter X to be sensed, EΓ is the noise chan- nel dependent on the stre...

  5. [4]

    We find a1 = 0.4 to be an excellent fit

    with q0 ∈ [0, l/4]. We find a1 = 0.4 to be an excellent fit. For numerical calculations, we use the fock basis with dimension n = 150. All codes are available at [90]. Going beyond the single subround case, to gain intu- ition we focus on the probabilities after the application of the average recovery map, that is ρ → RT ρ. Heuris- tically, to stabilize a...

  6. [5]

    The initial state we use, ρ0, is the steady state of the sBs proto- col, that we numerically obtained after 120 rounds of autonomous sBs, with the vacuum as initial state

    Numerical construction of the estimators We do our simulations in the fock basis, with a Hilbert space dimension of 140 for ∆ ∈ {0.25, 0.4}. The initial state we use, ρ0, is the steady state of the sBs proto- col, that we numerically obtained after 120 rounds of autonomous sBs, with the vacuum as initial state. To be concrete, one round of autonomous sBs ...

  7. [6]

    for T = 12 a total of 2 24 probabilities would need to be computed

    Clearly, carrying out this compu- tation is prohibitive for a large T , e.g. for T = 12 a total of 2 24 probabilities would need to be computed. Con- veniently, the near independence between the quadra- tures greatly simplifies the problem. Concretely, this independence translates in the fact that the probabil- ity of measuring the bitstring bq, is nearly...

  8. [7]

    Hence, we can use the proba- bilities p(bq|q0, 0) ( p(bp|0, p0)) to estimate the displace- ment in q (p) quadrature q0 (p0), with minimal losses in performance

    for any pair of p quadrature bitstrings ( bp, b′ p), displacements in the p quadrature ( p0, p′ 0), q quadrature bitstring bq, and ini- tial displacement ˆD(β). Hence, we can use the proba- bilities p(bq|q0, 0) ( p(bp|0, p0)) to estimate the displace- ment in q (p) quadrature q0 (p0), with minimal losses in performance. We compute p(bq|q0, 0) using the up...

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Then, the probability is given by p(bq|q0) = tr[ρ(bq, q0)], and repeat for all bq ∈ ZT 2 . Do a sim- ilar computation for the p quadrature, now with update rule ρt(β) → ρt,q(β) = ˆKg,q ρt(β) ˆK † g,q + ˆKe,qρt(β) ˆK † e,q → ρt+1(β) = ˆKbtp,pρt,q(β) ˆK † btp,p, and β = ip0/ √ 2...

  2. [9]

    Metrological performance First, we focus on the case where we expect the dis- placement to be small, and we use a flat prior q0, p0 ∈ 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.4 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 Sensitivity/l Sensitivity q Sensitivity p QCRB Upper bound on HB FIG. 8. Noiseless sensitivity at q...

  3. [10]

    We characterize the backaction evading perfor- mance as follows

    Backaction evading protocol. We characterize the backaction evading perfor- mance as follows. First, we determine the aver- aged recovery fidelity as a function of the initial displacement in the q quadrature, see Fig. 11. The recovery fidelity is F [ρR(q0, b, M), ρ#∆ ] = tr h...

  4. [11]

    6, is the steady state of the sBs protocol in pres- ence of noise ρ#∆,η, where η quantifies the strength of the noise used, as explained in Sec

    Effect of noise in state preparation and choice of envelope width The initial state we used to obtain the results shown in Fig. 6, is the steady state of the sBs protocol in pres- ence of noise ρ#∆,η, where η quantifies the strength of the noise used, as explained in Sec. III ...

  5. [12]

    Effect of imperfect state preparation vs noise during bit acquisition Here, we separate the effects on the performance due to imperfect state preparation, from the noise during the metrology protocol itself. To do so, we compute the per- formance starting from the sBs steady s...

  6. [13]

    q vs p quadrature metrological performance The performance achieved in the estimation of both quadratures, as in the noiseless setting, remains practi- cally identical between one another. This is due to the small effect noise has during a single q (p) sBs round, as shown by t...

  7. [14]

    Our goal is to deter- mine which noise is most detrimental for the perfor- mance of the protocol

    Effect of each noise We isolate the effect of each noise, relaxation and de- phasing of the cavity (qubit). Our goal is to deter- mine which noise is most detrimental for the perfor- mance of the protocol. First, we compute the fidelity of the sBs steady state for each type of...

  8. [15]

    Backaction evading protocol To test the backaction evading protocol in presence of noise, we first compute the average recovery fidelities, as done in Appendix D 3, but now starting from the steady state of the sBs protocol in presence of noise ρ#∆,η. We plot these fidelities ...

  9. [16]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Ye and P

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

    2024

  11. [18]

    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 Reviews Physics 5, 157 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of modern physics 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum- enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two-dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science 373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezze, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nature Re- views Physics 5, 141 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement, Physical Review Letters 79, 3865 (1997)

    1997

  16. [23]

    C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. Drever, V. D. Sand- berg, and M. Zimmermann, On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a quantum-mechanical os- cillator. i. issues of principle, Reviews of Modern Physics 52, 341 (1980)

    1980

  17. [24]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  18. [25]

    R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Squeezed states in phase-sensing interferometers, Physical Review D 30, 2548 (1984)

    1984

  19. [26]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Su (2) and su (1, 1) interferometers, Physical Review A 33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  20. [27]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maxi- mally correlated states, Physical Review A 54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  21. [28]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone for interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002)

    2002

  22. [29]

    Matsumoto, A new approach to thecram´ er-rao-type bound of the pure-state model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35, 3111 (2002)

    K. Matsumoto, A new approach to thecram´ er-rao-type bound of the pure-state model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35, 3111 (2002)

    2002

  23. [30]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  24. [31]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estima- tion, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment 2019, 094010 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Andr´ e, A

    A. Andr´ e, A. Sørensen, and M. Lukin, Stability of atomic clocks based on entangled atoms, Physical review letters 92, 230801 (2004)

    2004

  26. [33]

    Z. Ji, G. Wang, R. Duan, Y. Feng, and M. Ying, Param- eter estimation of quantum channels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54, 5172 (2008)

    2008

  27. [34]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. Smith, J. Lun- deen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. Walmsley, Quantum phase estimation with lossy interferometers, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 80, 013825 (2009)

    2009

  28. [35]

    Ko lody´ nski and R

    J. Ko lody´ nski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phase esti- mation without a priori phase knowledge in the presence of loss, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 82, 053804 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Kacprowicz, R

    M. Kacprowicz, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. Walmsley, Ex- perimental quantum-enhanced estimation of a lossy phase shift, Nature Photonics 4, 357 (2010)

    2010

  30. [37]

    Escher, R

    B. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, Gen- eral framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Physics7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  31. [38]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

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

    2012

  32. [39]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Aharonov, J

    D. Aharonov, J. Cotler, and X.-L. Qi, Quantum algo- rithmic measurement, Nature communications 13, 887 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Preskill, Quantum clock synchronization and quantum error correction (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0010098 [quant- ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum clock synchronization and quantum error correction (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0010098 [quant- ph]

    2000 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Ozeri, Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes (2013), arXiv:1310.3432 [quant- ph]

    R. Ozeri, Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes (2013), arXiv:1310.3432 [quant- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Froewis, and B. Kraus, Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion, Physical Review Letters 112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  37. [44]

    Arrad, Y

    G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction, Physical review letters 112, 150801 (2014)

    2014

  38. [45]

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum error correction for metrology, Physical review letters 112, 150802 (2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    Zhou, Error-corrected quantum metrology, Ph.D

    S. Zhou, Error-corrected quantum metrology, Ph.D. the- sis, Yale University (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    I. L. Chuang, D. W. Leung, and Y. Yamamoto, Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping, Physical Review A 56, 1114 (1997)

    1997

  41. [48]

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, Macro- scopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping, Physical Review A 59, 2631 (1999). 21

    1999

  42. [49]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  43. [50]

    Krastanov, V

    S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, Uni- versal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit, Physical Review A 92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  44. [51]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a uni- versal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nature communications 8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nature Physics 18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    Sivak, A

    V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. Brock, A. Ding, L. Frunzio, et al., Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even, Nature 616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  47. [54]

    Lachance-Quirion, M.-A

    D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St-Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fr´ echette-Viens, R. Shillito, et al. , Au- tonomous quantum error correction of gottesman-kitaev- preskill states, Physical Review Letters 132, 150607 (2024)

    2024

  48. [55]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Neg- nevitsky, K. Mehta, and J. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 566, 513 (2019)

    2019

  49. [56]

    De Neeve, T.-L

    B. De Neeve, T.-L. Nguyen, T. Behrle, and J. P. Home, Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping, Nature Physics 18, 296 (2022)

    2022

  50. [57]

    Fabre, G

    N. Fabre, G. Maltese, F. Appas, S. Felicetti, A. Ketterer, A. Keller, T. Coudreau, F. Baboux, M. Amanti, S. Ducci, et al., Generation of a time-frequency grid state with in- tegrated biphoton frequency combs, Physical Review A 102, 012607 (2020)

    2020

  51. [58]

    J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, G. Dauphinais, et al. , Blueprint for a scalable pho- tonic fault-tolerant quantum computer, Quantum 5, 392 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Royer, S

    B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. Girvin, Stabilization of finite- energy gottesman-kitaev-preskill states, Physical Review Letters 125, 260509 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, et al. , Quantum error cor- rection of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature 584, 368 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Zheng, W

    G. Zheng, W. He, G. Lee, K. Noh, and L. Jiang, Per- formance and achievable rates of the gottesman-kitaev- preskill code for pure-loss and amplification channels, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06715 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. Kim, Optimal estimation of joint pa- rameters in phase space, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 87, 012107 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Steinlechner, J

    S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, M. Meinders, H. M¨ uller- Ebhardt, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Quantum- dense metrology, Nature Photonics 7, 626 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    Bradshaw, P

    M. Bradshaw, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ultimate precision of joint quadrature parameter estimation with a gaussian probe, Physical Review A 97, 012106 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    C. M. Caves, Reframing su (1, 1) interferometry, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies 3, 1900138 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Zander and R

    J. Zander and R. Schnabel, Full monitoring of ensemble trajectories with 10 db-sub-heisenberg imprecision, npj Quantum Information 7, 148 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Duivenvoorden, B

    K. Duivenvoorden, B. M. Terhal, and D. Weigand, Single- mode displacement sensor, Physical Review A95, 012305 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Hanamura, W

    F. Hanamura, W. Asavanant, K. Fukui, S. Konno, and A. Furusawa, Estimation of gaussian random displace- ment using non-gaussian states, Physical Review A 104, 062601 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Hanamura, W

    F. Hanamura, W. Asavanant, S. Kikura, M. Mishima, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Yabuno, F. China, K. Fukui, M. Endo, et al. , Single-shot single-mode optical two- parameter displacement estimation beyond classical limit, Physical Review Letters 131, 230801 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Frigerio, M

    M. Frigerio, M. G. Paris, C. E. Lopetegui, and M. Walschaers, Joint estimation of position and momen- tum with arbitrarily high precision using non-gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01910 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. Aasi, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Aber- nathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, et al. , Advanced ligo, Classical and quan- tum gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science 321, 1463 (2008)

    S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science 321, 1463 (2008)

    2008

  66. [74]

    C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Matsos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Quantum- enhanced multi-parameter sensing in a single mode, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04865 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Harrington and J

    J. Harrington and J. Preskill, Achievable rates for the gaussian quantum channel, Physical Review A 64, 062301 (2001)

    2001

  68. [76]

    Matsuura, H

    T. Matsuura, H. Yamasaki, and M. Koashi, Equivalence of approximate gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes, Physical Review A 102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    L. J. Mensen, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Phase-space methods for representing, manipulating, and correcting gottesman-kitaev-preskill qubits, Physical Re- view A 104, 022408 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    A. J. Brady, A. Eickbusch, S. Singh, J. Wu, and Q. Zhuang, Advances in bosonic quantum error correc- tion with gottesman–kitaev–preskill codes: Theory, engi- neering and applications, Progress in Quantum Electron- ics , 100496 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    H. L. Van Trees, Detection, estimation, and modulation theory, part I: detection, estimation, and linear modula- tion theory (John Wiley & Sons, 2004)

    2004

  72. [80]

    Singh, B

    S. Singh, B. Royer, and S. M. Girvin, Towards non- abelian quantum signal processing: Efficient control of hybrid continuous-and discrete-variable architectures, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19992 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Pezz` e and A

    L. Pezz` e and A. Smerzi, Advances in multiparame- ter quantum sensing and metrology, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17396 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Arrangoiz-Arriola, E

    P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, E. A. Wollack, Z. Wang, M. Pechal, 22 W. Jiang, T. P. McKenna, J. D. Witmer, R. Van Laer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Resolving the energy levels of a nanomechanical oscillator, Nature 571, 537 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    Sellem, A

    L.-A. Sellem, A. Sarlette, Z. Leghtas, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Dissipative pro- tection of a gkp qubit in a high-impedance supercon- ducting circuit driven by a microwave frequency comb, Physical Review X 15, 011011 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    C. Oh, S. Chen, Y. Wong, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, J. A. H. Nielsen, Z.-H. Liu, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, U. L. An- dersen, L. Jiang, and J. Preskill, Entanglement-enabled advantage for learning a bosonic random displacement channel (2024), arXiv:2402.18809 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Royer, S

    B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. M. Girvin, Encoding qubits in multimode grid states, PRX Quantum 3, 010335 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Conrad, J

    J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and F. Arzani, Gottesman-kitaev- preskill codes: A lattice perspective, Quantum 6, 648 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Shi and Q

    H. Shi and Q. Zhuang, Ultimate precision limit of noise sensing and dark matter search, npj Quantum Informa- tion 9, 27 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, J. Preskill, Y. Chen, and L. McCuller, Stochastic wave- form estimation at the fundamental quantum limit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13867 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    G´ orecki, A

    W. G´ orecki, A. Riccardi, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology of noisy spreading channels, Physical Review Letters 129, 240503 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    P. T. Grochowski and R. Filip, Optimal phase-insensitive force sensing with non-gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20832 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. M. Tait, A new era in the search for dark matter, Nature 562, 51 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, et al. , A quantum en- hanced search for dark matter axions, Nature 590, 238 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    A. V. Dixit, S. Chakram, K. He, A. Agrawal, R. K. Naik, D. I. Schuster, and A. Chou, Searching for dark mat- ter with a superconducting qubit, Physical review letters 126, 141302 (2021)

    2021

  86. [94]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory (Elsevier Science Ltd, 1982)

    1982

  87. [95]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of Statistical Physics 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  88. [96]

    Tsang and C

    M. Tsang and C. M. Caves, Evading quantum mechan- ics: Engineering a classical subsystem within a quantum environment, Physical Review X 2, 031016 (2012)

    2012

  89. [97]

    B. M. Terhal and D. Weigand, Encoding a qubit into a cavity mode in circuit qed using phase estimation, Phys- ical Review A 93, 012315 (2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    Aharonov, H

    Y. Aharonov, H. Pendleton, and A. Petersen, Modular variables in quantum theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 2, 213 (1969)

    1969

  91. [99]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achiev- ing the heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Nature communications 9, 78 (2018)

    2018

  92. [100]

    Suzuki, Y

    J. Suzuki, Y. Yang, and M. Hayashi, Quantum state esti- mation with nuisance parameters, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 453001 (2020)

    2020

  93. [101]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  94. [102]

    W. H. Zurek, Sub-planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence, Nature 412, 712 (2001)

    2001

  95. [103]

    Shukla and B

    A. Shukla and B. C. Sanders, Superposing compass states for asymptotic isotropic sub-planck phase-space sensitiv- ity, Physical Review A 108, 043719 (2023)

    2023

  96. [104]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Physical Review A 94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  97. [105]

    Labarca and S

    L. Labarca and S. Turcotte, Repository for Quantum sensing of displacements with stabilized GKP states (2025)

    2025

  98. [106]

    Hopfmueller, M

    F. Hopfmueller, M. Tremblay, P. St-Jean, B. Royer, and M.-A. Lemonde, Bosonic Pauli+: Efficient Simulation of Concatenated Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes, Quan- tum 8, 1539 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.