Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Noise-enhanced quantum clocks and global field sensors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Engineered dephasing can make a quantum clock or global-field sensor more precise than the same sensor without noise.

desk verdict The QFI enhancement proofs are sound and worth refereeing, but the explicit estimator O does not saturate the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, and the [L,H]=0 assumption is real—both need correcting before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02071 v1 pith:63XKRBCJ submitted 2025-07-02 quant-ph

Luis Pedro García-Pintos This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologyFisherinformationnoise-enhancedsensingclocksglobalfieldestimationLindbladmasterequationGHZstatesNOON
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 claims that dephasing noise, normally a nuisance for quantum sensors, can be engineered to make a quantum clock or a global-field sensor more precise than the same sensor without noise. The mechanism is an additive contribution that incoherent dynamics make to the quantum Fisher information: under a Lindblad master equation whose noise operator commutes with the Hamiltonian, the Fisher information about the estimation time or a global frequency splits into a unitary part plus a positive incoherent part. In the regimes identified by Eqs. (9) and (14), the incoherent part more than compensates the coherence lost to dephasing, so the quantum Cramér-Rao bound guarantees a smaller estimation error. The paper illustrates the effect with GHZ states of qubits and NOON states of photons, and shows that simple parity-type measurements saturate the improved bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the additive decomposition of the quantum Fisher information, $F_{\mathrm{open}} = F_{\mathrm{unitary}} + F_{\mathrm{incoherent}}$, applied to the Lindblad master equation $d\rho/dt = -i[H,\rho] - \gamma_t [L,[L,\rho]]$, with $L$ Hermitian and $[L,H]=0$. For cat-state inputs the dynamics collapses to an effective two-level problem characterized by the energy splitting $\delta E$ and the noise-operator splitting $\delta L$; the exact formulas (8) and (13) follow from the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the decohering state, and the comparison ratios (9) and (14) convert the positivity of the incoherent contribution into explicit noise-enhanced regimes.

What would settle it

Take an N-qubit GHZ sensor with $H = \omega/2 \sum_l \sigma_z^l$, let it dephase with $L=H$ at constant rate $\gamma$ for $t = \ln(2)/(2(\delta E)^2 \gamma)$, choose $\gamma$ so that $4(\delta E)^2\gamma^2 > 1/2$, and estimate $\omega$ from the parity observable. If the measured variance is not below the isolated-sensor value $\omega^2/((\delta E)^2 t^2)$, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that for sensors prepared in superpositions of two Hamiltonian eigenstates, energy-basis dephasing can increase the quantum Fisher information about time intervals and about global Hamiltonian parameters above the isolated-sensor value. For such cat states the open-system Fisher information can be computed exactly: Eq. (8) for time estimation and Eq. (13) for frequency estimation. Both formulas contain the expected exponential suppression of coherence but also a new positive term growing with the dephasing rate, and in the parameter windows of Eqs. (9) and (14) that term dominates. The paper proves this by inserting the decohered density matrix into the eigen-decomposition formula for the quantum Fisher information and exploiting the commutation condition to eliminate cross terms. It also constructs explicit estimators, the global parity observable for qubit GHZ networks and the coherence observable for photonic NOON states, whose error propagation saturates the Cramér-Rao bound, so the noise advantage is attainable with simple measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The derivations assume the noise operator is symmetric and does not mix the sensor's energy levels (it commutes with the Hamiltonian); if realistic noise acts between energy levels, the separation into coherent and incoherent Fisher-information contributions breaks down and the predicted improvement is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clock can be made more precise by adding a short, linearly ramped dephasing pulse after time $t_0$, with a precision gain of $\dot{\gamma}(\delta L)^2/(\delta E)^2$ relative to the isolated clock.
  • Frequency and global-field estimation can beat isolated GHZ or NOON sensors, especially for small fields, with the plotted regime showing up to three orders of magnitude reduction in estimation error.
  • The noise-enhanced advantage is saturable by measuring a fixed parity-like observable, so it does not require quantum error correction or error mitigation.
  • Both qubit networks and photonic two-mode interferometers exhibit the effect, giving two concrete platforms for a proof-of-principle experiment.
  • The gain requires the dephasing window to be short, $t - t_0 < \sqrt{2\ln 2}/\delta E$, so the protocol is relevant when a high-resolution external clock can time the noise interval.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The commuting-noise restriction suggests the mechanism is tied to dephasing in the sensor's energy eigenbasis; an immediate open question is whether a small non-commuting component kills the effect or merely shrinks the improvement window.
  • Editorial inference: Because the time-estimation protocol needs an external stopwatch accurate to about $1/\delta E$, one could try to close the loop and let a noise-enhanced clock calibrate its own dephasing interval, though the paper does not analyze self-referencing.
  • Editorial inference: The same additive-Fisher-information mechanism may extend to other parameters generated by a commuting Hermitian operator, such as interaction strengths or local fields, giving a general recipe: find a dephasing operator whose splitting amplifies the parameter's imprint before coherence is lost.
  • Editorial inference: A direct tabletop test is to compare estimation error with and without engineered dephasing on a GHZ state; the predicted ratio in Eq. (14) gives a quantitative target that does not require full state tomography.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that incoherent dephasing can enhance the precision of optimal estimation of time intervals and global Hamiltonian parameters, contrary to the usual expectation that noise degrades quantum sensors. It derives lower bounds on the quantum Fisher information for Lindblad dynamics with a Hermitian Lindblad operator and exact QFI formulas for cat-state sensors. From these formulas it identifies regimes where F_open exceeds F_isolated and proposes explicit O-based estimators for qubit and photonic sensor networks, which it states saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound.

Significance. If corrected, the central result would be a useful and nontrivial counterexample in quantum metrology: engineered dephasing can act as a resource for time and global-frequency estimation with GHZ/NOON states, and the exact cat-state QFI calculations in the appendix are clean and appear correct. The paper is also honest about the commutativity assumption [L,H]=0 and about the need for an external high-resolution stopwatch in the time-estimation protocol. However, the operational section overstates the performance of the explicit estimators, and there are quantitative errors in central equations that must be fixed before the protocol claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. A4 and 'Optimal estimators that benefit from noise'] The claim that O=prod_l sigma_x^l (and its photonic analogue) yields estimators that saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is not correct as stated. For time estimation at deltaE*t=n*pi, Eq. (A36) gives var(t_O)/var_isolated = 1/(ln2 * gamma_dot), whereas the QFI from Eq. (8) gives var_opt/var_isolated = 1/(ln2*gamma_dot + 1/2); the O-based estimator is therefore a factor 1 + 1/(2 ln2 gamma_dot) above the bound. For frequency estimation, Eq. (A33d) contains a factor 2 in the omega-derivative of the decoherence factor; retaining this factor, the correct variance ratio at deltaE*t=n*pi is 1/(4 deltaE^2 gamma^2), not the 1/(deltaE^2 gamma^2) implied by Eqs. (A37)-(A39), and the QFI bound from Eq. (15) is 1/(4 deltaE^2 gamma^2 + 1/2). The protocol still improves over the isolated sensor, but it does not reach the QFI bound except in the large-noise asymptotic limit. The words 'saturates' and 'optimal estimator' should be removed or replaced by an explicit asymptotic statement.
  2. [Eqs. (10), (11) and the paragraph following Eq. (10)] The quantitative time-estimation formulas appear to omit a factor ln2. Substituting t - t0 = sqrt(ln2)/(sqrt(gamma_dot) deltaL) into Eq. (8) yields F_open/F_isolated = 1/2 + ln2 * gamma_dot (deltaL)^2/(deltaE)^2. The printed Eq. (10) instead has 1/2 + gamma_dot (deltaL)^2/(deltaE)^2, and the same missing factor propagates into the condition gamma_dot (deltaL)^2/(deltaE)^2 > 1/2 and into Eq. (11). This changes the quantitative threshold for the time-estimation protocol and should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. A2, Eq. (A7)] The vanishing of the cross term in Eq. (A6) follows already from Hermiticity of H and L, because [H,rho] is anti-Hermitian and [L,[L,rho]] is Hermitian, so their product has zero trace. The assumption [L,H]=0 is only needed for the exact joint-eigenbasis cat-state formulas. The text could state this, since it makes the lower bound Eq. (7) more general than the stated assumption suggests.
  2. [Sec. A4, around Eq. (A39)] The sentence 'When deltaE*gamma is an integer multiple of pi' is confusing, since deltaE*gamma is a dimensionless combination and not a phase; if the intended condition is deltaE*t=n*pi, please state it explicitly. In addition, if the factor 2 in Eq. (A33d) is correct, then Eqs. (A37) and (A39) must be corrected accordingly.
  3. [Eq. (16) and Sec. A4] The notation hat(t)_opt for the variance of the O-based estimator is misleading, since the paper itself notes that the QCRB-saturating observable may depend on the parameter to be estimated. A neutral symbol such as hat(t)_O would avoid suggesting optimality that the estimator does not possess.
  4. [Paragraph after Eq. (8)] The phrase 'are respectively' is grammatically incomplete; it should be 'are, respectively' or the sentence should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QFI enhancement is derived from first principles, and the caveats (commuting Lindblad operators, stopwatch requirement, saturation claim) are scope/correctness issues, not input–output identifications.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central lower bounds, Eqs. (7) and (12), follow from the standard inequality F(λ) ≥ Tr((∂ρ/∂λ)^2) and the explicit Lindblad equation; Eq. (A6)–(A8) show the calculation, with the cross term vanishing because [H,L]=0. The exact cat-state formulas, Eqs. (8) and (13), are obtained by diagonalizing the explicit density matrix and applying the standard QFI eigenbasis formula (A4). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the enhancement regimes are produced by explicitly choosing dephasing durations, e.g., Eq. (A16) sets 2(δL)^2∫γ = ln2 so that the decay prefactor is 1/2, and Eq. (A29) does the same for frequency sensing. That is a protocol-design choice, not a hidden fit or a definition of the target quantity in terms of itself. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the author cites standard QFI results and prior unrelated works, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the author's own previous work. The Discussion's admitted limitation that 'all derivations assume Lindblad operators that commute with the sensor's Hamiltonian' is a genuine scope restriction, and the main text's stopwatch caveat after Eq. (11) is a practical limitation; both are flagged and weighed here. The Sec. A4 claim that the explicit observable O 'saturates' the quantum Cramér-Rao bound may be overstated at finite γ-dot (the error-propagation ratio appears to be 1/(ln2·γ-dot) instead of 1/(ln2·γ-dot + 1/2) in the time case), but that is a correctness/saturation issue, not a circular reduction: the QFI results themselves do not depend on that estimator. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum estimation theory and a specific open-system model. No new free parameters fitted to data are introduced; the protocol controls (dephasing rate, duration) are chosen by design. The main assumptions are the commutation [L,H]=0 and the cat-state initial condition, both stated explicitly.

free parameters (2)
  • dephasing duration t-t0 (time estimation) = sqrt(ln(2)) / (sqrt(γ̇) δL)
    Chosen so that the decoherence decay factor in Eq. (8) becomes 1/2, which is required for the enhancement condition (Eq. 9). This is a protocol control parameter, not fitted to data.
  • sensing time t (frequency estimation) = ln(2) / (2γ (δE)^2)
    Chosen so that the decay factor in Eq. (13) becomes 1/2, enabling the enhancement in Eq. (14). Again a protocol design choice, not a fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lindblad operator L is Hermitian and commutes with the Hamiltonian H ([L,H]=0).
    Used throughout the derivation of Eqs. (7), (8), (12), and (13); stated near Eq. (6). This kills the cross term in Eq. (A6).
  • domain assumption The initial state is a cat state: a superposition of two Hamiltonian eigenstates (GHZ for qubits, NOON for photons).
    Needed for the exact QFI formulas in Eqs. (8) and (13); introduced in Eq. (5) and used in the appendix around Eq. (A9).
  • standard math The quantum Cramér-Rao bound is saturable and the quantum Fisher information determines the minimum estimation error.
    Background for the entire argument, used to translate QFI values into estimation errors (Eqs. 1-4).
  • standard math The decomposition of the QFI into unitary and incoherent additive parts (Paris; Salvatori et al.).
    Motivates the search for noise-enhanced regimes; it is the starting point stated in the introduction and used in the derivation of the lower bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-enhanced quantum clocks and global field sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63XKRBCJ

@misc{pith2026250702071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-enhanced quantum clocks and global field sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63XKRBCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02071}
}
read the original abstract

I show that incoherent dynamics can lead to metrological advantages in quantum sensing. The results rely on the fact that incoherent dynamics lead to an additive contribution to the quantum Fisher information about time. Such an additive contribution can lead to a decrease in the error of optimal estimation protocols, as implied by the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound. I characterize regimes in which the estimation of a time interval or a frequency is enhanced by noise, thus identifying cases where incoherent dynamics serve as a metrological resource. I illustrate with protocols that display improved sensing of time intervals or global fields by qubit and photonic sensor networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noise-enhanced quantum clocks and global field sensors

    contains a prefactor 1/M to account for the statistical error when performing M measurements on M copies of the state ρ [45]. arXiv:2507.02071v1 [quant-ph] 2 Jul 2025 2 To find the minimum estimation error of a parameter, one can thus focus on the quantum Fisher information. Consider an ideal quantum sensor that evolves unitarily under a Hamiltonian H, una...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    L. O. D. Collaboration (LIGO O4 Detector Col- laboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041021 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

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

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    However, the state loses coherence as dephasing acts, which leads to a de- crease of both terms in the right-hand side of Eq

    further suggests that noise may enhance time estimation: for a given ρt, the term proportional to the dephasing rate γt increases the bound on the quan- tum Fisher information about time. However, the state loses coherence as dephasing acts, which leads to a de- crease of both terms in the right-hand side of Eq. ( 7). Thus, if incoherent dynamics can enha...

    work page

  5. [5]

    for t > t0, and (ii) one has access to a precise enough stopwatch that can determine a time interval t −t0 ∼ 1/δE (i.e., the stopwatch must be as precise as the original isolated sensor is). Such a pro- tocol could noise-enhance the accuracy of a clock (how precisely it can determine t), assuming access to a high- resolution stopwatch that can determine a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    for t > t0, I prove in Sec. A2 of the Appendix that the quantum Fisher information about time satisfies Fopen(t) ≥ ‖[H,ρ t]‖2 2 +γ2 t ‖[L, [L,ρ t]]‖2 2, (7) where ‖A‖2 := √ Tr (AA†) is the Hilbert-Schmidt op- erator norm. Recall that optimal estimators saturate the Cram´ er-Rao bound. Thus, the lower bound (

    work page

  7. [7]

    That is, t can be estimated with an error var(ˆtopt) ≤ 1/ ( ‖[H,ρ t]‖2 2 +γ2 t ‖[L, [L,ρ t]]‖2 2 )

    on 3 the quantum Fisher information sets an upper bound on the precision in estimating t by optimal proce- dures. That is, t can be estimated with an error var(ˆtopt) ≤ 1/ ( ‖[H,ρ t]‖2 2 +γ2 t ‖[L, [L,ρ t]]‖2 2 ) . Equation (

    work page

  8. [8]

    ( 12) suggests that dephasing may enhance the estimation of ω in certain regimes

    for time estimation, Eq. ( 12) suggests that dephasing may enhance the estimation of ω in certain regimes. For a sensor initialized in state (

    work page

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    ( 2) and ( 6) for time t < t0 and t > t0, respectively, the quantum Fisher information about ω is (see Sec

    that evolves ac- cording to Eqs. ( 2) and ( 6) for time t < t0 and t > t0, respectively, the quantum Fisher information about ω is (see Sec. A3 of the Appendix) Fopen(ω) = (δE)2 ω2 e−2(δE)2 ∫ t t0 γsds (13)   4(δE)2 ( ∫ t t0 γsds ) 2 ( 1 −e−2(δE)2 ∫ t t0 γsds ) +t2   . I...

  2. [10]

    I show this next

    and ( 14)] manifest in simple protocols that do not require error correction or error mitigation techniques. I show this next. Optimal estimators that benefit from noise Consider the canonical example described after Eq. ( 4), where an N -qubit sensor network with a Hamiltonian...

  3. [11]

    with |E1⟩ = |0⟩A ⊗ |N ⟩B ≡ | 0,N ⟩ and |E0⟩ = |N ⟩A ⊗ | 0⟩B ≡ | N, 0⟩ [49, 50]. The observable O := 5 |0,N ⟩⟨N, 0|+|N, 0⟩⟨0,N | [59, 60] can be used to estimate t and ω at noise-enhanced precisions that saturate the quantum Cram´ er-Rao bound, with expressions for the correspo...

  4. [12]

    E. S. Polzik, J. Carri, and H. J. Kimble, Spectroscopy with squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3020 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2006

  6. [14]

    H. Kwon, K. C. Tan, T. Volkoff, and H. Jeong, Nonclas- sicality as a quantifiable resource for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040503 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Lostaglio, Certifying quantum signatures in thermo- dynamics and metrology via contextuality of quantum linear response, Phys

    M. Lostaglio, Certifying quantum signatures in thermo- dynamics and metrology via contextuality of quantum linear response, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230603 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Ehrenberg, J

    A. Ehrenberg, J. Bringewatt, and A. V. Gorshkov, Minimum-entanglement protocols for function estima- tion, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033228 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    A. J. Brady, Y.-X. Wang, V. V. Albert, A. V. Gorshkov, and Q. Zhuang, Correlated noise estimation with quan- tum sensor networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17903 10.48550/arXiv.2412.17903 (2024)

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    J. F. Haase, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, J. Ko/suppress lodynski, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, Precision limits in quantum metrology with open quantum systems, Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol. 5, 13–39 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Datta, Sensing with quantum light: a perspective, Nanophotonics doi:10.1515/nanoph-2024-0649 (2025)

    A. Datta, Sensing with quantum light: a perspective, Nanophotonics doi:10.1515/nanoph-2024-0649 (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Escher, R

    B. Escher, R. de Matos Filho, and L. Davi- dovich, Quantum metrology for noisy systems, Brazilian Journal of Physics 41, 229 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

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

    2012

  15. [23]

    Tsang, Quantum metrology with open dynamical sys- tems, New J

    M. Tsang, Quantum metrology with open dynamical sys- tems, New J. Phys. 15, 073005 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Adaptive quantum metrology under general markovian noise, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041009 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Escher, R

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

    2011

  18. [26]

    Alipour, M

    S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi, and A. T. Rezakhani, Quan- tum metrology in open systems: Dissipative cram´ er-rao bound, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120405 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic theory of quantum channel estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 010343 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Y. L. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski, Quantum metrology with imperfect measurements, Nat. Commun. 13, 6971 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    A. Das, W. G´ orecki, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Uni- versal time scalings of sensitivity in markovian quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 111, L020403 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Matsuzaki, S

    Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsi- mons, Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012103 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Chaves, J

    R. Chaves, J. B. Brask, M. Markiewicz, J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski, and A. Ac´ ın, Noisy metrology beyond the standard quan- tum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120401 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Koppenh¨ ofer, P

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer, P. Groszkowski, H.-K. Lau, and A. Clerk, Dissipative superradiant spin amplifier for enhanced quantum sensing, PRX Quantum 3, 030330 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Niroula, J

    P. Niroula, J. Dolde, X. Zheng, J. Bringewatt, A. Ehren- berg, K. C. Cox, J. Thompson, M. J. Gullans, S. Kolkowitz, and A. V. Gorshkov, Quantum sensing with erasure qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 080801 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fr¨ owis, and B. Kraus, Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Miao, and H. Yuan, Quantum metrology enhanced by lever- aging informative noise with error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 190801 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achieving 6 the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quan- tum error correction, Nat. Commun. 9, 78 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Beau and A

    M. Beau and A. del Campo, Nonlinear quan- tum metrology of many-body open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010403 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    M. Beau, A. Chenu, J. Cao, and A. del Campo, Quantum simulation and quantum metrology of many-body decoherence, in Quantum Information and Measurement (QIM) 2017 (Optica Publishing Group, 2017) p. QF5B.3

    2017

  31. [39]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, A. del Campo, and A. N. Jordan, Super-heisenberg scaling in hamiltonian pa- rameter estimation in the long-range kitaev chain, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013133 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Deffner, Towards enhanced precision in thermometry with nonlinear qubits, QST 10, 025009 (2025)

    S. Deffner, Towards enhanced precision in thermometry with nonlinear qubits, QST 10, 025009 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Zanardi, M

    P. Zanardi, M. G. A. Paris, and L. Campos Venuti, Quan- tum criticality as a resource for quantum estimation, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042105 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Quantum critical metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 020402 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality-enhanced quantum sensing via continuous measurement, PRX Quantum 3, 010354 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    M. Yu, H. C. Nguyen, and S. Nimmrichter, Criticality-enhanced precision in phase thermome- try, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043094 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Ostermann and K

    L. Ostermann and K. Gietka, Temperature- enhanced critical quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 109, L050601 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Y.-X. Wang, J. Bringewatt, A. Seif, A. J. Brady, C. Oh, and A. V. Gorshkov, Exponential entanglement advantage in sensing correlated noise, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05878 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05878 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    J.-X. Peng, B. Zhu, W. Zhang, and K. Zhang, En- hanced quantum metrology with non-phase-covariant noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 090801 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Pastawski, L

    F. Pastawski, L. Clemente, and J. I. Cirac, Quan- tum memories based on engineered dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012304 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Chenu, M

    A. Chenu, M. Beau, J. Cao, and A. del Campo, Quantum simulation of generic many- body open system dynamics using classical noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 140403 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Engineered dissipation for quantum information science, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 660–671 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Sannia, F

    A. Sannia, F. Tacchino, I. Tavernelli, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Engineered dissipation to mitigate barren plateaus, npj Quantum Information 10, 81 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Martinez-Azcona, A

    P. Martinez-Azcona, A. Kundu, A. Saxena, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, Quantum dynamics with stochastic non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, arXiv (2024), 2407.07746 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  47. [55]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

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

    2009

  49. [57]

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

    1994

  50. [58]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, N. J. Cerf, and J. P. Dowling, Linear optics and projective measurements alone suf- fice to create large-photon-number path entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 030101 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Creation of large- photon-number path entanglement conditioned on pho- todetection, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052104 (2002)

    2002

  52. [60]

    Salvatori, A

    G. Salvatori, A. Mandarino, and M. G. A. Paris, Quan- tum metrology in Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick critical systems, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022111 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Erker, M

    P. Erker, M. T. Mitchison, R. Silva, M. P. Woods, N. Brunner, and M. Huber, Autonomous quantum clocks: Does thermodynamics limit our ability to measure time?, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031022 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Meier, E

    F. Meier, E. Schwarzhans, P. Erker, and M. Huber, Fun- damental accuracy-resolution trade-off for timekeeping devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220201 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    I. L. Egusquiza, L. J. Garay, and J. M. Raya, Quantum evolution according to real clocks, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3236 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Gambini, R

    R. Gambini, R. A. Porto, and J. Pullin, Realistic clocks, universal decoherence, and the black hole information paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 240401 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    Xuereb, P

    J. Xuereb, P. Erker, F. Meier, M. T. Mitchison, and M. Huber, Impact of imperfect timekeeping on quantum control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160204 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    G´ orecki, R

    W. G´ orecki, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, H. M. Wise- man, and D. W. Berry, π-corrected Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 030501 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Belliardo and V

    F. Belliardo and V. Giovannetti, Achieving Heisenberg scaling with maximally entangled states: An analytic upper bound for the attainable root-mean-square error, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042613 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone for interferometry, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325–2338 (2002)

    2002

  61. [69]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state, Nature 429, 161 (2004). 7 APPENDIX This Appendix includes useful expressions for the quantum Fisher in formation (Sec. A1) and derivations of some of the ...

    2004

  62. [70]

    (A22) This proves Eq. (

  63. [71]

    10 The quantum Fisher information about a global Hamiltonian p arameter for a cat state If starting in a cat state as in Eq

    in the main text. 10 The quantum Fisher information about a global Hamiltonian p arameter for a cat state If starting in a cat state as in Eq. ( A9) and suffering from energy decoherence, the state at time t is ρt = 1 2 [ |E0⟩⟨E0| + |E1⟩⟨E1| +eiωδǫte−ω2δǫ2 ∫ t t0 γsds |E0⟩⟨E1| ...

  64. [72]

    in the main text. 11 A regime where noise enhances estimation precision of a glob al Hamiltonian parameter Letγt =γ be constant and t0 = 0; i.e., the quantum sensor suffers from dephasing at a constant r ateγ throughout the whole frequency estimation protocol. Further, assume t...

  65. [73]

    in the main text. Meanwhile, the error in estimating ω is var(ˆωopt) = (∆O)2 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐∂⟨O⟩t ∂ω ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 2 = 1 − cos2(δEt)e−2δE 2 ∫ t t0 γsds ⏐ ⏐ ⏐δE ω t sin(δEt) + δE 2 ω ( ∫ t t0 γsds ) cos(δEt) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 2 e−2δE 2 ∫ t t0 γsds . (A37) The example at the end of Sec. A3 and in the main te...

Pith tools

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