Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Scaling Enhancement in Distributed Quantum Sensing via Bidirectional Causal Routing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A probe that loops a sensor network in both causal directions can estimate the average parameter with 1/N² precision, beating the 1/N Heisenberg scaling, without using entangled sensors.

desk verdict Solid theory on classical-switch distributed sensing; the experiment tests only common synchronized tilts, so the claimed demonstration of switch advantage does not hold as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.14708 v2 pith:UDWOC4JV submitted 2026-01-21 quant-ph physics.optics

Binke Xia , Zhaotong Cui , Jingzheng Huang , Yuxiang Yang , Guihua Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords distributedquantumsensingcausalordersuper-HeisenbergscalingFisherinformationbeam-tiltnoncommutativitycyclicnetworkweakvalueamplification
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 introduces a distributed sensing protocol in which a single probe travels around a cyclic network of N sensors in both forward and backward directions, controlled by a switch ancilla. Because free-space propagation and the local momentum-kick sensing operation do not commute, the round-trip routing converts propagation from a passive loss into an active metrological resource that amplifies the accumulated signal by an N² factor. The authors claim the quantum Cramér–Rao bound for estimating the average tilt angle scales as 1/N², both for a coherent quantum switch and for a simple probabilistic mixture of causal orders. This super-Heisenberg scaling does not require multipartite entanglement, and the paper demonstrates it experimentally in a free-space optical network of up to 9 beam-tilt sensors, reaching picoradian-level precision. If correct, this would establish routing geometry and propagation dynamics as practical, scalable resources for distributed quantum sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the noncommutativity between the sensing Hamiltonian (momentum kick, exp(−iθX)) and the free-space propagation Hamiltonian (exp(−izP²/2k)). This noncommutativity converts the propagation distance into an effective momentum amplification: the probe acquires a spatial displacement proportional to (z̄/2k)N²θ̄ when traversed in both causal orders. A switch ancilla—initialized either as a coherent superposition or as a classical mixture—controls the direction of traversal; a parity operation on the reverse branch plus weak-value post-selection (with imaginary weak value Aw ≈ i/ε) provide the experimental readout, mapping the amplified spatial shift to a measurable transverse

What would settle it

Measure the estimation precision (or the quantum Fisher information) for a fixed number of sensors N as the applied tilt angle θ̄ is increased from near zero to larger values. If the precision degrades faster than the prediction based on the g=0 bound, the claimed 1/N² scaling does not hold for finite signals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that by sending the probe through a cyclic network in a superposition—or even in a classical probabilistic mixture—of two opposite causal orders, the estimation precision for the average parameter θ̄ improves as δθ̄ ∝ 1/N². The enhancement arises because the momentum-kick sensing unitaries exp(−iθX) and the free-space propagation unitaries exp(−izP²/2k) do not commute, so the propagation displaces the probe by an amount proportional to the accumulated momentum kick, and traversing the network in both orders adds these displacements constructively. The asymptotic QCRB is shown to be lim_{N→∞} C_{θ̄}/N⁻⁴ = k²/(z̄² ⟨ΔP²⟩ᵢ), independent of whether the switch is quantum or cl

Load-bearing premise

The 1/N² quantum Cramér–Rao bound is derived at the single point g₁=g₂=0 (zero tilt), and the paper assumes this also represents small but finite tilt amplitudes; if the quantum Fisher information drops away from g=0, the asymptotic scaling would not describe realistic signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Distributed quantum sensing can achieve super-Heisenberg scaling without multipartite entanglement, using a single coherent probe and a cyclic network.
  • A classical probabilistic mixture of causal orders suffices for the 1/N² scaling; no coherent quantum switch is required for the theoretical limit.
  • The protocol is robust to classical noise and can be implemented with coherent light sources, avoiding the fragility of squeezed or entangled states.
  • The demonstrated picoradian-level beam-tilt sensitivity in a 9-sensor network suggests practical applications in interferometric alignment, vibration monitoring, and acoustic sensing.
  • The prediction that measured SNR grows quadratically with sensor count provides a clear, directly testable signature of the enhancement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-parameter QFI bound holds for finite tilts, similar noncommutativity between propagation and non-commuting sensing operations (e.g., dispersion and phase shifts in fibers) could yield analogous N² enhancements in other continuous-variable sensing platforms.
  • The paper's demonstration that a classical mixture of orders matches the quantum switch suggests that the phenomenon is more about the geometry of opposing propagation paths than about indefinite causal order; this may simplify practical deployment but also invites scrutiny about whether the resource is truly quantum.
  • The scaling relies on the noise floor being independent of N; a natural test is to measure the noise floor as sensors are added. If technical noise grows with N, the practical advantage will saturate earlier than the zero-noise prediction.
  • The weak-value amplification used here converts the amplified spatial shift into an imaginary weak value; the same technique could be used to probe other nonlinear signal accumulations in optical networks, potentially extending the approach to distributed phase or displacement sensing.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a distributed quantum sensing protocol in a cyclic network where a single probe sequentially interrogates N sensors in two opposite causal orders, controlled either by a quantum or a classical switch ancilla. The central theoretical claim is that noncommutativity between free-space propagation and local momentum-kick sensing turns propagation into a metrological resource, yielding a 1/N^2 precision scaling for the average of independent parameters without multipartite entanglement. The authors report an experimental implementation using a free-space Sagnac interferometer with up to 9 sensors and synchronized beam tilts, claiming picoradian-level precision and a fitted scaling δφ_min ≈ 4.77/(N^2+4.25N) nrad. The supplementary materials contain the QFIM calculations for the fixed-order, quantum-switch, and classical-switch protocols, as well as a small-parameter analysis of estimating from the probe alone.

Significance. If the theoretical claim is correct, this is a substantial conceptual advance: it identifies propagation noncommutativity and causal-order mixing as resources that can beat the conventional 1/N Heisenberg scaling for distributed sensing without entangled probes. The supplementary QFIM derivations are internally coherent and provide explicit scaling constants, and the classical-switch result is a nontrivial extension of prior indefinite-causal-order metrology. The experimental effort, with reconfigurable up-to-9-sensor network and weak-value readout, is also potentially valuable. However, as detailed below, the experimental validation is mismatched with the theoretical claim: the experiment applies synchronized identical tilts, which reduces the task to estimating a single common parameter, for which the fixed-order protocol already exhibits the same N^2 geometric amplification. Thus the experimental demonstration, as presented, does not support the central advantage of causal-order switching.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (14); Supplementary Eq. (S12)] The experiment applies synchronized identical tilts to all sensors, so it estimates a single common parameter φ. For this task, the fixed-order evolution in Eq. (S12) already produces a momentum displacement g1/k with g1 = φ Σ_{j=0}^{N-1} z_j (N−j), which scales as O(N^2) for equal spacings. Thus a fixed-order sequential network would also produce an SNR that grows ~N^2, and the observed scaling in Figs. 4–6 does not demonstrate an advantage of causal-order switching. The theoretical fixed-order QCRB in Eqs. (S17)–(S18) applies to estimating the average of N independent unknown θ_j, not to the synchronized-common-tilt experiment. The manuscript must either test independent parameters or compare the switched network against a fixed-order baseline under the same common-tilt conditions.
  2. [Fig. 6; Section II 'Experimental results'] The '1/N–scaling precision limit' shown in Fig. 6 is generated by replacing the N^2 term with 1 in the same fitted relation δφ_min ≈ 4.77/(N^2+4.25N) that is the paper's own claim. This is not an independent baseline: it uses the fitted coefficients from the switched-network data and therefore cannot serve as a comparison. A valid Heisenberg-limit baseline must be derived and preferably measured for the fixed-order protocol under identical conditions (same WVA, same detection, same common-tilt signal). Without this, the statement that the experiment surpasses Heisenberg scaling is not supported.
  3. [Discussion; Supplementary Note 1.5] The claim that the 1/N^2 scaling 'still holds' for estimating the average from the final mixed probe state alone is qualified in Supplementary Note 1.5 as being derived only at g1=g2=0: 'it is equivalent to calculate the QFIM at g=0.' The main text and abstract do not prominently state this small-parameter restriction. Since this caveat is explicitly acknowledged in the supplement, it should be brought into the main text to avoid overstating the classical-mixture result. The full joint-state classical-switch QCRB in Eq. (S29) appears exact, so this is a limitation of the trace-out version rather than of the central joint-state result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Note 1.4] The spectral decomposition states '|Ψ−⟩ = |ψ−⟩ ⊗ |0⟩'; this should be |ψ−⟩ ⊗ |1⟩. The subsequent orthogonality argument relies on the ancilla states being orthogonal.
  2. [Fig. 6] The axis labels are garbled ('103 (peJd) U!'); they should be readable and include units.
  3. [Methods B] The noise-floor independence assumption is stated as 'approximately independent of the number of sensors' but is not directly characterized. With increasing N the interferometer path length and number of mirrors change; even with stabilized received power, technical noise could vary. A direct measurement of the noise floor versus N would strengthen the experimental scaling claim.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'sinuous' should be 'sinusoidal', 'spec trums' should be 'spectrums', 'of of' appears in Fig. 4 caption, and some equation references in the main text are to the supplement without equation numbers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theoretical QFI derivation is self-contained, but the experimental 'beyond Heisenberg' claim is circular: the 1/N baseline is generated from the same fitted curve as the claim, and the synchronized-tilt experiment does not isolate causal-order switching.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, Eq. (15), Fig. 6]
    "According to Eq. (15), we fit the dependence of δ ¯φmin on the number N of sensors, obtaining a precision limit δ ¯φmin ≈ 4.77/(N 2 + 4.25N ) nrad from the experimental data; the fitted precision limit is also shown in Fig. 6. For comparison, we also plot a 1 /N–scaling precision limit in Fig. 6 by replacing the N 2 term with 1 in our fitted relation between δ ¯φmin and N."

    The '1/N Heisenberg limit' is not an independent baseline: it is produced from the same fitted relation δφmin ≈ 4.77/(N^2 + 4.25N) nrad by deleting the N^2 term, retaining the same fitted prefactor 4.77 and the same 4.25 term. The experimental precision points were themselves obtained by fitting SNR-vs-voltage lines and then fitting those inferred δφmin values to Eq. (15), the theory's own functional form. Comparing that fit to a rescaled version of itself cannot demonstrate 'beyond Heisenberg' scaling; the claimed advantage is forced by construction.

  2. other [Experimental setup, Fig. 4; Methods B; Eqs. (2), (S15)–(S18)]
    "Synchronized 10 kHz sinusoidal drive signals from waveform generators were applied to the PZT chips to produce synchronized tilt modulation at each sensing node."

    With synchronized identical tilts θj = φ, the fixed-order evolution already contains the same N^2 displacement: Eq. (2) defines g1 = Σ zj Σ_{l>j} θl, which for θl = φ equals φ Σ zj (N−j) ∼ N^2 φ. Thus the measured SNR ∝ N^2 follows from single-direction noncommutativity and does not require causal-order switching. The 1/N Heisenberg baseline from Eqs. (S15)–(S18) is derived for estimating the average of N independent θj, so it is not the relevant comparator for this common-tilt experiment. The experimental scaling is matched to the theory's own functional form without discriminating the claimed switching advantage.

full rationale

The theoretical core is not circular: the protocol is defined by explicit unitaries (Eq. 1, S19, S27), and the QFIMs/QCRBs are computed from standard SLD formulas, with Eq. (4)/(S25)/(S30) obtained as limits of those expressions rather than from data. There is no load-bearing self-citation: Refs. [34,35] are prior work by a coauthor, but they are used as motivation/context, not as the derivation. The main circularity is in the experimental validation. The measured precision is obtained by fitting the data to the theory's own curve, and the Heisenberg baseline in Fig. 6 is made by deleting the N^2 term from that same fitted curve, so the 'beyond Heisenberg' conclusion reduces to a self-comparison of a fitted function. The synchronized-tilt design further means the experiment tests a common parameter for which fixed-order propagation already gives N^2 amplification; the theoretical 1/N baseline applies to independent parameters and is therefore not a valid control. Supplementary Note 1.5 explicitly limits the mixed-probe N^-4 result to the g=0 regime; this is an acknowledged assumption rather than circularity, but it weakens the finite-signal claim. Overall, the theoretical scaling derivation stands on its own, while the experimental demonstration of an advantage over Heisenberg scaling is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The QFI derivation rests on standard estimation theory and the paraxial X,P algebra; no new physical entities are invented. The only fitted inputs enter through experimental calibration, and the experimental scaling claim additionally assumes an N-independent noise floor.

free parameters (2)
  • N²-term coefficient A = 4.77 nrad in δφ_min ≈ 4.77/(N²+4.25N) nrad
    Fitted to the 9 experimental precision points in Fig. 6; absorbs kε/(2z ΔP_i), which is never independently calibrated.
  • linear-term coefficient B = 4.25 dimensionless
    Fitted linear-in-N coefficient; corresponds to (1+2z_in/z), but z_in is not independently measured or reported in the main text.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard QFI/QCRB formalism with SLD operators
    Used throughout Supplementary Note 1, Eqs. (S1)-(S10), to define precision limits.
  • domain assumption Paraxial free-space propagation U_z=exp(-i z P²/2k) and tilt operation U_θ=exp(-iθ X) with [X,P]=i
    Introduced in Section II; defines the physical model for beam-tilt sensing.
  • standard math BCH recombination in the Heisenberg-Weyl algebra, with c-number θ² phases collected as global phases
    Used to derive Eqs. (1), (S12), and (S19); relies on the X,P algebra closing.
  • domain assumption Small-parameter regime g1,g2 ≪ 1; QFIM evaluated at g=0 for the mixed-probe-only estimation
    Supplementary Note 1.5 explicitly states the N^-4 scaling is shown for small parameters by calculating the QFIM at g=0.
  • domain assumption Parity operation on the reverse branch flips the sign of each sensor (π†Xπ=-X) and is realized by an odd number of mirrors
    Section II/III: 'we apply the parity operation to the reverse propagation branch ... satisfying π†Xπ = -X'.
  • domain assumption The measured spectrum-analyzer noise floor is independent of the number of sensors N
    Methods IV B: 'the detected noise floor ... consists of shot noise, electrical noise and thermal noise, which are independent of the number of sensors'; this underpins Eq. (16) and the inferred precision scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Enhancement in Distributed Quantum Sensing via Bidirectional Causal Routing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDWOC4JV

@misc{pith2026260114708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Enhancement in Distributed Quantum Sensing via Bidirectional Causal Routing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDWOC4JV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.14708}
}
read the original abstract

Sensing networks underpin applications ranging from fundamental physics to real-world engineering. Distributed quantum sensing (DQS) can improve measurement performance, but existing protocols typically require multipartite entanglement, which poses substantial challenges for scalable implementation. Here, we introduce a DQS protocol based on bidirectional causal routing in a cyclic network, where a single probe sequentially interrogates M independent sensors along two opposite causal routes. By exploiting the noncommutativity between inter-sensor propagation and local sensing operations, the protocol turns propagation from a passive transport process into a source of sensing information, yielding an asymptotic 1/M^2 scaling of the estimation precision without multipartite entanglement. We experimentally demonstrate the protocol for distributed beam-tilt sensing in a free-space quantum optical network comprising up to 9 sensors, achieving picoradian-level precision in estimating the average tilt angle. These results identify propagation dynamics and routing geometry as active metrological resources for scalable distributed quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14708 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of distributed quantum sensing within a cyc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the experimental scheme with weak value a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental setup. A 780 nm laser beam is coupled into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Detected spectrums for 1 to 9 sensors. 5 mV peak-to-peak dri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Experimental results of detected signal-to-noise rati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental results of measurement precision for the ave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2017

  2. [2]

    sandwich

    Notably, although we employ a pure state as the switch ancilla, our theory does not require the ancilla to be in a pure state. This choice is motivated b y practical considerations: first, the polarization of coherent light is typically fixed; second, a pure-state ancilla en ables the utilization of the weak value amplification (WV A) technique, which can fu...

  3. [3]

    Abadie, B

    J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. Abernath y, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, C. Affeldt, B. Allen, G. S. Allen, E. Amador Ceron, D. Amariutei, R. S. Amin, S. B. Anderson, W . G. Anderson, K. Arai, M. A. Arain, M. C. Araya, S. M. Aston, D. Atkinson, P. Aufmuth, C. Aulbert, B. E. Aylott, S. Babak, P. Baker, S. Ballmer, D. Barker, B. Barr, P. Barri...

    2011

  4. [4]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, et al. , Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detectors in the era of gravit ational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, et al. , Matter-wave atomic gradiometer interferometric sensor (magis- 100), Quantum Science and Technology 6, 044003 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Op tical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Bongs, M

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Condon, E. R asel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 731 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    J. S. Bennett, B. E. Vyhnalek, H. Greenall, E. M. Bridge, F. G otardo, S. Forstner, G. I. Harris, F. A. Miranda, and W. P. Bowen, Precision magnetometers for aerospace applications: A re view, Sensors 21, 10.3390/s21165568 (2021)

    doi:10.3390/s21165568 2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    W. W.-W. Hsiao, Y. Y. Hui, P.-C. Tsai, and H.-C. Chang, Flu orescent nanodiamond: A versatile tool for long-term cell tracking, super-resolution imaging, and nanoscale temperature sensing, Accounts of Chemical Research 49, 400 (2016), pMID: 26882283, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac...

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Probing condensedmatter physics with magnetometry based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 17088 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    K. O. Ho, Y. Shen, Y. Y. Pang, W. K. Leung, N. Zhao, and S. Yang, Diamond quantum sensors: from physics to applications on condensed matter research, Functional Diamond 1, 160 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/26941112.2021.196 4926

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Rubio, P

    J. Rubio, P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, and J. A. Dunningham, Qu antum sensing networks for the estimation of linear functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 344001 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Qua ntum Science and Technology 6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

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

    2018

  8. [16]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Distributed quantum sensing using continuous-variable multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A . V. Gorshkov, Optimal and secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

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

    2018

  11. [19]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Multiparameter squee zing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nature Communications 11, 3817 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Liu, Y.-Z

    L.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, Y.- Y. Fei, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Distributed quantum phase estimation with entangled photons , Nature Photonics 15, 137 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Zhao, Y.-Z

    S.-R. Zhao, Y.-Z. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, J.-Y. Guan, W. Zhang , C.-L. Li, B. Bai, M.-H. Li, Y. Liu, L. You, J. Zhang, J. Fan, F. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Field demonstration of distribu ted quantum sensing without post-selection, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031009 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

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

    2024

  15. [23]

    Liu, K.-X

    B. Liu, K.-X. Yang, Y.-L. Mao, L. Feng, B. Guo, S. Xu, H. Ch en, Z.-D. Li, and J. Fan, Experimental adaptive bayesian estimation for a linear function of distributed phases in photo nic quantum networks, Optica 11, 1419 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Ge hring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-va riable entangled network, Nature Physics 16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Y. Xia, W. Li, W. Clark, D. Hart, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhang, Demon stration of a reconfigurable entangled radio-frequency photonic sensor network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 150502 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Y. Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sensing, Nature Photonics 17, 470 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quant um information processing: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016001 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zhong, Y

    H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, W. Li, L.-C. Peng, Z.-E. Su, Y. Hu, Y.- M. He, X. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, L. You, X.-L. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Li, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, a nd J.-W. Pan, 12-photon entanglement and scalable scattershot boson sampling with optimal ent...

    2018

  21. [29]

    X. Jia, C. Zhai, X. Zhu, C. You, Y. Cao, X. Zhang, Y. Zheng, Z. Fu, J. Mao, T. Dai, L. Chang, X. Su, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Continuous-variable multipartite entanglement in an integrated microcomb, Nature 639, 329 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

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

    2011

  23. [31]

    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 , Nature Communications 3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Genera lized limits for single-parameter quantum estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 090401 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    S. M. Roy and S. L. Braunstein, Exponentially enhanced qu antum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 220501 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Napolitano, M

    M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. J. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Interaction-based quantum metrology showing scaling beyond the heisenberg limit, Nature 471, 486 (2011), napolitano, M Koschorreck, M Dubost, B Behbood, N Sewell, R J Mitchell, M W eng Rese...

    2011

  27. [35]

    doi: 10.1038/nature09778

    doi

  28. [36]

    X. Zhao, Y. Yang, and G. Chiribella, Quantum metrology wit h indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 190503 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    P. Yin, X. Zhao, Y. Yang, Y. Guo, W.-H. Zhang, G.-C. Li, Y. -J. Han, B.-H. Liu, J.-S. Xu, G. Chiribella, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental super-heisenberg quantu m metrology with indefinite gate order, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-023-02046-y (2023)

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2006

  31. [39]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in qu antum metrology, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T.C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Vajente, Y

    G. Vajente, Y. Huang, M. Isi, J. C. Driggers, J. S. Kissel, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, and S. Vitale, Machine-learning nonstationary 12 noise out of gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 101, 042003 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

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

    2024

  36. [44]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Miao, and H. Yuan, Quantum met rology enhanced by leveraging informative noise with error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 190801 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    N. Kong, H. Wang, M. Tian, Y. Xu, G. Chen, Y. Xiang, and Q. H e, Noncommutativity as a universal characterization for enhanced quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 010201 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron, Q uantum computations without definite causal structure, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022318 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Optimal strategies of q uantum metrology with a strict hierarchy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 070803 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Goswami, C

    K. Goswami, C. Giarmatzi, M. Kewming, F. Costa, C. Brancia rd, J. Romero, and A. G. White, Indefinite causal order in a quantum switch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090503 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Ultrasensitive beam deflection measurement via interferometric weak value amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 173601 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    B. Xia, J. Huang, H. Li, H. Wang, and G. Zeng, Toward incomp atible quantum limits on multiparameter estimation, Nature Communications 14, 1021 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    A. N. Jordan, J. Mart´ ınez-Rinc´ on, and J. C. Howell, Technical advantages for weak-value amplification: When less is more, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011031 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    B. Xia, J. Huang, C. Fang, H. Li, and G. Zeng, High-precisi on multiparameter weak measurement with hermite-gaussian pointer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 034023 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    super-Heisenberg-scaling

    B. Xia, J. Huang, H. Li, M. Liu, T. Xiao, C. Fang, and G. Zen g, Ultrasensitive measurement of angular rotations via a hermite-gaussian pointer, Photon. Res. 10, 2816 (2022). Supplementary Materials for Scaling Enhancement in Distributed Quantum Sensi ng via Causal Order Switc...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.