arxiv: 2604.08871 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Beating three-parameter precision trade-offs with entangling collective measurements

Simon K. Yung , Wen-Zhe Yan , Lan-Tian Feng , Aritra Das , Jiayi Qin , Guang-Can Guo , Ping Koy Lam , Jie Zhao

show 5 more authors

Zhibo Hou Lorcan O. Conlon Syed M. Assad Xi-Feng Ren Guo-Yong Xiang

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum tomographycollective measurementsentanglementmulti-parameter estimationBloch vectorprecision trade-offsphotonic circuitqubit

0 comments

The pith

Entangling collective measurements on two qubits surpass the three-parameter precision trade-offs of any individual measurement scheme.

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

The paper establishes that joint measurements performed on two identically prepared qubits can extract the three components of a qubit's Bloch vector more precisely than is possible with any sequence of separate measurements on single qubits. This matters because quantum incompatibility normally forces unavoidable trade-offs when estimating multiple non-commuting observables at once. The authors derive the optimal collective measurement strategy and implement it experimentally on a programmable photonic circuit. Their results show a clear violation of the bound that applies to entanglement-free schemes. A reader would care because the demonstration extends the known benefit of collective measurements from two parameters into the three-parameter regime that is central to full quantum state tomography.

Core claim

Optimal entangling collective measurements on two qubits achieve a tomography precision for the three Bloch vector components that violates the entanglement-free trade-off relation, with the experimental data showing an average violation of 16 standard deviations and thereby confirming that collective measurements can exceed the fundamental limits set by quantum incompatibility in the three-parameter setting.

What carries the argument

The optimal entangling collective measurement on two identically prepared qubits, which jointly estimates the three Bloch vector components by exploiting entanglement between the copies.

If this is right

No sequence of separate single-qubit measurements can reach the precision level demonstrated by the collective scheme.
The fundamental trade-off relation derived for entanglement-free measurements is not a hard limit when collective measurements are allowed.
Quantum state tomography for a qubit can be performed with higher overall precision by using two-copy entangling operations.
The advantage of collective measurements extends beyond the two-parameter case into the three-parameter regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same principle could be tested in higher-dimensional systems where multi-parameter trade-offs are even more restrictive.
Practical sensing or metrology protocols might achieve better performance by replacing separate measurements with joint operations on multiple copies.
Further work could explore whether the observed advantage grows with more than two copies or with different noise models.

Load-bearing premise

The two qubits must be identically prepared and the derivation of the optimal collective measurement and the individual-measurement bound must hold without unaccounted noise or state-preparation imperfections.

What would settle it

A repeated experiment in which the precision achieved by the implemented collective measurement fails to exceed the calculated bound for any individual measurement scheme beyond statistical error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08871 by Aritra Das, Guang-Can Guo, Guo-Yong Xiang, Jiayi Qin, Jie Zhao, Lan-Tian Feng, Lorcan O. Conlon, Ping Koy Lam, Simon K. Yung, Syed M. Assad, Wen-Zhe Yan, Xi-Feng Ren, Zhibo Hou.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Two-parameter trade-off relations for each pair of parameters can be combined to obtain a three-parameter trade-off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Experimental setup based on silicon integrated optics. A 1561.42 nm herald single photon generated by an integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Experimental results for the optimal two-copy qubit state tomography with true parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Weighted mean squared error traces for non-optimized parameter values. Left-to-right, the parameters are set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum-mechanical incompatibility, which precludes the simultaneous precise measurement of non-commuting observables, imposes fundamental limits on the rate at which classical information can be extracted. While the potential to surpass these limits using entangling collective measurements has been explored for two parameters, the regime of three or more parameters remains largely unexplored despite its fundamental and technological importance. Here, we investigate the three-parameter trade-off relations for estimating the Bloch vector components of a qubit, comparing conventional individual measurements with entangling collective measurements. We theoretically derive and experimentally implement optimal collective measurements on two identically prepared qubits using a programmable photonic circuit. Our experimental results demonstrate a clear violation of the entanglement-free trade-off relation -- by an average of 16 standard deviations -- achieving a tomography precision beyond the reach of any individual measurement scheme. This work directly confirms that optimal collective measurements can surpass the fundamental quantum limits of individual schemes in a three-parameter setting -- thereby deepening our understanding of quantum uncertainty relations beyond the two-parameter regime and providing a clear strategy to overcome the precision trade-offs imposed by quantum incompatibility.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The experiment claims a 16-sigma beat of the three-parameter bound with collective measurements on two qubits, but the result stands or falls on whether the theoretical limit was evaluated on the actual noisy states rather than ideal ones.

read the letter

This paper takes the two-parameter collective measurement results and extends them to three parameters for qubit Bloch vector estimation. They derive the optimal entangling measurement for two identically prepared qubits and implement it in a photonic circuit, reporting an average 16-sigma violation of the individual-measurement trade-off. That is the core new result: a concrete experimental demonstration in the three-parameter regime that had stayed mostly theoretical until now. The photonic setup is practical and the reported significance is high, so the data appear to show a real advantage over separate measurements. The theory section supplies the bound and the optimal collective strategy, which fills the gap noted in the abstract. The citation pattern follows the standard two-parameter papers without obvious omissions. The main soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The violation only counts if the entanglement-free bound was calculated for the real prepared states, including any finite fidelity, distinguishability between the two qubits, or other imperfections. If the bound instead assumes perfect pure states while the experiment has residual noise, the comparison becomes invalid and the 16-sigma figure overstates the achievement. The abstract says the qubits are identically prepared, but the full error analysis and state tomography data would need checking to confirm the bound matches the actual experiment. This is aimed at people working on multi-parameter quantum metrology and incompatibility. A reader who cares about experimental tests of quantum limits will get value from the numbers and the circuit details. I would bring it to a reading group to walk through the bound derivation and the raw data tables. It deserves peer review because the experimental claim is sharp enough to be worth referee scrutiny, even if revisions on the bound calculation are likely needed.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript theoretically derives optimal entangling collective measurements on two identically prepared qubits and experimentally implements them via a programmable photonic circuit to estimate the three Bloch vector components. It reports that these measurements violate the entanglement-free three-parameter trade-off by an average of 16 standard deviations, achieving tomography precision beyond any individual measurement scheme.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing the bound calculation, this work meaningfully extends multi-parameter quantum metrology beyond the two-parameter regime by providing the first experimental demonstration of collective-measurement advantage for three parameters. The photonic implementation offers a concrete, programmable platform that could guide future sensing protocols, and the quantitative violation (if robust) supplies falsifiable evidence for the theoretical trade-off relations.

major comments (1)

[Abstract, theoretical derivation, and experimental methods] The 16-sigma violation is load-bearing for the central claim. The abstract states that the qubits are 'identically prepared' and that the entanglement-free bound is violated, but the comparison is only valid if the bound is evaluated on the actual experimental states (including preparation noise, finite fidelity, and any distinguishability between the two qubits) rather than ideal pure states. Please specify in the theoretical derivation and methods sections exactly how the bound is computed from the reconstructed density matrices and show the numerical values used for the experimental states.

minor comments (2)

[Results figures] In the figure captions reporting the violation, explicitly define how the standard deviations are calculated and whether they incorporate all sources of experimental uncertainty.
[Introduction] The notation for the three-parameter trade-off relation should be introduced with a brief reminder of the two-parameter case to improve accessibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying this important point about the validity of the bound comparison. We have revised the manuscript to address the concern directly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract, theoretical derivation, and experimental methods] The 16-sigma violation is load-bearing for the central claim. The abstract states that the qubits are 'identically prepared' and that the entanglement-free bound is violated, but the comparison is only valid if the bound is evaluated on the actual experimental states (including preparation noise, finite fidelity, and any distinguishability between the two qubits) rather than ideal pure states. Please specify in the theoretical derivation and methods sections exactly how the bound is computed from the reconstructed density matrices and show the numerical values used for the experimental states.

Authors: We agree that the comparison is only rigorous when the entanglement-free bound is evaluated on the actual experimental states. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection in the theoretical derivation that details the procedure: the reconstructed two-qubit density matrix is obtained via standard quantum state tomography on the prepared states; the individual Bloch vectors, purities, and any distinguishability (off-diagonal coherence terms between the two qubits) are extracted; these parameters are inserted into the generalized three-parameter trade-off expression that accounts for mixed states and non-identical preparations. The numerical values of the reconstructed density matrices, the resulting bound, and the updated violation (still 16 standard deviations on average) are now reported in the experimental methods section. This revision confirms that the reported advantage persists under realistic experimental conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: theoretical bound derived independently of experimental data

full rationale

The paper states it theoretically derives the optimal collective measurement and the entanglement-free three-parameter trade-off bound, then implements the measurement experimentally on identically prepared qubits and reports a violation. No equations or steps in the abstract or context reduce the bound to a fit from the same dataset, a self-definition, or a self-citation chain that substitutes for the derivation. The comparison is between an a-priori theoretical limit and measured performance; any mismatch between ideal-state assumptions and actual preparation noise is a validity concern for the 16-sigma claim, not a circularity in the derivation itself. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are extractable. The work rests on standard quantum mechanics of qubit states and projective measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1090 out tokens · 38615 ms · 2026-05-10T18:04:42.522820+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We use the Nagaoka–Hayashi Cramér–Rao bound (NHCRB) ... for single-copy and two-copy measurements ... VxVyVz − VxVy − VxVz − VyVz ≥0, Vi≥1
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

three-parameter trade-off relations for estimating the Bloch vector components of a qubit

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

As a result, the collective measurement Π(2) surpasses the single-copy limit and saturates any point on the two-copy trade-off surface

The trade-off surface can be attained by selecting the coefficientsα ±i, which are de- fined by the weights for which the measurement is op- timal, and are detailed in the End Matter. As a result, the collective measurement Π(2) surpasses the single-copy limit and saturates any point on the two-copy trade-off surface. Similarly to the single-copy measurem...

work page 2024
[2]

Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik43, 172 (1927)

W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik43, 172 (1927)

work page 1927
[3]

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 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imag- ing, Physics Letters A384, 126311 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. G´ orecki, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher in- 6 formation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical53, 363001 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Physical Review A94, 052108 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Physical Review Letters96, 010401 (2006)

work page 2006
[8]

J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics4, 810 (2008)

work page 2008
[9]

C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

work page 1981
[10]

H. P. Robertson, The Uncertainty Principle, Physical Re- view34, 163 (1929)

work page 1929
[11]

Schr¨ odinger, Zum heisenbergschen unsch¨ arfeprinzip, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse14, 296 (1930)

E. Schr¨ odinger, Zum heisenbergschen unsch¨ arfeprinzip, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse14, 296 (1930)

work page 1930
[12]

Pirandola, U

S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Vil- loresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in quantum cryptogra- phy, Advances in Optics and Photonics12, 1012 (2020)

work page 2020
[13]

Bia lynicki-Birula and J

I. Bia lynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Uncertainty rela- tions for information entropy in wave mechanics, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics44, 129 (1975)

work page 1975
[14]

M. H. Partovi, Majorization formulation of uncer- tainty in quantum mechanics, Physical Review A84, 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052117 (2011)

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.052117 2011
[15]

Ozawa, Universally valid reformulation of the Heisen- berg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement, Physical Review A67, 042105 (2003)

M. Ozawa, Universally valid reformulation of the Heisen- berg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement, Physical Review A67, 042105 (2003)

work page 2003
[16]

Busch, P

P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, Proof of Heisen- berg’s Error-Disturbance Relation, Physical Review Let- ters111, 160405 (2013)

work page 2013
[17]

Branciard, Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance re- lations for incompatible quantum measurements, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110, 6742 (2013)

C. Branciard, Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance re- lations for incompatible quantum measurements, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110, 6742 (2013)

work page 2013
[18]

H. P. Robertson, An Indeterminacy Relation for Sev- eral Observables and Its Classical Interpretation, Physi- cal Review46, 794 (1934)

work page 1934
[19]

M. D. Vidrighin, G. Donati, M. G. Genoni, X.-M. Jin, W. S. Kolthammer, M. S. Kim, A. Datta, M. Barbi- eri, and I. A. Walmsley, Joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion for quantum metrology, Nature Commu- nications5, 3532 (2014)

work page 2014
[20]

Hou, J.-F

Z. Hou, J.-F. Tang, J. Shang, H. Zhu, J. Li, Y. Yuan, K.- D. Wu, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Determin- istic realization of collective measurements via photonic quantum walks, Nature Communications9, 1414 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

Roccia, I

E. Roccia, I. Gianani, L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, F. Somma, M. G. Genoni, and M. Barbieri, Entan- gling measurements for multiparameter estimation with two qubits, Quantum Science and Technology3, 01LT01 (2018)

work page 2018
[22]

L. O. Conlon, T. Vogl, C. D. Marciniak, I. Pogorelov, S. K. Yung, F. Eilenberger, D. W. Berry, F. S. Santana, R. Blatt, T. Monz, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ap- proaching optimal entangling collective measurements on quantum computing platforms, Nature Physics19, 351 (2023)

work page 2023
[23]

L. O. Conlon, F. Eilenberger, P. K. Lam, and S. M. As- sad, Discriminating mixed qubit states with collective measurements, Communications Physics6, 1 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

K. Zhou, C. Yi, W.-Z. Yan, Z. Hou, H. Zhu, G.-Y. Xi- ang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental Realization of Genuine Three-Copy Collective Measurements for Op- timal Information Extraction, Physical Review Letters 134, 210201 (2025)

work page 2025
[25]

Gaikwad, M

A. Gaikwad, M. S. Torres, S. Ahmed, and A. F. Kockum, Gradient-descent methods for fast quantum state to- mography, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045055 (2025)

work page 2025
[26]

Hansenne, R

K. Hansenne, R. Qu, L. T. Weinbrenner, C. De Gois, H. Wang, Y. Ming, Z. Yang, P. Horodecki, W. Gao, and O. G¨ uhne, Optimal Overlapping Tomography, Physical Review Letters135, 060801 (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Acharya, A

J. Acharya, A. Dharmavarapu, Y. Liu, and N. Yu, Pauli Measurements Are Near-Optimal for Single-Qubit To- mography (2025), arXiv:2507.22001 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020)

work page 2020
[29]

W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state- determination by mutually unbiased measurements, An- nals of Physics191, 363 (1989)

work page 1989
[30]

ˇReh´ aˇ cek, B.-G

J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, B.-G. Englert, and D. Kaszlikowski, Minimal qubit tomography, Physical Review A70, 052321 (2004)

work page 2004
[31]

A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 13507 (2006)

work page 2006
[32]

Petz and L

D. Petz and L. Ruppert, Efficient Quantum Tomography Needs Complementary and Symmetric Measurements, Reports on Mathematical Physics69, 161 (2012)

work page 2012
[33]

Z. Hou, H. Zhu, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Achieving quantum precision limit in adaptive qubit state tomography, npj Quantum Information2, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[34]

B. Li, L. O. Conlon, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Optimal single-qubit tomography: Realization of locally optimal measurements on a quantum computer, Physical Review A108, 032605 (2023)

work page 2023
[35]

O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, Fisher informa- tion in quantum statistics, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General33, 4481 (2000)

work page 2000
[36]

Hayashi and K

M. Hayashi and K. Matsumoto, Statistical Model with Measurement Degree of Freedom and Quantum Physics, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2005) pp. 162–169

work page 2005
[37]

M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Tech- nology, International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125 (2009)

work page 2009
[38]

A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory, Quaderni monographs No. 1 (Ed. della Nor- male, Pisa, 2011)

work page 2011
[39]

Lu and X

X.-M. Lu and X. Wang, Incorporating Heisenberg’s Un- certainty Principle into Quantum Multiparameter Esti- mation, Physical Review Letters126, 120503 (2021)

work page 2021
[40]

S. K. Yung, L. O. Conlon, J. Zhao, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Comparison of estimation limits for quantum two-parameter estimation, Physical Review Research6, 033315 (2024)

work page 2024
[41]

Nagaoka, A New Approach to Cram´ er-Rao Bounds for Quantum State Estimation, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference(WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

H. Nagaoka, A New Approach to Cram´ er-Rao Bounds for Quantum State Estimation, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference(WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

work page
[42]

H. Nagaoka, A Generalization of the Simultaneous Di- agonalization of Hermitian Matrices and its Relation to Quantum Estimation Theory, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference(WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

work page
[43]

L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Efficient computation of the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with separable measure- ments, npj Quantum Information7, 1 (2021)

work page 2021
[44]

I. Kull, P. A. Gu´ erin, and F. Verstraete, Uncertainty and trade-offs in quantum multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 244001 (2020)

work page 2020
[45]

S. M. Assad, J. Li, Y. Liu, N. Zhao, W. Zhao, P. K. Lam, Z. Y. Ou, and X. Li, Accessible precisions for esti- mating two conjugate parameters using Gaussian probes, Physical Review Research2, 023182 (2020)

work page 2020
[46]

Yan, L.-T

W.-Z. Yan, L.-T. Feng, Z. Hou, Y.-Y. Zhao, C. R. i Carceller, A. Tavakoli, H. Zhu, G.-C. Guo, X.-F. Ren, and G.-Y. Xiang, A single programmable pho- tonic circuit for universal quantum measurements (2026), arXiv:2603.20085 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[47]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Universally Fisher-Symmetric Informationally Complete Measurements, Physical Re- view Letters120, 030404 (2018)

work page 2018
[48]

Suzuki, Nuisance parameter problem in quantum es- timation theory: tradeoff relation and qubit examples, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 264001 (2020)

J. Suzuki, Nuisance parameter problem in quantum es- timation theory: tradeoff relation and qubit examples, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 264001 (2020)

work page 2020
[49]

Suzuki, Y

J. Suzuki, Y. Yang, and M. Hayashi, Quantum state esti- mation with nuisance parameters, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 453001 (2020)

work page 2020
[51]

J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Mathematical Physics45, 2171 (2004). End Matter Optimal two-copy POVM Here, we detail the two-copy POVM that is optimal for weighted tomography of the maximally mixed state. Let |jki⟩:=|j i⟩ ⊗ |ki⟩. Then, define |ϕ+i⟩= 1 2 (α+i |...

work page arXiv 2004