pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09958 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum metrological advantage of high-order squeezed states

Rub\'en Gordillo-Hachuel , Erik Torrontegui , Cristina de Dios , Ricardo Puebla This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologyhigh-order squeezingnon-Gaussian statessqueezed vacuumparameter estimationdecoherencequantum sensingHeisenberg limit
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-order squeezed states provide metrological advantage over squeezed vacuum at equal photon occupations.

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

The paper examines whether non-Gaussian states from high-order squeezing can deliver better precision than the optimal squeezed vacuum in standard quantum parameter estimation protocols when both states have the same average photon number. This would matter because quantum metrology aims to exceed classical limits on sensitivity, and extending beyond Gaussian resources could enable further gains in interferometry and rotation sensing without extra energy cost. The authors analyze two families of such states and show they grant a significant advantage at both low and high occupations, though realizing the full benefit requires higher-order measurements and the advantage proves fragile under certain noise.

Core claim

Under standard interferometric or rotation protocols, mth-phase squeezed states and multisqueezed states achieve higher precision than the optimal squeezed vacuum when both have the same average photon number. The advantage holds across low and large occupations, grows with squeezing order, and requires measurement of higher-order observables for full performance. These states remain reasonably robust to damping but lose their edge under pure dephasing.

What carries the argument

High-order squeezed states (mth-phase and multisqueezed families), non-Gaussian states generated by higher-order nonlinear squeezing operations that create enhanced correlations for improved sensitivity at fixed photon number.

If this is right

  • Higher squeezing orders produce larger metrological gains at fixed occupation.
  • Full performance requires measuring higher-order observables rather than only low-order ones.
  • The advantage survives moderate damping but vanishes under pure dephasing.
  • These states open a route to non-Gaussian improvements in quantum metrology beyond Gaussian limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other families of non-Gaussian states could be checked for comparable or larger gains in the same protocols.
  • Practical use would require new methods to prepare the required photon distributions and perform the higher-order measurements.
  • The dephasing fragility points to the value of combining these states with phase-noise protection techniques.

Load-bearing premise

The metrological advantage remains accessible when higher-order observables must be measured and the states can be prepared with the assumed photon-number distributions under realistic conditions.

What would settle it

An experiment measuring estimation precision with these high-order states at equal average photon number to squeezed vacuum and finding no variance reduction, or showing the advantage disappears when restricted to standard quadrature measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09958 by Cristina de Dios, Erik Torrontegui, Ricardo Puebla, Rub\'en Gordillo-Hachuel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. QFI of multisqueezed states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Scaling exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , where the blue dots correspond to S(Mˆ ), while the solid line depicts F 4p Q . The small deviation of the sen￾sitivity at ⟨nˆ⟩ = 10 stems from the Fock-basis truncation (N = 104 ) when computing Mˆ as it involves sixth-order operators in ˆx and ˆp. Therefore, in order to achieve a useful metrological ad￾vantage employing m-th phase states and saturate their corresponding QFI well beyond standard squeeze… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Impact of a pure dephasing channel in the QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (d) shows the ratio Rms 2 = S(Bˆms)/F ms Q between the sensitivity and their corresponding QFI. For the con￾sidered observables, the resulting sensitivity saturates the QFI in the SQL. Appendix D: Decoherence channels As discussed in the main text, we consider the im￾pact of two standard decoherence processes, namely, pure dephasing and zero-temperature damping. The impact of these decoherence mechanisms c… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Critical value of the pure dephasing noise strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum correlations can be harnessed to improve the precision in parameter estimation beyond classical capabilities. Under a standard interferometric or rotation protocol, it is well established that the optimal single-mode Gaussian state is a standard squeezed vacuum, which enables Heisenberg limited precision. In this work, we investigate the potential metrological advantage of two distinct families involving high-order squeezing, namely, mth-phase and multisqueezed states. Our results show that these non-Gaussian states can grant a significant metrological advantage with respect to the optimal squeezed vacuum under equivalent conditions, i.e. at equal occupations. Their advantage holds both at low and large occupations, but its behavior critically depends on the chosen family of high-order squeezing. While higher squeezing orders enhance the advantage, this comes at the cost of higher-order observables in the measurement for full metrological performance. Finally, we study their robustness to standard decoherence channels, i.e. pure dephasing and zero-temperature damping. Employing standard squeezing as reference state, our results indicate a reasonable robustness against damping up to a certain noise strength, while their metrological advantage becomes fragile under pure dephasing. Our work shows the potential enhancement in quantum metrology beyond Gaussian states, carefully detailing the main challenges and limitations.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the metrological potential of two families of high-order squeezed non-Gaussian states (mth-phase and multisqueezed states) in standard interferometric or rotation protocols. It claims that these states yield a significant quantum Fisher information (QFI) advantage over the optimal squeezed vacuum when compared at equal mean photon occupations, with the advantage persisting at both low and large occupations and increasing with squeezing order. Full performance requires higher-order observables, and the states exhibit reasonable robustness to zero-temperature damping but become fragile under pure dephasing.

Significance. If the QFI calculations and comparisons hold, the work would usefully extend the known metrological resources beyond Gaussian states by identifying concrete non-Gaussian families that improve precision at fixed occupation. The explicit discussion of the measurement-order trade-off and the decoherence benchmarks provide practical guidance for experiments, even if the advantage is ultimately limited by realizable observables.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion of full metrological performance] The central claim of metrological advantage is grounded in QFI comparisons at fixed occupation. However, the manuscript states that full performance requires higher-order observables yet provides no quantitative model (e.g., detection efficiency, added noise variance, or achievable precision relative to homodyne detection) for realizing those observables. Without this, the QFI advantage does not necessarily translate into an actual precision gain under equivalent resource constraints.
  2. [Robustness to decoherence channels] In the decoherence analysis, the statement that the advantage shows 'reasonable robustness' to damping 'up to a certain noise strength' is not accompanied by explicit thresholds, scaling relations, or direct comparison plots against the squeezed-vacuum reference at the same occupation. This leaves the robustness claim difficult to assess quantitatively.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'standard squeezing as reference state'; this should be aligned with the main-text terminology 'optimal squeezed vacuum' for clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state whether the plotted quantities are normalized to mean occupation or total photon number.
  3. [Methods or results section] A brief remark on the numerical method or analytic derivation used to obtain the QFI for the mth-phase states would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions made to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of metrological advantage is grounded in QFI comparisons at fixed occupation. However, the manuscript states that full performance requires higher-order observables yet provides no quantitative model (e.g., detection efficiency, added noise variance, or achievable precision relative to homodyne detection) for realizing those observables. Without this, the QFI advantage does not necessarily translate into an actual precision gain under equivalent resource constraints.

    Authors: We agree that the QFI represents the ultimate bound and that translating it into practical precision requires accounting for the measurement implementation. Our work focuses on identifying the fundamental metrological potential of the high-order squeezed families via QFI at fixed occupation, while explicitly noting the requirement for higher-order observables. A full quantitative model of detection efficiency, added noise, and comparison to homodyne under identical experimental constraints would require specifying particular measurement schemes and is beyond the scope of the present theoretical analysis. We have revised the manuscript to expand the discussion of these practical challenges, clarify the distinction between the QFI bound and achievable precision with current technology, and include additional references to experimental literature on higher-order photon measurements. revision: partial

  2. Referee: In the decoherence analysis, the statement that the advantage shows 'reasonable robustness' to damping 'up to a certain noise strength' is not accompanied by explicit thresholds, scaling relations, or direct comparison plots against the squeezed-vacuum reference at the same occupation. This leaves the robustness claim difficult to assess quantitatively.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and have made the robustness analysis fully quantitative in the revised manuscript. We now provide explicit thresholds (in terms of the damping parameter) beyond which the QFI advantage over squeezed vacuum at equal occupation is lost, derive the leading-order scaling of the QFI degradation under zero-temperature damping, and include direct comparison plots of the QFI for the mth-phase and multisqueezed states versus the optimal squeezed vacuum as a function of noise strength. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct QFI comparison at fixed occupation

full rationale

The paper defines mth-phase and multisqueezed states explicitly, computes their quantum Fisher information via the standard formula for phase estimation, and compares the resulting precision bounds to the known optimum for squeezed vacuum at identical mean photon number. This comparison rests on the state definitions and the QFI expression rather than any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, self-citation chain, or ansatz smuggled from prior work. Robustness analysis under decoherence channels is performed by direct application of the Lindblad master equation to the same states. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5525 in / 1078 out tokens · 31259 ms · 2026-05-10T16:31:21.790710+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Essentially singular limits of Jacobi operators and applications to higher-order squeezing

    math-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Jacobi operators with λ-scaled diagonals exhibit essentially singular limits as λ→0, with subsequential strong resolvent convergence to any self-adjoint extension of the limit, applied to show non-unique selection in ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology, Int. J. Quant. Inf.07, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

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

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

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

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    L. J. Fiderer, J. M. E. Fra¨ ısse, and D. Braun, Maximal quantum fisher information for mixed states, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    G´ orecki, F

    W. G´ orecki, F. Albarelli, S. Felicetti, R. Di Candia, and L. Maccone, Interplay between time and energy in bosonic noisy quantum metrology, PRX Quantum6, 020351 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Ferraro, S

    A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris,Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information(Bib- liopolis, Napoli, 2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and D. Braun, Quantum parameter estimation using general single- mode gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A88, 040102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Matsubara, P

    T. Matsubara, P. Facchi, V. Giovannetti, and K. Yuasa, Optimal gaussian metrology for generic multimode inter- ferometric circuit, New J. Phys.21, 033014 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    J. H. Shapiro, S. R. Shepard, and N. C. Wong, Ultimate quantum limits on phase measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2377 (1989)

    work page 1989

  15. [15]

    S. L. Braunstein, A. S. Lane, and C. M. Caves, Maximum-likelihood analysis of multiple quantum phase measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2153 (1992)

    work page 1992

  16. [16]

    R. A. Fisher, M. M. Nieto, and V. D. Sandberg, Impos- sibility of naively generalizing squeezed coherent states, 14 Phys. Rev. D29, 1107 (1984)

    work page 1984

  17. [17]

    S. L. Braunstein and R. I. McLachlan, Generalized squeezing, Phys. Rev. A35, 1659 (1987)

    work page 1987

  18. [18]

    L.-A. Wu, H. J. Kimble, J. L. Hall, and H. Wu, Gener- ation of squeezed states by parametric down conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2520 (1986)

    work page 1986

  19. [19]

    Hillery, Photon number divergence in the quantum theory of n-photon down conversion, Phys

    M. Hillery, Photon number divergence in the quantum theory of n-photon down conversion, Phys. Rev. A42, 498 (1990)

    work page 1990

  20. [20]

    Banaszek and P

    K. Banaszek and P. L. Knight, Quantum interference in three-photon down-conversion, Phys. Rev. A55, 2368 (1997)

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    McConnell, A

    P. McConnell, A. Ferraro, and R. Puebla, Multi-squeezed state generation and universal bosonic control via a driven quantum rabi model, arXiv:2209.07958 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    J. Guo, S. Liu, B. Jing, Q. He, and M. Gessner, Metrolog- ical sensitivity beyond gaussian limits with cubic phase states, arXiv:2512.03769 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Ashhab and M

    S. Ashhab and M. Ayyash, Properties and dynamics of generalized squeezed states, New J. Phys.27, 054104 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Gordillo-Hachuel and R

    R. Gordillo-Hachuel and R. Puebla, Comment on ‘prop- erties and dynamics of generalized squeezed states’, New J. Phys.28, 028002 (2026)

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Ashhab, F

    S. Ashhab, F. Fischer, D. Lonigro, D. Braak, and D. Bur- garth, Finite-dimensional approximations of generalized squeezing, Phys. Rev. A113, 013703 (2026)

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    C. W. S. Chang, C. Sab´ ın, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, F. Quijandr´ ıa, A. M. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, Observation of three-photon spontaneous para- metric down-conversion in a superconducting parametric cavity, Phys. Rev. X10, 011011 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Kudra, M

    M. Kudra, M. Kervinen, I. Strandberg, S. Ahmed, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Osman, D. P. Lozano, M. O. Thol´ en, R. Borgani, D. B. Haviland, G. Ferrini, J. Bylander, A. F. Kockum, F. Quijandr´ ıa, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Robust preparation of wigner-negative states with opti- mized snap-displacement sequences, PRX Quantum3, 030301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    A. M. Eriksson, T. S´ epulcre, M. Kervinen, T. Hillmann, M. Kudra, S. Dupouy, Y. Lu, M. Khanahmadi, J. Yang, C. Castillo-Moreno, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Uni- versal control of a bosonic mode via drive-activated na- tive cubic interactions, Nat. Commun.15, 2512 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    B˘ az˘ avan, S

    O. B˘ az˘ avan, S. Saner, D. J. Webb, E. M. Ainley, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, G. Araneda, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, and R. Srinivas, Squeezing, trisqueez- ing, and quadsqueezing in a spin-oscillator system, arXiv:2403.05471 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. B˘ az˘ avan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, and R. Srinivas, Generating ar- bitrary superpositions of nonclassical quantum harmonic oscillator states, arXiv:2409.03482 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, N. C. Menicucci, T. C. Ralph, and P. van Loock, Quantum computing with continuous- variable clusters, Phys. Rev. A79, 062318 (2009)

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Zheng, O

    Y. Zheng, O. Hahn, P. Stadler, P. Holmvall, F. Qui- jandr´ ıa, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, Gaussian conversion protocols for cubic phase state generation, PRX Quan- tum2, 010327 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

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

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Quantum speed limit for physical pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050402 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Fer- raro, Resource theory of quantum non-gaussianity and wigner negativity, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Convex resource theory of non- gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    J. Guo, Q. He, and M. Fadel, Quantum metrology with a squeezed kerr oscillator, Phys. Rev. A109, 052604 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Q. R. Rahman, I. Kladari´ c, M.-E. Kern, L. c. v. Lach- man, Y. Chu, R. Filip, and M. Fadel, Genuine quan- tum non-gaussianity and metrological sensitivity of fock states prepared in a mechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Fadel, N

    M. Fadel, N. Roux, and M. Gessner, Quantum metrology with a continuous-variable system, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 106001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002)

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Arqand, L

    A. Arqand, L. Memarzadeh, and S. Mancini, Quantum capacity of a bosonic dephasing channel, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042413 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    F. A. Mele, F. Salek, V. Giovannetti, and L. Lami, Quan- tum communication on the bosonic loss-dephasing chan- nel, Phys. Rev. A110, 012460 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Leviant, Q

    P. Leviant, Q. Xu, L. Jiang, and S. Rosenblum, Quan- tum capacity and codes for the bosonic loss-dephasing channel, Quantum6, 821 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    I. L. Chuang, D. W. Leung, and Y. Yamamoto, Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping, Phys. Rev. A56, 1114 (1997)

    work page 1997

  46. [46]

    Liu, S ¸

    Y.-X. Liu, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, A. Miranowicz, and N. Imoto, Kraus representation of a damped harmonic oscillator and its application, Phys. Rev. A70, 042308 (2004)

    work page 2004