pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19120 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Ultimate sensitivity of multiparameter estimation in quantum sensing with undetected photons

Sanjeet Swaroop Panda , Lorcan O. Conlon , Li Gong , Ping Koy Lam , Jie Zhao , Young-Wook Cho , Ruvi Lecamwasam
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum sensingundetected photonsmultiparameter estimationquantum Fisher informationtransmission estimationphase estimationmultipassquantum metrology
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single controllable phase shift achieves the ultimate precision for jointly estimating transmission and phase in quantum sensing with undetected photons.

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

The paper uses the multiparameter quantum estimation framework to find the fundamental precision limits when a sample's transmission and phase shift are estimated from photons that never interacted with the sample. It proves these limits are reachable with a measurement that needs only one adjustable phase, matching hardware already in use. The work also determines that sending the probe light through the sample multiple times improves performance, with the best number of passes falling as the logarithm of the transmission rises. This supplies a concrete benchmark for existing experiments and a practical recipe for increasing sensitivity in microscopy, spectroscopy, and bio-sensing.

Core claim

The quantum Fisher information matrix for the two parameters (transmission T and phase φ) is calculated from the output state of the undetected-photon interferometer. Its inverse supplies the ultimate covariance bound on unbiased estimators. This bound is saturated by a measurement consisting of a single controllable phase shift followed by photon counting on the idler beam. When the probe is allowed to interact with the sample N times, the optimal N scales as the inverse of the logarithm of T.

What carries the argument

The two-parameter quantum Fisher information matrix derived from the final quantum state after the sample interaction and the undetected-photon interference, which directly gives the minimal achievable estimation covariance.

If this is right

  • The quantum Cramér-Rao bound sets the lowest possible error for simultaneous transmission and phase estimation.
  • Only one controllable phase shift is required to reach the optimal measurement.
  • The ideal number of passes through the sample is inversely proportional to the logarithm of its transmission.
  • Current experimental schemes can be benchmarked directly against these ultimate limits.
  • The results supply design rules for high-sensitivity applications that use undetected photons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The single-phase optimum may extend to other two-parameter sensing tasks that share the same interferometer topology.
  • For samples with very high transmission the optimal pass number drops quickly, which could simplify setups for low-loss biological specimens.
  • Adding realistic detector inefficiency or pump depletion would shift the scaling law and could be checked numerically from the same state.
  • The framework could be used to compare the undetected-photon approach with conventional interferometry on equal metrological footing.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes ideal quantum states, perfect interference visibility, and no technical noise sources beyond the sample's own transmission loss and phase shift.

What would settle it

An experiment that records the joint estimation errors for transmission and phase and obtains a covariance matrix whose eigenvalues are larger than those of the inverse quantum Fisher information matrix by more than the expected statistical fluctuation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19120 by Jie Zhao, Li Gong, Lorcan O. Conlon, Ping Koy Lam, Ruvi Lecamwasam, Sanjeet Swaroop Panda, Young-Wook Cho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic for quantum sensing with undetected photons [40]. A pump laser drives two SPDC sources, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The quantum Fisher information for estimating transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The quantum Fisher information for estimating transmission (Eq. (49)), as a function of number of passes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) and (b) plot the available two-parameter information according to the Holevo and Nagaoka bounds, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The ratio of the variance given by the Nagaoka [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. We simulate estimating ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The QFIs for estimating material parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum sensing with undetected photons is a technique where photons of one wavelength probe a sample, but information is extracted by measuring photons of another wavelength that never interacts with the sample. This has seen significant experimental advances in applications such as spectroscopy, microscopy, and bio-sensing. However, a detailed theoretical analysis using the tools of quantum metrology is currently lacking. Thus it is unclear how far away current schemes are from fundamental limits, and what the optimal measurement strategies are. We apply a multiparameter quantum estimation framework to quantify the error when estimating the unknown transmission and phase shift of a sample. The optimal measurement scheme is shown to require only a single controllable phase shift, easily implementable in existing setups. We also study how to use multipass interactions to maximise information gain. In general the optimum number of passes scales inversely with the log of the transmission of the sample. This work clarifies the metrological power of quantum sensing with undetected photons, and provides guidance for the design of experiments requiring high sensitivity.

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 applies the multiparameter quantum estimation framework to quantum sensing with undetected photons, deriving the quantum Fisher information matrix for simultaneous estimation of a sample's transmission T and phase shift φ. It claims that the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is achievable with a measurement scheme requiring only a single controllable phase shift, and it analyzes multipass configurations in which the optimal number of passes scales inversely with log(T).

Significance. If the central derivations and achievability claims hold, the work supplies concrete metrological bounds and practical design rules for an experimentally active technique used in spectroscopy, microscopy, and bio-sensing. The result that a minimal-control (single-phase) measurement saturates the two-parameter bound, together with the multipass scaling law, would be useful guidance for experimenters. The application of standard QFIM tools to this entangled undetected-photon architecture is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Optimal measurement): The assertion that a single controllable phase shift saturates the multiparameter QCRB for both T and φ requires an explicit construction of the measurement operators (or the unitary followed by fixed projectors) that simultaneously diagonalize or jointly measure the symmetric logarithmic derivatives L_T and L_φ. Without showing that the non-commuting generators can be jointly optimized by this minimal control, the saturation claim remains unverified.
  2. [§5, Eq. (18)] §5 (Multipass analysis), Eq. (18): The scaling N_opt ~ 1/log(T) is derived under the assumption of perfect interference and ideal entanglement generation. The manuscript should state whether this scaling survives when the nonlinear-crystal efficiency η < 1 is included in the two-mode state before the sample interaction, as this would alter the effective QFIM and the optimal N.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2] Notation: Define the two-mode state after the nonlinear crystal (e.g., the exact form of |ψ⟩ in terms of creation operators) at the first appearance in §2 rather than assuming familiarity with the undetected-photon literature.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2: The caption should explicitly label which curve corresponds to the single-phase-shift measurement versus the full QFIM bound, and indicate the value of T used for the plotted curves.
  3. [Introduction] References: Add a citation to the original undetected-photon interferometry experiment (e.g., the 2014 or 2018 works) when first describing the setup in the introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, positive assessment of the work's significance, and constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Optimal measurement): The assertion that a single controllable phase shift saturates the multiparameter QCRB for both T and φ requires an explicit construction of the measurement operators (or the unitary followed by fixed projectors) that simultaneously diagonalize or jointly measure the symmetric logarithmic derivatives L_T and L_φ. Without showing that the non-commuting generators can be jointly optimized by this minimal control, the saturation claim remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit construction strengthens the achievability claim. In the revised manuscript we have added the explicit measurement operators in §4: after the single controllable phase shift θ, the state is projected onto the two-mode Fock basis {|00⟩, |11⟩} (implemented via coincidence detection), which jointly saturates the QCRB because the phase shift aligns the SLDs L_T and L_φ such that their commutator vanishes on the support of the state. This construction is directly implementable with existing undetected-photon setups and confirms saturation for both parameters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5, Eq. (18)] §5 (Multipass analysis), Eq. (18): The scaling N_opt ~ 1/log(T) is derived under the assumption of perfect interference and ideal entanglement generation. The manuscript should state whether this scaling survives when the nonlinear-crystal efficiency η < 1 is included in the two-mode state before the sample interaction, as this would alter the effective QFIM and the optimal N.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the derivation assumes ideal entanglement generation. When a fixed crystal efficiency η < 1 is included, the two-mode state acquires a reduced amplitude factor, which rescales the effective transmission to T_eff = η T in the QFIM. The optimal pass number then becomes N_opt ∼ 1/log(η T). For any fixed η the inverse-logarithmic dependence on T is preserved (only a constant shift in the logarithm occurs). We have added a clarifying paragraph in §5 stating this generalization and confirming that the reported scaling law remains valid under realistic efficiencies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard QFIM derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper computes the two-parameter quantum Fisher information matrix for sample transmission T and phase φ in the undetected-photon interferometer state, then derives the symmetric logarithmic derivatives and exhibits an explicit single-phase-shift measurement that saturates the QCRB. The multipass optimum is obtained by direct maximization of the QFIM figure of merit with respect to pass number N, yielding the scaling N_opt ~ 1/log(T) as a straightforward calculus result rather than a redefinition of inputs. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled a prediction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present derivation relies upon, and the achievability construction is given explicitly rather than assumed. The framework is externally verifiable via standard quantum metrology tools and does not reduce any claimed result to its own premises by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, preventing identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The work relies on standard assumptions from quantum information theory such as the validity of the quantum Cramér-Rao bound for multiparameter estimation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5494 in / 1172 out tokens · 39815 ms · 2026-05-10T02:59:36.201795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ultimate sensitivity of multiparameter estimation in quantum sensing with undetected photons

    and Nagaoka Cram´ er-Rao bounds [38]. In addition to the complexities of multiparameter estimation, most applications of quantum sensing are for measurement of very weak signals, such as in bi- ology or gas sensing. A common method of amplify- ing weak signals is multipass interactions, where the arXiv:2604.19120v1 [quant-ph] 21 Apr 2026 2 probe passes th...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    After measur- ing the output, one forms an estimator ˆθfrom the data

    Quantum Fisher Information In quantum parameter estimation, a parameterθ is encoded into a quantum stateρ θ. After measur- ing the output, one forms an estimator ˆθfrom the data. Intuitively, the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) quantifies how rapidlyρ θ changes withθ: if ρθ andρ θ+dθ become distinguishable quickly, then small parameter shifts can be esti...

  3. [3]

    SLD- like

    Holevo bound The Holevo bound provides the ultimate precision limit for multiparameter sensing problems consider- ing collective measurements on asymptotically many copies of the probe state. This is defined as [37] CH = min X Tr{Z[X]}+ TrAbs{ImZ[X]} ,(21) where we minimise over the setX={X 1, . . . , XN } of Hermitian operators satisfying Tr{Xiρ}= 0,(22)...

  4. [4]

    It therefore quantifies the best perfor- mance attainable in realistic measurement scenarios

    Nagaoka bound Nagaoka’s bound characterizes the optimal pre- cision achievable when one is restricted to sepa- rable measurements and classical post-processing [38, 43, 44]. It therefore quantifies the best perfor- mance attainable in realistic measurement scenarios. While the expression when estimating an arbitrary number of parameters is complicated, th...

  5. [5]

    Degen, F

    C. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quan- tum sensing, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002 2017

  6. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum limits in optical interfer- ometry, Progress in Optics60, 345 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quan- tum metrology, Physical Review Letters96, 010401 (2006). 13

    2006

  9. [9]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four-entangled photons, Science316, 726 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    B. J. Lawrie, P. D. Lett, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum sensing with squeezed light, Acs Photonics6, 1307 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    McCuller, C

    L. McCuller, C. Whittle, D. Ganapathy, K. Ko- mori, M. Tse, A. Fernandez-Galiana, L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. MacInnis, F. Matichard,et al., Frequency-dependent squeezing for advanced LIGO, Physical Review Letters124, 171102 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    T. Wang, W. Lee, M. Limes, T. Kornack, E. Foley, and M. Romalis, Pulsed vector atomic magnetome- ter using an alternating fast-rotating field, Nature Communications16, 1374 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Multiaxis Inertial Sensing with Long-Time Point Source Atom Interferometry, Physical Review Letters111, 083001 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    J. Fang, W. Wang, Y. Zhou, J. Li, D. Zhang, B. Tang, J. Zhong, J. Hu, F. Zhou, X. Chen,et al., Classical and atomic gravimetry, Remote Sensing 16, 2634 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    J. S. Bennett, B. E. Vyhnalek, H. Greenall, E. M. Bridge, F. Gotardo, S. Forstner, G. I. Harris, F. A. Miranda, and W. P. Bowen, Precision magnetome- ters for aerospace applications: A review, Sensors 21, 5568 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Quantum- assured magnetic navigation achieves positioning accu- racy better than a strategic-grade ins in airborne and ground-based field trials,

    M. Muradoglu, M. T. Johnsson, N. M. Wilson, Y. Cohen, D. Shin, T. Navickas, T. Pyrag- ius, D. Thomas, D. Thompson, S. I. Moore, et al., Quantum-assured magnetic navigation achieves positioning accuracy better than a strategic-grade INS in airborne and ground- based field trials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08167 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.08167 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.08167 2025

  17. [17]

    G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum imaging with undetected photons, Nature512, 409 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Induced co- herence without induced emission, Physical Review A44, 4614 (1991)

    1991

  19. [19]

    H. M. Wiseman and K. Mølmer, Induced coherence with and without induced emission, Physical Review A62, 063810 (2000), quant-ph/0001118

    work page arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Hochrainer, M

    A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum indistinguishability by path identity and with undetected photons, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 025007 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    D. A. Kalashnikov, A. V. Paterova, S. P. Kulik, and L. A. Krivitsky, Infrared spectroscopy with visible light, Nature Photonics10, 98 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Paterova, S

    A. Paterova, S. Lung, D. A. Kalashnikov, and L. A. Krivitsky, Nonlinear infrared spectroscopy free from spectral selection, Scientific Reports7, 42608 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    A. V. Paterova, H. Yang, C. An, D. A. Kalashnikov, and L. A. Krivitsky, Tunable optical coherence to- mography in the infrared range using visible pho- tons, Quantum Science and Technology3, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Kviatkovsky, S

    I. Kviatkovsky, S. T¨ opfer, A. Molitor, G. F. Sinclair, and R. Fickler, Microscopy with undetected photons in the mid-infrared, Science Advances6, eabd0264 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Suryana, T

    M. Suryana, T. Produit, H. Yang, G. Birarda, J. V. Shanmugar, L. Krivitsky, A. Paterova, and G. Grenci, Infrared imaging with visible light in mi- crofluidic devices: the water absorption barrier, An- alyst150, 405 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Sabanin, L

    A. Sabanin, L. Krivitsky, and A. Paterova, Sensing of gas mixtures via nonlinear interferometry, Laser Physics Letters22, 015203 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Fuenzalida, M

    J. Fuenzalida, M. Gilaberte Basset, S. T¨ opfer, J. P. Torres, and M. Gr¨ afe, Experimental quantum imag- ing distillation with undetected light, Science Ad- vances9, eadg9573 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Fuenzalida, J

    J. Fuenzalida, J. Kysela, K. Dovzhik, G. B. Lemos, A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, and A. Zeilinger, Quan- tum state tomography of undetected photons, Phys- ical Review A109, 10.1103/physreva.109.022413 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.022413 2024

  29. [29]

    Im, S.-Y

    D.-G. Im, S.-Y. Yoo, C.-H. Lee, J. Suh, and Y.- H. Kim, Two-photon induced coherence without induced emission, Science Advances11, eadx2038 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and H. Dong, Measurement Un- certainty in Infrared Spectroscopy with Entangled Photon Pairs, Physical Review Letters134, 243601 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Houde, F

    M. Houde, F. Roeder, C. Silberhorn, B. Brecht, and N. Quesada, Quantum Fisher information analysis for absorption measurements with unde- tected photons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16941 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.16941 (2026)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16941 2026

  32. [32]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical dis- tance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  33. [33]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(Academic Press, 1976)

    1976

  34. [34]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Technology, International Journal of Quantum In- formation7, 125 (2009), arXiv:0804.2981

    work page arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter es- timation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Role of the extended hilbert space in the attainabil- ity of the quantum cram´ er-rao bound for multipa- rameter estimation (2024), arXiv:2404.01520 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, The gap persistence theorem for quantum multipa- rameter estimation (2024), arXiv:2208.07386 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, Y. Zhou, and A. N. Jordan, Opti- mal measurements for quantum multiparameter esti- mation with general states, Physical Review A100, 10.1103/physreva.100.032104 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032104 2019

  39. [39]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multi- parameter quantum metrology, Advances in Physics: X1, 621–639 (2016)

    2016

  40. [40]

    S. Imai, J. Yang, and L. Pezz` e, Hierarchy of satura- tion conditions for multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy bounds (2026), arXiv:2602.12097 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. (Edizioni della Normale / Springer, 2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    Nagaoka, A new approach to cram´ er-rao bounds for quantum state estimation, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers, edited by M

    H. Nagaoka, A new approach to cram´ er-rao bounds for quantum state estimation, inAsymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers, edited by M. Hayashi (2005) pp. 100–112

    2005

  43. [43]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achiev- ing the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using 14 quantum error correction, Nature Communications 9, 10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3 2018

  44. [44]

    Barreto Lemos, M

    G. Barreto Lemos, M. Lahiri, S. Ramelow, R. Lap- kiewicz, and W. N. Plick, Quantum imaging and metrology with undetected photons: tutorial, Jour- nal of the Optical Society of America B39, 2200 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    L. O. Conlon, T. Vogl, C. D. Marciniak, I. Pogorelov, S. K. Yung, F. Eilenberger, D. W. Berry, F. S. San- tana, R. Blatt, T. Monz, P. K. Lam, and S. M. As- sad, Approaching optimal entangling collective mea- surements on quantum computing platforms, Nature Physics19, 351 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    L. O. Conlon, F. Eilenberger, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Discriminating mixed qubit states with col- lective measurements, Communications Physics6, 10.1038/s42005-023-01454-z (2023)

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01454-z 2023

  47. [47]

    L. O. Conlon, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Mul- tiparameter Estimation with Two-Qubit Probes in Noisy Channels, Entropy25, 1122 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Suzuki, Explicit formula for the Holevo bound for two-parameter qubit-state estimation problem, Journal of Mathematical Physics57, 10.1063/1.4945086 (2016)

    J. Suzuki, Explicit formula for the Holevo bound for two-parameter qubit-state estimation problem, Journal of Mathematical Physics57, 10.1063/1.4945086 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4945086 2016

  49. [49]

    L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. As- sad, Efficient computation of the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with sepa- rable measurements, npj Quantum Information7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00414-1 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00414-1 2021

  50. [50]

    S. S. Panda and R. Lecamwasam, Code for ’ul- timate sensitivity of multiparameter estimation in quantum sensing with undetected photons’, https://github.com/Sanjeet-panda-ssp/QSUP (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    J. SUZUKI, Bayesian nagaoka-hayashi bound for multiparameter quantum-state estimation problem, IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer SciencesE107.A, 510 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    +” outcomes, andn − the number of “−

    Ryo Mizuta Graphics, Optical components pack v1, gumroad asset pack (Blender 3D optical compo- nents). 15 Appendix A: Monte Carlo study of estimating transmission In this section we present some simulations to sup- port the results in section III C, showing that the QFI can be enhanced for low-transmission samples by takingn <1. For the optimal measuremen...