arxiv: 2605.08341 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Quantum metrology via partial quantum error correction

Yinan Chen , Zongyuan Wang , Sisi Zhou

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 00:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum metrologypartial quantum error correctionsuper-standard quantum limitlocal noise suppressionadaptive imprinter strategyenergy-superposed code states

0 comments

The pith

Encoding sensing probes as superpositions of energetically distinct states in a quantum code allows only partial error correction to suppress local noise and retain super-SQL precision.

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

This paper shows how to perform error-corrected quantum metrology using only partial quantum error correction. The key step is encoding the probe into superpositions of states with different energies inside a quantum error-correcting code. With this encoding, measurements on only a subset of the code's checks can suppress local noise both before and after the sensing phase is imprinted. The method achieves noise suppression that scales as the noise strength to the power of roughly half the noise operator's weight. An adaptive increase in the weight of the phase imprinter then preserves the super-standard-quantum-limit scaling when the system size grows.

Core claim

The authors establish that by encoding probe states into superpositions of energetically different states of a quantum code, error correction performed with only a subset of the code's checks is sufficient to suppress local noise both prior to and following the phase-imprinting operation. This partial correction maintains the probe's ability to achieve sensing precision beyond the standard quantum limit. For noise parallel to the phase imprinter of weight l, the suppression factor is p raised to floor of (l plus 1) over 2. The scheme further employs an adaptive strategy that increases the imprinter weight with system size to sustain super-SQL performance, while restricting all operators to a

What carries the argument

Encoding of probe states as superpositions of energetically different states within a quantum error-correcting code, enabling a subset of checks to suppress noise both before and after phase imprinting.

If this is right

For noise of weight l parallel to the phase imprinter, suppression reaches order p to the floor of (l plus 1) over 2.
The adaptive imprinter-weight-increasing strategy sustains super-SQL performance as system size grows.
All checks and phase imprinters can be chosen as local operators, avoiding non-local connectivity.
Noise suppression applies both before and after the phase-imprinting step with the same partial checks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This partial approach may reduce the number of measurements required in near-term quantum sensing hardware.
The method could apply to other local-noise metrology tasks such as magnetometry or gravitational sensing.
Small-system experiments could directly test the predicted suppression exponent for chosen values of l.
The encoding might combine with entanglement resources to reach even higher precision bounds.

Load-bearing premise

Encoding the probe states as superpositions of energetically different states within the quantum code allows a subset of checks to suppress the noise.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that noise suppression requires measurements on all checks of the code or that the achieved suppression scaling is worse than p to the power of floor of (l plus 1) over 2 for noise of weight l.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08341 by Sisi Zhou, Yinan Chen, Zongyuan Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. QFI for toric codes on square and honeycomb lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Optimization of the QFI (left panels) for the Bacon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Decoding examples for toric codes on square (a) and honeycomb (b)-(d) lattices with different lattice sizes and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Quantum Fisher information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We introduce a new method for error-corrected quantum metrology where only partial quantum error correction (QEC) is needed to suppress local noise and maintain the probe states' super-standard-quantum-limit (super-SQL) sensing performance. This stands in contrast to the existing QEC-assisted sensing schemes in Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 080801 (2014) and Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150802 (2014), where a probe state is encoded into the logical subspace of a quantum code and error correction involves measurements on all checks of the code. Here, we encode the probe states into superpositions of energetically different states of the underlying quantum code. For our probe states, error correction using a subset of checks is enough to suppress noise both before and after phase imprinting. We analyze the tradeoff in noise suppression. For noise parallel to our phase imprinter of operator weight $l$, we achieve a suppression of $p^\delta$, where $p$ is the noise strength and $\delta = \lfloor (l+1)/2 \rfloor$. We propose an adaptive imprinter-weight-increasing strategy to maintain super-SQL performance as we scale up the system. In all our examples, checks and phase imprinters are chosen to be local operators, avoiding non-local connectivity.

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

Partial QEC suffices for super-SQL metrology if the probe is a superposition of energetically distinct code states, and the paper supplies the suppression tradeoff plus an adaptive fix.

read the letter

The main point is that you can suppress local noise in quantum sensing with only a subset of the code checks, provided the probe state is a superposition of code states that have different energies. This lets the same partial correction handle errors both before and after the phase imprinting step, and the authors derive a concrete noise suppression of p to the power floor((l+1)/2) for weight-l parallel noise. They also give an adaptive schedule that ramps up the imprinter weight with system size to keep the super-SQL scaling intact. All examples stay with local operators, which sidesteps the connectivity headaches that full QEC schemes often face. This combination is not in the two 2014 PRL papers they cite, so the encoding trick and the adaptive strategy are the actual new pieces. The tradeoff analysis and the local-operator examples are worked out clearly enough that the central claim holds internally. The stress-test note confirms there is no inconsistency in the noise-channel math or the adaptive construction. One softer spot is that the adaptive weight schedule will probably carry some extra control cost in hardware that is not quantified here, but that is an implementation detail rather than a break in the argument. The paper is aimed at people already working on code-based quantum metrology who want to reduce the measurement overhead of full error correction. A reader who cares about practical scaling in sensing protocols will find the encoding idea and the explicit δ formula useful. I would send it for peer review. The derivations are present and the logic is self-consistent, so it deserves referee time even if some practical questions need tightening.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a partial quantum error correction (QEC) method for quantum metrology. Probe states are encoded as superpositions of energetically distinct states within an underlying quantum code, so that a proper subset of the code checks suffices to suppress local noise both before and after phase imprinting while preserving super-SQL scaling. For noise parallel to the phase imprinter of operator weight l the error is suppressed by a factor p^δ with δ = ⌊(l+1)/2⌋. An adaptive strategy that increases imprinter weight with system size is introduced to maintain the scaling, and all checks and imprinters are chosen to be local operators.

Significance. If the claimed suppression exponent and adaptive construction hold, the work offers a concrete reduction in QEC overhead relative to the full-correction protocols of Refs. [PRL 112, 080801 (2014)] and [PRL 112, 150802 (2014)]. The explicit tradeoff analysis, concrete local-operator examples, and adaptive imprinter-weight schedule constitute reproducible, falsifiable content that strengthens the result. The absence of non-local connectivity requirements further increases experimental relevance for near-term hardware.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: the suppression exponent δ = ⌊(l+1)/2⌋ is stated without even a one-sentence pointer to the code-structure argument or operator-weight counting that produces it; adding such a pointer would improve readability for readers who consult only the abstract.
The adaptive imprinter-weight schedule is described in prose; a short table or pseudocode listing the weight sequence versus system size would make the scaling argument easier to verify and reproduce.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive recommendation of minor revision. The referee's summary accurately reflects the core idea of using partial QEC on superpositions of energetically distinct code states to suppress local noise while preserving super-SQL scaling with reduced overhead relative to full QEC protocols.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained from code structure

full rationale

The paper derives the partial-QEC metrology protocol by encoding probes as superpositions of energetically distinct code states, then shows that a proper subset of checks suffices to suppress local noise both before and after phase imprinting while preserving super-SQL scaling. The suppression p^δ (δ = ⌊(l+1)/2⌋) for parallel noise of weight l follows directly from the operator weight and the chosen checks' detection properties, as stated in the abstract and supported by explicit tradeoff analysis, concrete local-operator examples, and an adaptive imprinter-weight schedule. No equation reduces the claimed performance to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or ansatz smuggled from prior work; the central claim remains independent of any load-bearing self-reference and is presented as following from the code structure itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that a subset of local checks suffices to protect the chosen superpositions against local noise both before and after imprinting; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Local noise acts independently on the physical qubits and can be suppressed by a subset of the code checks when the probe is encoded in energetically distinct superpositions.
Invoked to justify that partial correction maintains super-SQL performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1216 out tokens · 46649 ms · 2026-05-12T00:47:11.691345+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 encode the probe states into superpositions of energetically different states of the underlying quantum code... error correction using a subset of checks... suppression of p^δ where δ=⌊(l+1)/2⌋
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

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

adaptive imprinter-weight-increasing strategy... toric code... Bacon-Shor code

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

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

∗ Equal contribution; yinanc@caltech.edu † Equal contribution; zongyuan.wang15@outlook.com ‡ sisi.zhou26@gmail.com

and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a re- search institute supported in part by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Univer- sities. ∗ Equal contribution; yinanc@caltech.edu † Equal contribution; zongyuan.wang1...

work page
[2]

Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry,

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, “Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

work page 2010
[3]

Squeezed-light optical magnetometry,

Florian Wolfgramm, Alessandro Cerè, Federica A. Beduini, Ana Predojević, Marco Koschorreck, and Mor- gan W. Mitchell, “Squeezed-light optical magnetometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 053601 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravita- tional wave detector by using squeezed states of light,

J. Aasiet al., “Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravita- tional wave detector by using squeezed states of light,” Nat. Photonics7, 613–619 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy,

M. Tseet al., “Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Multipartite entanglement and high- precision metrology,

Géza Tóth, “Multipartite entanglement and high- precision metrology,” Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Measuringmultipartiteentanglementthrough dynamic susceptibilities,

Philipp Hauke, Markus Heyl, Luca Tagliacozzo, and Pe- terZoller,“Measuringmultipartiteentanglementthrough dynamic susceptibilities,” Nature Physics12, 778–782 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

We analyze this when we present our example protocols

We note that in the presence of noise, the scaling behav- ior depends on the quantum codes, the noise strength, and the imprinter. We analyze this when we present our example protocols

work page
[9]

Quantum metrology,

Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone, “Quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

work page 2006
[10]

Quantum fisher information of the greenberger- horne-zeilinger state in decoherence channels,

Jian Ma, Yi-xiao Huang, Xiaoguang Wang, and C. P. Sun, “Quantum fisher information of the greenberger- horne-zeilinger state in decoherence channels,” Phys. Rev. A84, 022302 (2011)

work page 2011
[11]

Bosonic entanglement and quantum sensing from energy transfer in two-tone floquet systems,

Yinan Chen, Andreas Elben, Angel Rubio, and Gil Re- fael, “Bosonic entanglement and quantum sensing from energy transfer in two-tone floquet systems,” Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043014 (2025)

work page 2025
[12]

Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence,

Yinan Chen, Sara Murciano, Pablo Sala, and Jason Al- icea, “Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence,” (2026), arXiv:2601.04364

work page arXiv 2026
[13]

Preparing dicke states in a spin ensemble using phase estimation,

Yang Wang and Barbara M. Terhal, “Preparing dicke states in a spin ensemble using phase estimation,” Phys. Rev. A104, 032407 (2021)

work page 2021
[14]

All macroscopic quantum states are fragile and hard to prepare,

AndreaLópez-Incera, PavelSekatski, andWolfgangDür, “All macroscopic quantum states are fragile and hard to prepare,” Quantum3, 118 (2019)

work page 2019
[15]

TheelusiveHeisenberglimitinquantum- enhanced metrology,

Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Jan Kołodyński, and MădălinGuţă,“TheelusiveHeisenberglimitinquantum- enhanced metrology,” Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

work page 2012
[16]

Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion,

W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fröwis, and B. Kraus, “Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080801 (2014)

work page 2014
[17]

Quantum error correction for metrology,

E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum error correction for metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150802 (2014)

work page 2014
[18]

Heisenberg limited metrology using quan- tum error-correction codes,

Roee Ozeri, “Heisenberg limited metrology using quan- tum error-correction codes,” (2013), arXiv:1310.3432 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[19]

optimal measurement

The terminology “optimal measurement” comes from Ref. [11]. It is the measurement operator, given the probesstatesandtheimprinters, thatsaturatestheCRB. In this Letter, the optimal measurement operator is the strongsymmetry(seeRef.[?] fordefinitionincondensed matter physics) operator of the probe state by construc- tion. Hence, we use the two names interc...

work page
[20]

Achieving the heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,

Sisi Zhou, Mengzhen Zhang, John Preskill, and Liang Jiang, “Achieving the heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,” Nature Com- munications9, 78 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

Quantum error correctionbelowthesurfacecodethreshold,

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Quantum error correctionbelowthesurfacecodethreshold,” Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconduct- ing quantum processor,

N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. H. Heras, L. M. Zhang, J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, T. Edlich, N. Shutty,et al., “Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconduct- ing quantum processor,” Nature645, 614–619 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

A fault- tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation,

Dolev Bluvstein, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Si- mon J. Evered, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides,et al., “A fault- tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation,” Nature649, 39–46 (2026)

work page 2026
[24]

Reichardt, Adam Paetznick, David Aasen, Ivan Basov, Juan M

Ben W. Reichardt, Adam Paetznick, David Aasen, Ivan Basov, Juan M. Bello-Rivas, Parsa Bonderson, Rui Chao, et al., “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with a neu- tral atom processor,” (2025), arXiv:2411.11822 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Multiple-particleinterferenceandquan- tum error correction,

AndrewSteane,“Multiple-particleinterferenceandquan- tum error correction,” Proceedings of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 452, 2551–2577 (1996)

work page 1996
[26]

Good quantum error-correctingcodesexist,

A. R. Calderbank and Peter W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correctingcodesexist,” Phys.Rev.A54,1098–1105 (1996)

work page 1996
[27]

Low- overheadfault-tolerantquantumcomputationbygauging logical operators,

Dominic J. Williamson and Theodore J. Yoder, “Low- overheadfault-tolerantquantumcomputationbygauging logical operators,” Nature Physics22, 598–603 (2026)

work page 2026
[28]

Barkeshli, P

Animesh Datta, Lijian Zhang, Nicholas Thomas-Peter, Uwe Dorner, Brian J. Smith, and Ian A. Walms- ley, “Quantum metrology with imperfect states and de- tectors,” Physical Review A83(2011), 10.1103/phys- reva.83.063836

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2011
[29]

Quantum metrology including state preparation and readout times,

Shane Dooley, William J. Munro, and Kae Nemoto, “Quantum metrology including state preparation and readout times,” Physical Review A94(2016), 10.1103/physreva.94.052320

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.052320 2016
[30]

Symmetry: A fun- damental resource for quantum coherence and metrol- ogy,

Irénée Frérot and Tommaso Roscilde, “Symmetry: A fun- damental resource for quantum coherence and metrol- ogy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260402 (2024)

work page 2024
[31]

Demonstrating quantum coherence and metrol- ogythat isresilient totransversalnoise,

Chao Zhang, Thomas R. Bromley, Yun-Feng Huang, Huan Cao, Wei-Min Lv, Bi-Heng Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, Marco Cianciaruso, and Gerardo Adesso, “Demonstrating quantum coherence and metrol- ogythat isresilient totransversalnoise,” Phys. Rev.Lett. 123, 180504 (2019)

work page 2019
[32]

Fault-tolerant quantum computation by 7 anyons,

A.Yu. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by 7 anyons,” Annals of Physics303, 2–30 (2003)

work page 2003
[33]

Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary

S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary,” (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9811052 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[34]

Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories,

Dave Bacon, “Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories,” Phys. Rev. A73, 012340 (2006)

work page 2006
[35]

Subsystem fault tolerance with the bacon-shor code,

Panos Aliferis and Andrew W. Cross, “Subsystem fault tolerance with the bacon-shor code,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 220502 (2007)

work page 2007
[36]

Neverthe- less, we show that, even for this harsh estimation, it is possible to keep bothF q,X andF q,Z above the SQL by arranging the shape(m, n)

This is a harsh estimate of theFq,X following the argu- ment for repetition codes in [15], as the Bacon-Shor code doubles the weight of imprinter2nand dephasing on any single raw/column does not change the QFI. Neverthe- less, we show that, even for this harsh estimation, it is possible to keep bothF q,X andF q,Z above the SQL by arranging the shape(m, n)

work page
[37]

Renormalization of ising cage- net model and generalized foliation,

Zongyuan Wang, Xiuqi Ma, David T. Stephen, Michael Hermele, and Xie Chen, “Renormalization of ising cage- net model and generalized foliation,” Phys. Rev. B108, 035148 (2023)

work page 2023
[38]

Topological quantum distillation,

H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Topological quantum distillation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 180501 (2006)

work page 2006
[39]

The boundaries and twist de- fects of the color code and their applications to topolog- ical quantum computation,

Markus S. Kesselring, Fernando Pastawski, Jens Eisert, and Benjamin J. Brown, “The boundaries and twist de- fects of the color code and their applications to topolog- ical quantum computation,” Quantum2, 101 (2018)

work page 2018
[40]

Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor,

N. et al. Lacroix, “Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor,” Nature645, 614–619 (2025)

work page 2025
[41]

Useful multiparticle entanglement and sub-shot-noise sensitivity in experimental phase es- timation,

Roland Krischek, Christian Schwemmer, Witlef Wiec- zorek, Harald Weinfurter, Philipp Hyllus, Luca Pezzé, and Augusto Smerzi, “Useful multiparticle entanglement and sub-shot-noise sensitivity in experimental phase es- timation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 080504 (2011)

work page 2011
[42]

Detecting metrologically use- ful entanglement in the vicinity of dicke states,

Iagoba Apellaniz, Bernd Lücke, Jan Peise, Carsten Klempt, and Géza Tóth, “Detecting metrologically use- ful entanglement in the vicinity of dicke states,” New Journal of Physics17, 083027 (2015)

work page 2015
[43]

Achieving the heisenberg limit using fault-tolerant quantum error correction,

Himanshu Sahu, Qian Xu, and Sisi Zhou, “Achieving the heisenberg limit using fault-tolerant quantum error correction,” (2026), arXiv:2601.05457 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[44]

Noisy metrology beyond the standard quantum limit,

R. Chaves, J. B. Brask, M. Markiewicz, J. Kołodyński, and A. Acín, “Noisy metrology beyond the standard quantum limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 120401 (2013)

work page 2013
[45]

Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology,

Sammy Ragy, Marcin Jarzyna, and Rafał Demkowicz- Dobrzański, “Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. A94, 052108 (2016)

work page 2016
[46]

Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information,

Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Wojciech Górecki, and Mădălin Guţă, “Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 363001 (2020)

work page 2020
[47]

The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology,

Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Jan Kołodyński, and Mădălin GuŢă, “The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology,” Nat. Commun.3, 1063 (2012). Supplemental Materials REMARKS Remark 1.In this work, we introduced a sensing method that utilizes only partial QEC on the probe states constructed from CSS codes to achieve enough noise suppression to ret...

work page 2012
[48]

Consider a unitary phase imprinterU(θ) =e iθO and a strong symmetry of the probe stateT X ρ=t xρthat anticommuteswith the generatorO{T X , O}= 0

and a closely related version in [29]. Consider a unitary phase imprinterU(θ) =e iθO and a strong symmetry of the probe stateT X ρ=t xρthat anticommuteswith the generatorO{T X , O}= 0. Plugging into the error propagation formula, we have⟨T X ⟩θ = Tr U †(θ)TX U(θ)ρ =Tr U †2(θ)TX ρ =t xTr U †2(θ)ρ . Similarly,⟨T 2 X ⟩θ =Tr U †(θ)T 2 X U(θ)ρ =Tr T 2 X ρ =t 2...

work page