REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 32 references
Counterfactual Quantum Sensing: What Interaction-Free Measurement Can and Cannot Buy
T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Interaction-free measurement, the paper shows, gains nothing for estimating an object's transparency but grows a detection advantage with Zeno cycles.
desk verdict Quantifies what interaction-free measurement can and cannot do: valid core, fixable errors, and an abstract that overstates the theorem's domain. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing machinery is a purification identity and the freshness property that powers it. Dilating the object to a beam splitter of angle $\phi$ with $T=\cos^2\phi$, each encounter leaks into a fresh vacuum mode $|e_k\rangle$ the photon has never met, so $\langle e_k|\psi_{k-1}\rangle=0$ at every pass. This makes the generator expectation vanish and yields the exact identity $F_Q^{\mathrm{pur}}(T)=\bar n_{\mathrm{tot}}/[T(1-T)]$, where $\bar n_{\mathrm{tot}}=\sum_k |v_k|^2$ is the sum of squared incident amplitudes. Monotonicity of quantum Fisher information under the partial trace then gives the theorem $F_Q(T)/n_{\mathrm{abs}} \le 1/[T(1-T)^2]$ for any fixed multi-pass arrangement. For the Zeno chain the key object is the exact null of the empty apparatus: with no object, the $N$ rotations sum to $\pi/2$ and the forbidden port has probability zero, which turns a count into proof and drives the $N\ln N$ Chernoff growth.
What would settle it
An experiment that measures the Fisher information per absorbed photon of a fixed multi-pass single-photon transmissivity estimator at $T\approx0.5$ would refute the theorem if it exceeded $1/[T(1-T)^2]$. For the positive claim, a Zeno chain against empty space with $T_0=0.7$ should show a Chernoff exponent scaling as $N\ln N$ that freezes to a constant once crosstalk or detection inefficiency is introduced; observing no freeze, or a linear instead of $N\ln N$ growth, would falsify the discrimination analysis.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
Assessed on its own terms, the paper proves that interaction-free measurement is two different tasks with two different fates. As a channel-estimation problem, the Elitzur–Vaidman interferometer has Fisher information $F_{\mathrm{MZI}}(T)=1/[2T(1-T)]$, exactly half of direct transmission probing's $F_{\mathrm{dir}}(T)=1/[T(1-T)]$, and the information per mean absorbed photon is identical in both, $1/[T(1-T)^2]$. The Zeno chain's advantage is not opacity but a null experiment: with empty space as the alternative, the forbidden port has probability exactly zero, so the Chernoff information per absorbed photon grows as $(8/\pi^2)(1-\sqrt T)/(1+\sqrt T)\,N\ln N$ for every $T<1$, while for two partial transparencies the rate does not grow at all. Parasitic per-cycle loss $\epsilon$ caps the gain, with the maximum conclusive interrogations per absorbed photon equal to $(0.2625/\epsilon)(1-\sqrt T)/(1+\sqrt T)$ at $N_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.5936/\epsilon$ for an opaque object. The central negative theorem, Eq. (25), states that for a single photon meeting a memoryless, non-dispersive object any number of times through arbitrary fixed optics, the quantum Fisher information of the reduced photon state obeys $F_Q(T)/n_{\mathrm{abs}} \le 1/[T(1-T)^2]$, recovering and making tight the previously known bound for this class.
Load-bearing premise
The object must be memoryless and non-dispersive, with each pass meeting a fresh untouched vacuum mode so that no re-emission or accumulated phase couples the passes; if those conditions fail, the exact identity behind the bound no longer holds.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For estimating an unknown transmissivity, no fixed multi-pass arrangement of a single photon is more informative per absorbed photon than the same incident flux spent on independent single-pass probes; arrangements that genuinely revisit the object are strictly worse.
- Interaction-free detection works for any partially transmitting object against empty space, not just opaque ones, because the advantage tracks the exact zero of the null hypothesis rather than the object's opacity.
- Per-cycle parasitic loss $\epsilon$, not the physics of the interrogation, sets the practical limit: improving $\epsilon$ by a factor of ten increases the maximum conclusive interrogations per absorbed photon tenfold, and cycling past $N_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.5936/\epsilon$ is actively harmful.
- The reported multi-pass microscopy improvements are gains toward the single-photon bound, not past it: classical light starts a factor $(1-T)^{-1}$ below the bound, and multi-passing climbs inside that gap without crossing it.
- Discriminating between two partial transparencies gives no growing rate, which is why estimating a continuous $T$ is the hard case and why the negative bound binds there.
Reading between the lines
- The theorem's freshness assumption suggests a concrete testable boundary: an absorber with a coherence time longer than the interrogation interval, or a dispersive phase accumulating over passes, should show a Fisher information per absorbed photon exceeding $1/[T(1-T)^2]$; observing that would define the regime where the bound fails.
- The paper leaves open whether multi-photon sequential or adaptive strategies can exceed the exchange rate; the Sec. V argument does not cover them, and generic channel-use arguments do not imply the single-photon bound.
- The absence of a calibration-free observable exhibiting the predicted maximum of Eq. (17) is stated as the main obstacle to experiment; designing such an observable would be a natural next step.
- The null-experiment logic identified here suggests that other sensing protocols that engineer an exact forbidden outcome, rather than merely a suppressed one, may exhibit similarly unbounded discrimination rates per unit damage.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper analyses interaction-free measurement (IFM) as a parameter-estimation and hypothesis-discrimination problem. It shows that the Elitzur–Vaidman interferometer carries exactly half the Fisher information about the intensity transmissivity T carried by direct transmission probing, and the same Fisher information per absorbed photon. It then studies the N-cycle quantum Zeno interrogator: for discriminating a semitransparent object from empty space, the Chernoff information per absorbed photon grows as (8/pi^2)(1-√T)/(1+√T) N ln N, while discrimination between two partial transparencies does not grow; parasitic loss per cycle caps the conclusive-interrogation ratio at R_max ≈ 0.2625/epsilon at N_opt ≈ 1.5936/epsilon. The final section proves a general bound for a single photon meeting a memoryless, non-dispersive object any number of times through fixed optics that do not touch the environment modes: F_Q(T)/n_abs ≤ 1/[T(1-T)^2], recovering the Massar–Mitchison–Pironio bound for this class and identifying when it is tight.
Significance. If correct, the paper cleanly separates the two senses of 'supersensitivity' in the IFM literature and gives closed-form, experiment-designable statements: no estimation advantage per damage, a genuine N ln N discrimination advantage only against the 'absent' hypothesis, and a loss-per-cycle figure of merit. The central derivations (Eqs. (4)–(7), (9)–(13), (16)–(17), (24)–(25)) are analytic and benchmarked against exact numerics; the paper is unusually careful in stating assumptions, including the three conditions on which the Sec. V theorem rests, and in honestly reporting that it cannot propose a calibration-free test of Eq. (17). These strengths make the core contribution valuable despite the local errors noted below.
major comments (2)
- [Section III, Eq. (11)] Eq. (11) as printed gives the steady-state rotated-output probability as P_V → T pi^2/[4N^2](1-√T)^2 (or T pi^2/[4N^2(1-√T)^2], depending on how the denominator is read), but an exact asymptotic evaluation of the transfer matrix A = diag(1,√T) R(theta) gives P_V → pi^2/[4N^2(1-√T)^2]. For example, at T=0.3, N=100, exact diagonalization gives P_V ≈ 1.11e-3, while the printed formula gives 1.5e-5 or 3.6e-4 depending on the reading. Consequently the additive constant in C = -ln P_V should be ln[4(1-√T)^2/pi^2], not ln[4(1-√T)^2/(T pi^2)]. The leading N ln N coefficient in Eq. (13) is unaffected, but the statement that the additive constant agrees to three decimals cannot be correct as written; please correct Eq. (11), the constant in C, and the numerical verification.
- [Abstract and Sec. V] The advertised domain of the negative result is broader than the theorem proved. Eq. (25) is derived under the three assumptions stated in Sec. V, in particular that the intervening optics W_j do not act on the environment modes e_k, so that each pass meets a fresh vacuum mode and n_abs counts irreversible absorption. The abstract's 'arbitrary fixed optics' and the conclusion's 'every fixed multi-pass arrangement' omit this qualifier. If W_j can redirect an earlier loss mode back into the object mode, the quantity (1-T) sum |v_k|^2 is no longer the number of photons irreversibly absorbed, and the per-absorbed-photon reading of the bound changes. The body is honest ('Three points about scope'), so this is a presentation fix, but it should be made in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (4)
- [Section V, multi-pass microscopy] The formula for the classical Fisher information per unit dose contains an extra factor (1-T); it should read m^2 T^{m-2}/(1-T^m). With the printed formula, the m=1 value is 1/T rather than 1/[T(1-T)], and the stated '1% of the bound at m=1' and '65% at m=159' are off by a factor (1-T).
- [Section III, before Eq. (11)] The phrase 'steady V amplitude √T θ/(1−√T)' is confusing: in the normalized steady state of the chain, the quantity √T θ/(1−√T) is the H amplitude, not the V amplitude. This wording likely contributed to the Eq. (11) error.
- [Section IV, Eq. (18)] The parasitic factor in the text is garbled ('√1−ϵ⊮'); it should be √(1−ε) as an amplitude factor (or 1−ε as an intensity factor), used consistently in the exact expressions.
- [Abstract and conclusion] The comparison with 'the same incident flux spent on independent single-pass probes' should be clarified: a K-pass scheme involves one incident photon, while matching the summed exposure requires nbar_tot photons; the comparison is clean only in the per-absorbed-photon currency of Eq. (25).
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central derivations are self-contained, externally benchmarked, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.
full rationale
Every load-bearing result is derived from an explicit model rather than imported from a fit or from the conclusion it is meant to establish. The Mach-Zehnder Fisher information in Eq. (4) follows by direct substitution of the outcome probabilities (1)-(3), and the per-damage identity Eq. (7) is an arithmetic consequence of independently computed information and absorption values. The Zeno-chain asymptotics in Eqs. (9)-(13) are obtained analytically and then numerically checked, with the paper explicitly stressing closed forms over fits; the prefactors are computed, not matched. The Sec. V bound is proved from the purification identity and the freshness condition <e_k|psi_{k-1}>=0, using monotonicity of the quantum Fisher information under partial trace; no step of that argument assumes the inequality it derives. The paper recovers the Massar-Mitchison-Pironio bound for this class rather than invoking it as an input, and the external benchmarks (direct probing, Nair, Monras-Paris) provide independent support. The author's self-citations (Refs. 21 and 23) are peripheral examples, not load-bearing premises. The only caveat is that the abstract's phrase 'arbitrary fixed optics' omits the theorem's stated requirement that the intervening optics leave the environment modes untouched; that is an overstatement of scope, not a circular reduction, since the theorem itself states the assumption and the bound is derived from it rather than assumed.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (7)
- standard math Quantum Fisher information is monotone under partial trace.
- domain assumption A lossy object of intensity transmissivity T is a beam splitter with amplitude transmission cos φ = √T, coupling to a fresh vacuum mode at each encounter.
- domain assumption The object is memoryless (fresh vacuum per pass) and non-dispersive (no accumulated Kramers-Kronig phase on √T).
- domain assumption The intervening optics W_j act only on the photon modes and do not touch the environment modes e_k.
- standard math Chernoff information is the asymptotic binary-test error exponent, and an outcome with zero probability under one hypothesis collapses the exponent to the boundary value -ln P_V.
- domain assumption The Kwiat Zeno chain has per-cycle amplitude A = diag(1,√T) R(θ) with θ = π/(2N), and per-cycle parasitic loss multiplies survival by (1-ε) independent of the object.
- standard math For a single-photon probe of a pure-loss channel, the {transmitted, lost} population measurement saturates the quantum Fisher information.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Counterfactual Quantum Sensing: What Interaction-Free Measurement Can and Cannot Buy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62GH65F6
@misc{pith2026260725699,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Counterfactual Quantum Sensing: What Interaction-Free Measurement Can and Cannot Buy},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62GH65F6}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25699}
}
read the original abstract
Interaction-free measurement infers the presence of an absorbing object from a photon that, in the counterfactual sense, never interacted with it, and is widely described as a route to minimally invasive sensing. We ask what it actually buys, in estimation-theoretic terms. Written as a channel-estimation problem, the Elitzur-Vaidman interferometer carries exactly half the Fisher information about the object's transmissivity that direct transmission probing does, and the two schemes deliver identical Fisher information per absorbed photon. For measuring how transparent something is, the interferometer buys nothing. The advantage lies in discrimination, and we show that what it requires is not that the object be opaque but that the competing hypothesis be the object's absence. Against empty space the Chernoff information per absorbed photon grows almost linearly, as the number of Zeno cycles times its logarithm, even for a weakly absorbing object; between two partial transparencies it does not grow at all. Parasitic loss in the cycle caps the advantage. The number of conclusive interrogations per absorbed photon reaches a maximum inversely proportional to the loss per cycle, at an optimal cycle number that is likewise inversely proportional to it, which identifies the loss per cycle as the figure of merit governing how far interaction-free sensing can be pushed. Finally, the negative result is not special to the interferometer. For a single photon meeting a memoryless, non-dispersive object any number of times through arbitrary fixed optics, the accessible quantum Fisher information never exceeds that of the same incident flux spent on independent single-pass probes, and is generically far below it. This recovers the bound of Massar, Mitchison and Pironio for this class, by a short argument that also identifies when it is tight.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,
A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, “Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,”Found. Phys.23, 987– 997 (1993). doi:10.1007/BF00736012
-
[2]
(1)–(3) at T= 0,P(D i|B) = 1 4 for each port, whileP(D 1|B) = 1 andP(D 2|B) = 0
From Eqs. (1)–(3) at T= 0,P(D i|B) = 1 4 for each port, whileP(D 1|B) = 1 andP(D 2|B) = 0. HenceP(D 1) = 5 8 andP(D 2) = 1 8, and P(B|D 1) = 1 5, P(B|D 2) = 1.(15) 100 101 102 103 104 105 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 105 Chernoff info. per absorbed photon T0 = 0.3 T0 = 0.7 T0 = 0.95 pairs of partial transparencies object vs. empty space NlnN asymptote (a) the...
-
[3]
High-efficiency quantum interrogation measurements via the quantum Zeno effect
P. G. Kwiat, A. G. White, J. R. Mitchell, O. Nairz, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “High- efficiency quantum interrogation measurements via the quantum Zeno effect,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4725–4728 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9909083. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4725
work page Pith review arXiv 1999
-
[4]
Interaction-free measure- ment,
P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Kasevich, “Interaction-free measure- ment,”Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4763–4766 (1995). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4763
-
[5]
Informal accounts often miss that second point, though the numbers of course depend on the prior assumed. In anN-cycle chain the conclusive outcome still carries posterior unity, while the absorbed fraction falls asπ 2/4N. That is the content of Eq. (10). The supersensitivity claim can now be stated precisely, and it depends entirely on the question asked...
work page 2026
-
[6]
The Meaning of the Interaction-Free Measurements
L. Vaidman, “The meaning of the interaction-free measurements,”Found. Phys.33, 491–510 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0103081. doi:10.1023/A:1023767716236
work page Pith review arXiv 2003
-
[7]
Analysis of counterfactuality of counterfactual communication protocols
L. Vaidman, “Analysis of counterfactuality of counterfactual communication protocols,”Phys. Rev. A99, 052127 (2019), arXiv:1901.05765. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.99.052127
work page Pith review arXiv 2019
-
[8]
A. G. White, J. R. Mitchell, O. Nairz, and P. G. Kwiat, “ ‘Interaction-free’ imaging,”Phys. Rev. A58, 605 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9803060. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.58.605
arXiv 1998
Show all 32 references
-
[9]
Interaction-free, single-pixel quantum imaging with undetected photons,
Y. Yang, H. Liang, X. Xu, L. Zhang, S. Zhu, and X.- S. Ma, “Interaction-free, single-pixel quantum imaging with undetected photons,”npj Quantum Inf.9, 2 (2023), arXiv:2212.06531. doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00673-6
2023 arXiv
-
[10]
Interaction-free quantum spec- troscopy,
Y. Chen, Y.-J. Cai, X.-T. Li, K. Huang, J.-M. Liu, and E. Wu, “Interaction-free quantum spec- troscopy,”Adv. Photonics Res.2, 2000206 (2021). doi:10.1002/adpr.202000206
2021 doi
-
[11]
Loss- resilient, efficient x-ray interaction-free measurements,
R. Cohen, S. Shwartz, and E. Cohen, “Loss- resilient, efficient x-ray interaction-free measurements,” arXiv:2407.06369 (2024)
2024 arXiv
-
[12]
Quantum optical metrology — the lowdown on high-N00N states,
J. P. Dowling, “Quantum optical metrology — the lowdown on high-N00N states,”Con- temp. Phys.49, 125–143 (2008), arXiv:0904.0163. doi:10.1080/00107510802091298
2008 arXiv
-
[13]
Ver- satile super-sensitive metrology using induced coher- ence,
N. R. Miller, S. Ramelow, and W. N. Plick, “Ver- satile super-sensitive metrology using induced coher- ence,”Quantum5, 458 (2021), arXiv:1907.09004. doi:10.22331/q-2021-05-26-458
2021 arXiv
-
[14]
Min- imal absorption measurements,
S. Massar, G. Mitchison, and S. Pironio, “Min- imal absorption measurements,”Phys. Rev. A 64, 062303 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0102116. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062303
2001 arXiv
-
[15]
Absorption-free dis- crimination between semitransparent objects,
G. Mitchison and S. Massar, “Absorption-free dis- crimination between semitransparent objects,”Phys. Rev. A63, 032105 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0003140. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.032105
2001 arXiv
-
[16]
Mini- mum number of photons needed to distinguish two transparencies,
G. Mitchison, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, “Mini- mum number of photons needed to distinguish two transparencies,”Phys. Rev. A65, 022110 (2002). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.022110
2002 doi
-
[17]
Quantum Zeno tomography,
P. Facchi, Z. Hradil, G. Krenn, S. Pascazio, and J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, “Quantum Zeno tomography,”Phys. Rev. A66, 012110 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0104021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.012110
2002 arXiv
-
[18]
Semitransparency in interaction-free measurements,
S. Thomas, C. Kohstall, P. Kruit, and P. Hommelhoff, “Semitransparency in interaction-free measurements,” Phys. Rev. A90, 053840 (2014), arXiv:1409.0044. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.053840
2014 arXiv
-
[19]
An invisible quantum tripwire,
P. M. Anisimov, D. J. Lum, S. B. McCracken, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, “An invisible quantum tripwire,” 10 New J. Phys.12, 083012 (2010), arXiv:1002.3362. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083012
2010 arXiv
-
[20]
Interaction-free mea- surement as quantum channel discrimination,
Y. Zhou and M.-H. Yung, “Interaction-free mea- surement as quantum channel discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A96, 062129 (2017), arXiv:1703.03976. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062129
2017 arXiv
-
[21]
Designs for a quantum elec- tron microscope,
P. Kruit, R. G. Hobbs, C.-S. Kim, Y. Yang, V. R. Man- frinato, J. Hammer, S. Thomas, P. Weber, B. Klopfer, C. Kohstall, T. Juffmann, M. A. Kasevich, P. Hommel- hoff, and K. K. Berggren, “Designs for a quantum elec- tron microscope,”Ultramicroscopy164, 31–45 (2016), arXiv:1510....
2016 arXiv
-
[22]
Multi-pass microscopy,
T. Juffmann, B. B. Klopfer, T. L. I. Frankort, P. Haslinger, and M. A. Kasevich, “Multi-pass microscopy,”Nat. Commun.7, 12858 (2016). doi:10.1038/ncomms12858
2016 doi
-
[23]
Reso- lution and sensitivity of a Fabry-Perot interfer- ometer with a photon-number-resolving detector,
C. F. Wildfeuer, A. J. Pearlman, J. Chen, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and J. P. Dowling, “Reso- lution and sensitivity of a Fabry-Perot interfer- ometer with a photon-number-resolving detector,” Phys. Rev. A80, 043822 (2009), arXiv:0905.1085. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043822
2009 arXiv
-
[24]
Dose-efficient quantum phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry,
Q. Yu, B. Wang, K. Zheng, M. Mi, H. Li, and L. Zhang, “Dose-efficient quantum phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry,” arXiv:2606.14254 (2026)
2026
-
[25]
Optimization of quantum inter- ferometric metrological sensors in the presence of photon loss,
T.-W. Lee, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, L. Kaplan, S. B. Mc- Cracken, C. Min, D. B. Uskov, C. F. Wildfeuer, G. Vero- nis, and J. P. Dowling, “Optimization of quantum inter- ferometric metrological sensors in the presence of photon loss,”Phys. Rev. A80, 063803 (2009), arXiv:0908.3008. ...
2009 arXiv
-
[26]
Quantum-limited loss sensing: multiparameter estimation and Bures distance between loss channels,
R. Nair, “Quantum-limited loss sensing: multiparameter estimation and Bures distance between loss channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 230801 (2018), arXiv:1804.02211. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230801
2018 arXiv
-
[27]
Optimal quan- tum estimation of loss in bosonic channels,
A. Monras and M. G. A. Paris, “Optimal quan- tum estimation of loss in bosonic channels,”Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160401 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0701216. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.160401
2007 arXiv
-
[28]
Optimal estimation of losses at the ultimate quantum limit with non-Gaussian states,
G. Adesso, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, F. Illuminati, and L. A. M. Souza, “Optimal estimation of losses at the ultimate quantum limit with non-Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. A79, 040305(R) (2009), arXiv:0807.3958. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.040305
2009 arXiv
-
[29]
Quantum advantage of time-reversed ancilla-based metrology of absorption parameters,
W. Wang, R. L. de Matos Filho, G. S. Agarwal, and L. Davidovich, “Quantum advantage of time-reversed ancilla-based metrology of absorption parameters,”Phys. Rev. Research6, 013034 (2024), arXiv:2310.06142. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013034
2024 arXiv
-
[30]
Using entanglement against noise in quantum metrology,
R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and L. Maccone, “Using entanglement against noise in quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250801 (2014), arXiv:1407.2934. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.250801
2014 arXiv
-
[31]
Ultimate preci- sion of adaptive noise estimation,
S. Pirandola and C. Lupo, “Ultimate preci- sion of adaptive noise estimation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 100502 (2017), arXiv:1609.02160. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.100502
2017 arXiv
-
[32]
Quan- tum metrology and its application in biology,
M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, “Quan- tum metrology and its application in biology,” Phys. Rep.615, 1–59 (2016), arXiv:1409.0950. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.002
2016 arXiv
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.