Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 112 references

Fault-Tolerant Heisenberg-Limited Quantum Sensing

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a fault-tolerant N-qubit repetition code can keep Heisenberg-limited quantum sensing for a coherent time M1 = O(1/p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}) even when every circuit operation fails with bit-flip probability p, provided phase-fl

desk verdict Genuine sequential extension of fault-tolerant sensing with a sound central bound, but the exponential noise-bias assumption should be much more prominent and the abstract exponent fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00171 v1 pith:MMYSVHHL submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Lorcan O. Conlon , Yu-Xin Wang , Erfan Abbasgholinejad , Victor V. Albert , Michael J. Gullans , Alexey V. Gorshkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords fault-tolerantquantumsensingHeisenberglimitrepetitioncodecircuit-levelnoisebiasederrorcorrectionmetrologyFisherinformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that fault-tolerant quantum error correction can be imported into quantum sensing: even when state preparation, gates, idling, syndrome extraction, and readout all fail with probability p, a simple repetition code can extend the time over which Heisenberg scaling holds. In the ideal setting, a single qubit accumulating phase over M channel uses reaches error ~1/M; under bit-flip noise without encoding, coherent accumulation is limited to M ~ 1/p. The paper claims that, under a noise model where only X-type bit-flip errors occur and Z-type phase-flip errors are negligibly rare, an N-qubit repetition code pushes the coherent accumulation time to M1 = O(1/p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}). This matters because it removes the usual assumption that all control operations are perfect, moving error-corrected sensing closer to realistic hardware — if the required noise bias can be engineered.

What carries the argument

The central object is the N-qubit repetition code, whose logical states are GHZ states (|0⟩^N + |1⟩^N)/√2, used with a signal rotation acting on only the first qubit. For X-type noise the code has distance N and corrects t = ⌊(N−1)/2⌋ errors, so an uncorrectable logical error per round occurs only with probability p̃_{L,N} = c p^{t'} + O(p^{t'+1}). The argument is carried by the space-time decoding graph: each physical X fault in state preparation, gates, idling, syndrome measurement, or the sensing channel creates at most one local detector edge, and repeating each syndrome measurement 2t+1 times gives a decoding distance 2t+1, so t+1 faults are needed to cause a logical error. This error-l

What would settle it

Simulate or implement the full protocol with an extra tunable Z-error rate p_z alongside the X-error rate p, and measure the parity fringe (2(1−p̃_{L,p,N})(1−p̃_{L,N})^{M1}−1) that appears in the Fisher-information bound. If p_z is held at a fixed fraction of p rather than being suppressed as O(p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}), the fringe visibility should decay as (1−2p_z)^{M1} and the Heisenberg extension M1 ∝ 1/p^{t'} should disappear; in particular, running the same circuit with depolarising noise (p_z = p) should make the variance cross over from 1/M1^2 to 1/M1 scaling at M1 ≈ 1/p.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the Fisher-information bound of Eq. (46): after M1 channel uses with a fault-tolerant N-qubit repetition-code protocol, J ≥ M1^2 (1−2p)^6 (2(1−p̃_{L,p,N})(1−p̃_{L,N})^{M1}−1)^2, so choosing M1 ≈ 0.2/p̃_{L,N} gives variance O(p̃_{L,N}^2) and Heisenberg scaling in M1. Because the per-round logical error rate is p̃_{L,N} = O(p^{t'}) with t' = ⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1, the protocol reaches Heisenberg-limited precision for M1 = O(1/p^{t'}), a polynomial extension beyond the 1/p limit of an unprotected sensor. The authors construct the full fault-tolerant circuit: verified preparation of the logical |+⟩ state, repeated stabilizer measurements decoded through a space-time detector graph, co

Load-bearing premise

The whole advantage rests on the noise being almost perfectly biased: every operation fails only with X-type bit-flip errors at probability p, while the probability p_z of any Z-type phase-flip error must be O(p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}); if this bias fails, the GHZ coherence decays as (1−2p_z)^{M1} and the Heisenberg extension collapses — the authors themselves call the X-only gate assumption 'quite artificial'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Error-corrected sensing need not assume perfect control: state preparation, gates, syndrome extraction, and measurement can all suffer bit-flip errors at rate p, and Heisenberg scaling in time still survives under the biased-noise model.
  • The coherent interrogation window grows from M1 ∝ 1/p without encoding to M1 ∝ 1/p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1} with an N-qubit repetition code, so each additional pair of qubits adds roughly another factor of 1/p to the achievable coherent time.
  • A threshold behaviour appears: for physical error rates below roughly p ≈ 0.02 (as computed from the simulated logical error rates), increasing the code distance reduces the estimation error, so near-term operation below threshold, rather than p → 0, is the operating principle.
  • The protocol comes with an explicit unbiased estimator that uses the full syndrome history and avoids the systematic bias that would otherwise erase the quantum advantage.
  • The same construction generalises to qudit systems where errors are X and X^2, so the fault-tolerant advantage is not specific to qubits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The practical reach of the protocol hinges entirely on engineered noise bias: because the repetition code does not correct Z errors, any residual phase-flip probability p_z must scale as O(p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}), and a fixed physical bias will eventually be insufficient as N grows. A testable target for hardware is therefore to demonstrate a suppression of phase-flip versus bit-flip rates that grows wit
  • Sequential fault-tolerant sensing appears to extract more advantage per qubit than parallel fault-tolerant sensing: for a fixed qubit budget and fixed total channel uses, the sequential protocol's error scales as p^{⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1}/√ν, while a parallel protocol with the same qubit number is limited by N^2. This ordering could be checked empirically by comparing the two protocols with identical total
  • The analysis of ambiguous ±ϕ phase histories suggests a general design rule for fault-tolerant sensors: a circuit fault hurts only if it flips the sign of the accumulated phase, and faults that merely randomise the phase at quadratic order in p are harmless. Applying this rule to codes other than the repetition code could identify which stabilizer codes can support fault-tolerant sensing.
  • Combining this time-encoded protocol with a qubit-number-encoded fault-tolerant protocol would, if possible, yield Heisenberg scaling in both total channel uses and qubit number; the paper leaves that combination open, but it is the natural next benchmark.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and analyzes a fault-tolerant quantum sensing protocol that uses an N-qubit repetition code to estimate a Z-rotation under a circuit-level noise model in which every operation fails with X-type (bit-flip) errors with probability p and phase-flip errors are absent (or, in App. B.7, suppressed as O(p^{t'})). The central result (Sec. IV, Eq. (46)) is a lower bound on the classical Fisher information J ≥ M1^2 (1−2p)^6 (2(1−˜p_{L,p,N})(1−˜p_{L,N})^{M1}−1)^2, where ˜p_{L,N}=O(p^{t'}) with t'=⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1. This extends the coherent interrogation time for Heisenberg scaling from M1=O(1/p) (no encoding) to M1=O(1/p^{t'}), at the cost of a noise bias that must improve exponentially with N. The authors provide fault-tolerant state preparation, syndrome extraction with minimum-weight perfect matching, a final uncomputed measurement, an unbiased estimator based on syndrome histories, and a worst-case bound over logical phase histories (Appendix D). The result is compared with the parallel protocol of Ref. [35].

Significance. If the claimed scaling holds, this is a conceptual advance: it shows that circuit-level faults at every location need not destroy Heisenberg scaling for a restricted, but explicitly characterized, biased-noise model, and it gives a concrete sequential sensing advantage over parallel approaches. The manuscript's strengths include a parameter-free derivation of the logical-error scaling (with only an optimization constant a=0.2), a rigorous worst-case CFI bound in Appendix D, explicit fault-tolerant circuits, STIM-based numerical threshold data, and an honest discussion of the artificiality of the X-only noise model (App. C.3) and of the required bias (App. B.7). The main limitation is the noise-bias requirement: the practical scope is narrower than the title and abstract might suggest, and the abstract contains a technically incorrect exponent for even N.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV.E] The abstract states T ∝ 1/p^{(N+1)/2} for an N-qubit code. This is correct only for odd N. The definition t'=⌊(N−1)/2⌋+1 (Eq. (45)) gives t'=(N+1)/2 for odd N but t'=N/2 for even N. For even N the correct exponent is ceil(N/2), so the abstract's formula is strictly wrong (e.g., for N=2 it claims 1/p^{1.5} rather than 1/p). The same error appears in Sec. IV.E where p^{2t'}=p^{(N+1)} is asserted. Please correct the abstract and all derived statements, or explicitly restrict the headline claim to odd N.
  2. [App. B.7 and main text Sec. IV.C] The practical reach of 'fault-tolerant' is limited by the noise-bias assumption. The repetition code is blind to Z errors; a phase-flip with probability p_z suppresses the GHZ coherence by (1−2p_z)^{M1}. With M1=O(1/p^{t'}), retaining Heisenberg scaling requires p_z=O(p^{t'}), i.e. a bias ratio p_z/p that must shrink exponentially with N. The authors acknowledge this in App. B.7 and call the X-only model 'quite artificial' in App. C.3, but these caveats are absent from the abstract and Introduction. Any fixed physical bias ratio fails for large N; the title and abstract should state this explicitly, for example by saying the advantage holds for noise whose bias improves exponentially with code size. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the practical interpretation of the result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B.6.a, Eq. (B39)] The inequality P_mv(r) ≤ C(r,(r+1)/2) η^{(r+1)/2} is not correct as stated; e.g., for r=3, η=0.1, P_mv ≈ 0.244 but the RHS is 0.03. The conclusion r≥2t+1 is standard, but the proof should be replaced with a valid Chernoff/Hoeffding bound.
  2. [Sec. IV.E] The statement 'p^{2t'}/ν = p^{(N+1)}/ν' is only valid for odd N. Use p^{2t'} or ceil(N/2) to cover even N.
  3. [Author list and Refs.] The author name 'Lorc´ an' appears with a misplaced combining character; it should be 'Lorcán'. Also 'deMarti iOlius' in Ref. [92] should be 'de Martí iOlius'.
  4. [Fig. 8] The threshold at p≈0.02 is reported without specifying the exact syndrome-extraction circuits and the number of syndrome repetitions used in the STIM simulation. Please provide the simulation parameters so the threshold can be reproduced.
  5. [Introduction / Sec. II.C] The paper's specialized definition of 'fault-tolerant quantum sensing' (handling a restricted class of errors at every location) is introduced in the Introduction but would benefit from being stated in the abstract or at the start of Sec. II.C to avoid confusion with the standard fault-tolerance notion against arbitrary errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central Heisenberg-scaling bound is a self-contained, parameter-free derivation from the explicitly stated X-only circuit-level noise model.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (46), is derived rather than assumed: the logical error rate per round p̃_L,N is defined in Eq. (45) as the probability of t'+1 physical X faults, which is O(p^{t'}) by the distance of the repetition code. The state after M1 rounds is written as q|GHZ⟩⟨GHZ| + (1-q)ρ̃ with q = (1-p̃_L,p,N)(1-p̃_L,N)^{M1}, and Appendix D proves a worst-case CFI bound J ≥ (2q-1)^2 M1^2. The extra factor (1-2p)^6 is obtained by an explicit fault-counting calculation for the uncomputation and measurement circuit in Appendix B.5. The constant a=0.2 in M1=a/p̃_L,N is chosen by maximizing the elementary function a(2e^{-a}-1)^2, not by fitting any data. The HNLS-condition framework is taken from the independent Ref. [24], and the STIM simulations in Fig. 8 are an external numerical check rather than an input to the proof. The acknowledged restriction to X-only noise (Appendices B.7 and C.3) is an explicit, stated assumption of the theorem; it limits the practical regime but does not make the derivation circular. The only self-citations ([44], [80]) are background remarks and do not support any load-bearing step. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard machinery of quantum estimation theory and quantum error correction, plus a very strong, explicitly acknowledged noise-bias assumption (X-only errors everywhere). No new physical entities are introduced. The only numerical constant in the method (a=0.2) is an optimization choice, not a fitted parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • a = 0.2
    Constant setting M1 = a/p̃_L,N in Eqs. (B37)/(44), chosen to minimize the variance bound by optimizing a(2e^{-a}-1)^2. It is an optimization constant, not a fitted parameter to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard quantum estimation theory: QFI bound σ ≥ 1/√J_S and CFI bound (Cramér–Rao).
    Used throughout Sec. II A and appendices to translate Fisher information into precision bounds.
  • domain assumption HNLS condition for Heisenberg scaling restoration (Ref. [24]).
    Basis for choosing a code that corrects X errors while preserving the Z-rotation signal; introduced in Sec. II B and used to justify the restricted noise model.
  • ad hoc to paper All circuit-level errors are X-type (bit flips) with probability p; phase-flip errors are absent in the main text and required to be O(p^{t'}) in Appendix B.7.
    This is the key restrictive noise model that makes the repetition code have distance t'+1. The authors acknowledge in Appendix C.3 that requiring all gates to introduce only X errors is 'quite artificial'.
  • standard math Eastin–Knill theorem and quantum fault-tolerance threshold theorem.
    Used in Sec. II C to motivate the fault-tolerance framework and to explain why universal transversal gates are impossible.
  • domain assumption Minimum-weight perfect matching decoder succeeds for all error patterns of weight ≤ t in the repetition-code spacetime graph.
    Assumed to achieve the claimed logical error scaling in Appendix B.4/B.6; standard for repetition codes, but the proof is only a sketch.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fault-Tolerant Heisenberg-Limited Quantum Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMYSVHHL

@misc{pith2026260800171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fault-Tolerant Heisenberg-Limited Quantum Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMYSVHHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00171}
}
abstract

Quantum sensors hold great promise for achieving better sensitivity in the measurement of physical quantities compared to their classical counterparts. However, the conditions under which quantum advantage in sensing can be achieved are rather restrictive, and most quantum enhancements in sensing are lost in the presence of noise, errors, or a poorly calibrated system. To overcome these limitations, we are motivated to import ideas from fault-tolerant quantum computing to quantum sensing. Specifically, we consider a qubit noise model where the probability of phase-flip errors is exponentially smaller (in qubit number) compared to the probability of bit-flip errors that occur with probability $p$. For this noise structure, we demonstrate that, given a total sensing time $T$, Heisenberg scaling can be attained for times up to $T\propto 1/p^{(N+1)/2}$ for a $N$-qubit repetition code, in contrast with $T\propto 1/p$ without using a fault-tolerant sensing protocol.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We next compare to a similar recent fault-tolerant sensing protocol from Ref. [35]. In this protocol, only parallel sensing was considered, not sequential, and so Heisenberg scaling is in qubit number as opposed to time. Thus, given a restriction on qubit number N (as …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [35]

    & Kraus, B

    D¨ ur, W., Skotiniotis, M., Froewis, F. & Kraus, B. Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion.Physical Review Letters112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  2. [1]

    Starting from the state|+⟩, solving Eq

    Signal and noise along same direction First consider the simple case of estimating a rotation about theZaxis in the presence ofZnoise. Starting from the state|+⟩, solving Eq. (15), we find that the quantum state after a timetis given by ρ(t) = 1 2 1 e −2tγ−itϕ e−2tγ+itϕ 1 .(A1) Computing the corresponding QFI one finds JS = e−4γtt2. Given a total sensing ...

  3. [2]

    IV is estimating a rotation about theZaxis in the presence ofXnoise

    Signal and noise along different directions The single-qubit version of the channel considered in Sec. IV is estimating a rotation about theZaxis in the presence ofXnoise. Solving Eq. (15) withL x = √γX, we find that the|+⟩state evolves to ρ(t) = 1 2   1e −γt cosh t p γ2 −ϕ 2 + (γ−iϕ) sinh t √ γ2−ϕ2 √ (γ−ϕ)(γ+ϕ) e−γt cosh t p γ2 −ϕ 2 + (γ+iϕ) sinh t √...

  4. [3]

    Unbiased estimator based on observed syndromes Here we describe how to construct an unbiased esti- mator for the setting in Sec. IV B. To see the reason this is necessary, consider a 3-qubit repetition code. After 2 rounds, if no errors are detected, one might be tempted to assume we have the ideal GHZ state e−iϕ |0⟩⊗3+eiϕ |1⟩⊗3. By uncomputing the GHZ st...

  5. [4]

    Impact of logical errors on attainable precision Recall Eq. (36) that describes the state obtained after M1 rounds of interacting with the channel: ρGHZ,M1 (ϕ) = (1−p L)M1 |ψGHZ(ϕM1 )⟩ ⟨ψGHZ(ϕM1 )|+ (1−(1−p L)M1 )˜ρ .(B8) We now present two ways of bounding the decoherence introduced by logical errors. As a simplified model, one can take the continuous ti...

  6. [5]

    F ault-tolerant state preparation We now move on to describe our fault-tolerant sensing protocol, that extends the regime over which Heisenberg scaling can be achieved, even when allowing for errors after every operation as described in Sec. IV C. For sim- plicity, we begin by describing a three-qubit repetition code, with theN-qubit code described in app...

  7. [6]

    The next stage is to interact with the sensing channel, which introducesX 19 FIG

    F ault-tolerant syndrome extraction and correction After the fault-tolerant state preparation above, the ideal GHZ state has been prepared to within a correctable error with probability 1−O(p 2). The next stage is to interact with the sensing channel, which introducesX 19 FIG. 9:Sample detection events and the minimum-weight-perfect-matching decoder.Grey ...

  8. [7]

    Required measurement After the above steps, we have created the state given in Eq. (42). The final stage is to implement a measure- ment to extract theϕinformation while retaining Heisen- berg scaling. In the ideal setting, the measurement to im- plement is discussed in Sec. B 2. We now examine the ef- fect of errors at every stage, focusing on the measur...

Show all 112 references
  1. [8]

    Effect of phase-flip errors Because the repetition code correctsX-type faults but does not detectZfaults, adding dephasing (randomZ operators) with probabilityp z per round introduces an additional logical phase-flip channel that suppresses the GHZ coherence by a factor (1−2p ...

  2. [9]

    (C1) Additionally we will need the following controlled opera- tionsC 3,+ |x, y⟩ → |x, y+xmod (3)⟩andC3,− |x, y⟩ → |x, y−xmod (3)⟩

    Qutrit example We first study a qutrit example, starting with the generalized operatorsZ|k⟩=ω k |k⟩(ω= e i2π/3) and X|k⟩=|k+ 1 mod (3)⟩: Z=   1 0 0 0ω0 0 0ω 2   , X=   0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0   . (C1) Additionally we will need the following controlled opera- tionsC 3,+ |x, y...

  3. [10]

    AnXerror on the first qubit transforms this to (|100⟩+|022⟩)/ √

  4. [11]

    Similarly, after anX 2 error on the first qubit the system is in the state (|200⟩+|122⟩)/ √ 2

    Hence after actingC 3,+ andC 3,−, the joint state with ancilla is|1001⟩+|0221⟩. Similarly, after anX 2 error on the first qubit the system is in the state (|200⟩+|122⟩)/ √ 2. After the control operations the joint system is (|2002⟩+ |1222⟩)/ √

    2002

  5. [12]

    More generally, by measuring allZ iZ † i+1, the location of the error can be determined and corrected

    And so the specific error that occurred can be determined. More generally, by measuring allZ iZ † i+1, the location of the error can be determined and corrected. b. Qutrit fault-tolerant sensing We now demonstrate how the repetition code from above with repeated syndrome extra...

  6. [13]

    The Hamiltonian again acts only on the first qudit and isH 1 =ϕh 0 =ϕ(Z 1 +Z † 1)/2

    Generalized qudit example The above example can be generalized to the D-dimensional case with the operatorsZ|k⟩= ωk |k⟩(ω= e i2π/D),X|k⟩=|k+ 1 mod (D)⟩, CD,+ |x, y⟩ → |x, y+xmod (D)⟩, andC D,− |x, y⟩ → |x, y−xmod (D)⟩. The Hamiltonian again acts only on the first qudit and isH...

  7. [14]

    To extend this to circuit- level fault tolerance, one must additionally specify a fault model for state preparation, syndrome extraction, and measurement

    General Case The HNLS condition characterizes when Heisenberg scaling is achievable under an ideal recovery channel for a fixed sensing Lindbladian. To extend this to circuit- level fault tolerance, one must additionally specify a fault model for state preparation, syndrome ex...

  8. [15]

    & Maccone, L

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    Nature Photonics7, 613–619 (2013)

    Aasi, J.et al.Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravi- tational wave detector by using squeezed states of light. Nature Photonics7, 613–619 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Tse, M.et al.Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy.Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    A.et al.Quantum-enhanced nonlinear mi- croscopy.Nature594, 201–206 (2021)

    Casacio, C. A.et al.Quantum-enhanced nonlinear mi- croscopy.Nature594, 201–206 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    J., Itano, W

    Bollinger, J. J., Itano, W. M., Wineland, D. J. & Heinzen, D. J. Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states.Physical Review A54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    M., Horne, M

    Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A. & Zeilinger, A. Going beyond Bell’s theorem. InBell’s theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe, 69–72 (Springer, 1989)

    1989

  14. [21]

    W., Wiseman, H

    Daryanoosh, S., Slussarenko, S., Berry, D. W., Wiseman, H. M. & Pryde, G. J. Experimental optical phase mea- surement approaching the exact Heisenberg limit.Nature Communications9, 4606 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    A., Neergaard-Nielsen, J

    Nielsen, J. A., Neergaard-Nielsen, J. S., Gehring, T. & Andersen, U. L. Deterministic quantum phase estima- tion beyond N00N states.Physical Review Letters130, 123603 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    D.et al.Optimal metrology with pro- grammable quantum sensors.Nature603, 604–609 (2022)

    Marciniak, C. D.et al.Optimal metrology with pro- grammable quantum sensors.Nature603, 604–609 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    O.et al.Approaching optimal entangling col- lective measurements on quantum computing platforms

    Conlon, L. O.et al.Approaching optimal entangling col- lective measurements on quantum computing platforms. Nature Physics19, 351–357 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    O., Eilenberger, F., Lam, P

    Conlon, L. O., Eilenberger, F., Lam, P. K. & Assad, S. M. Discriminating mixed qubit states with collective mea- surements.Communications Physics6, 337 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    K.et al.Saturating the Quantum Cram´ er– Rao Bound in Prioritised Parameter Estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06704(2025)

    Yung, S. K.et al.Saturating the Quantum Cram´ er– Rao Bound in Prioritised Parameter Estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06704(2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    K.et al.Beating three-parameter precision trade-offs with entangling collective measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08871(2026)

    Yung, S. K.et al.Beating three-parameter precision trade-offs with entangling collective measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08871(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  21. [28]

    F.et al.Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement.Physical Review Letters79, 3865–3868 (1997)

    Huelga, S. F.et al.Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement.Physical Review Letters79, 3865–3868 (1997)

    1997

  22. [29]

    Physical Review Letters102, 040403 (2009)

    Dorner, U.et al.Optimal quantum phase estimation. Physical Review Letters102, 040403 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    M., de Matos Filho, R

    Escher, B. M., de Matos Filho, R. L. & Davidovich, L. General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology.Nature Physics7, 406–411 (2011)

    2011

  24. [31]

    & Gut ¸˘ a, M

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, R., Ko lody´ nski, J. & Gut ¸˘ a, M. The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology.Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.3432 (2013)

    Ozeri, R. Heisenberg limited metrology using quantum error-correction codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.3432 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  26. [33]

    M., Lovchinsky, I., Sushkov, A

    Kessler, E. M., Lovchinsky, I., Sushkov, A. O. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum error correction for metrology.Physical Review Letters112, 150802 (2014)

    2014

  27. [34]

    & Retzker, A

    Arrad, G., Vinkler, Y., Aharonov, D. & Retzker, A. In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction.Physical Review Letters112, 150801 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    & D¨ ur, W

    Sekatski, P., Skotiniotis, M., Ko lody´ nski, J. & D¨ ur, W. Quantum metrology with full and fast quantum control. Quantum1, 27 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    & Sekatski, P

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, R., Czajkowski, J. & Sekatski, P. Adaptive quantum metrology under general Marko- vian noise.Physical Review X7, 041009 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    & Jiang, L

    Zhou, S., Zhang, M., Preskill, J. & Jiang, L. Achiev- ing the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction.Nature Communications9, 78 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    & Jiang, L

    Zhou, S. & Jiang, L. Asymptotic theory of quantum channel estimation.PRX Quantum2, 010343 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Unden, T.et al.Quantum metrology enhanced by repet- itive quantum error correction.Physical Review Letters 116, 230502 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Physical Review Letters133, 080801 (2024)

    Niroula, P.et al.Quantum sensing with erasure qubits. Physical Review Letters133, 080801 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    & Re- iter, F

    Rojkov, I., Layden, D., Cappellaro, P., Home, J. & Re- iter, F. Bias in error-corrected quantum sensing.Physical Review Letters128, 140503 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Shor, P. W. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of com- puter science, 56–65 (IEEE, 1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation.Intro- duction to quantum computation and information213 (1998)

    Preskill, J. Fault-tolerant quantum computation.Intro- duction to quantum computation and information213 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Laflamme, R., Miquel, C., Paz, J. P. & Zurek, W. H. Perfect quantum error correcting code.Physical Review Letters77, 198 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Postler, L.et al.Demonstration of fault-tolerant uni- versal quantum gate operations.Nature605, 675–680 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Bluvstein, D.et al.Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature626, 58–65 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code thresh- old.Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    & Zhou, S

    Sahu, H., Xu, Q. & Zhou, S. Achieving the Heisenberg limit using fault-tolerant quantum error correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05457(2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    T., Caves, C

    Boixo, S., Flammia, S. T., Caves, C. M. & Geremia, J. M. Generalized limits for single-parameter quantum estimation.Physical Review Letters98, 090401 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Strong consistency and asymptotic effi- ciency for adaptive quantum estimation problems.Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 12489– 12504 (2006)

    Fujiwara, A. Strong consistency and asymptotic effi- ciency for adaptive quantum estimation problems.Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 12489– 12504 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    S.Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory, vol

    Holevo, A. S.Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory, vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory.Physical Review A52, R2493–R2496 (1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    Steane, A. M. Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Physical Review Letters77, 793–797 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum er- ror correction (1997)

    Gottesman, D. Stabilizer codes and quantum er- ror correction (1997). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ quant-ph/9705052. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology. Also available as arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    1997 arXiv

  48. [56]

    & Laflamme, R

    Knill, E. & Laflamme, R. Theory of quantum error- 28 correcting codes.Physical Review A55, 900–911 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    & Jiang, L

    Zhou, S. & Jiang, L. Optimal approximate quantum error correction for quantum metrology.Physical Review Research2, 013235 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Yin, C., Albert, V. V. & Zhou, S. Small correlation is sufficient for optimal noisy quantum metrology (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00079. 2408.00079

    2025

  51. [59]

    & Ben-Or, M

    Aharonov, D. & Ben-Or, M. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error. InProceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of com- puting, 176–188 (1997)

    1997

  52. [60]

    Terhal, B. M. & Burkard, G. Fault-tolerant quantum computation for local non-Markovian noise.Physical Re- view A71, 012336 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J

    Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cle- land, A. N. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    & Knill, E

    Eastin, B. & Knill, E. Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets.Physical Review Letters102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    & Kliesch, M

    Wagner, T., Kampermann, H., Bruß, D. & Kliesch, M. Optimal noise estimation from syndrome statistics of quantum codes.Physical Review Research3, 013292 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    & Kliesch, M

    Wagner, T., Kampermann, H., Bruß, D. & Kliesch, M. Pauli channels can be estimated from syndrome mea- surements in quantum error correction.Quantum6, 809 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    & Datta, A

    Kapourniotis, T. & Datta, A. Fault-tolerant quantum metrology.Physical Review A100, 022335 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    & Grover, L

    Rudolph, T. & Grover, L. Quantum communication com- plexity of establishing a shared reference frame.Physical Review Letters91, 217905 (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    & Carretta, S

    Mezzadri, M., Lepori, L., Chiesa, A. & Carretta, S. Dephasing-tolerant quantum sensing for transverse mag- netic fields with spin qudits.Quantum Science and Tech- nology10, 015045 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    V., Choi, S., Kaufman, A

    Ott, R., Zache, T. V., Choi, S., Kaufman, A. M. & Pich- ler, H. Rare-event quantum sensing using logical qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04313(2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    Antu, S. B. & Zhou, S. Stabilizer codes for Heisenberg- limited many-body Hamiltonian estimation.Quantum9, 1766 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    & Jiang, L

    Layden, D., Zhou, S., Cappellaro, P. & Jiang, L. Ancilla- free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrol- ogy.Physical Review Letters122, 040502 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Zhou, S., Manes, A. G. & Jiang, L. Achieving metro- logical limits using ancilla-free quantum error-correcting codes.Physical Review A109, 042406 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Cruz, D.et al.Efficient quantum algorithms for GHZ and W states, and implementation on the IBM quantum computer.Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900015 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Short-depth circuits and error mitigation for large-scale GHZ-state preparation, and benchmark- ing on IBM’s 127-qubit system

    Chen, K.-C. Short-depth circuits and error mitigation for large-scale GHZ-state preparation, and benchmark- ing on IBM’s 127-qubit system. In2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), vol. 2, 207–210 (IEEE, 2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Gidney, C. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum5, 497 (2021). URLhttps://doi.org/10. 22331/q-2021-07-06-497

    2021

  67. [75]

    R´ eglade, U.et al.Quantum control of a cat qubit with bit-flip times exceeding ten seconds.Nature629, 778– 783 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    & Zhou, S

    Mann, Z., Cao, N., Laflamme, R. & Zhou, S. Quantum error-corrected non-Markovian metrology.PRX Quan- tum6, 030321 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    & Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, R

    Ghosh, S., Kobus, A., Kurdzia lek, S. & Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, R. Optimal phase estimation in the presence of correlated dephasing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07211 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    & Peard, N

    Bravyi, S., Englbrecht, M., K¨ onig, R. & Peard, N. Cor- recting coherent errors with surface codes.npj Quantum Information4, 55 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    & Asb´ oth, J

    M´ arton,´A. & Asb´ oth, J. K. Coherent errors and readout errors in the surface code.Quantum7, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Iverson, J. K. & Preskill, J. Coherence in logical quantum channels.New Journal of Physics22, 073066 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Huang, E., Doherty, A. C. & Flammia, S. Performance of quantum error correction with coherent errors.Physical Review A99, 022313 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    Fault tolerant channel-encrypting quantum di- alogue against collective noise.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy58, 1–10 (2015)

    Ye, T. Fault tolerant channel-encrypting quantum di- alogue against collective noise.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy58, 1–10 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    & M¨ uller-Hermes, A

    Christandl, M. & M¨ uller-Hermes, A. Fault-tolerant cod- ing for quantum communication.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory70, 282–317 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    & M¨ uller-Hermes, A

    Belzig, P., Christandl, M. & M¨ uller-Hermes, A. Fault- tolerant coding for entanglement-assisted communica- tion.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory70, 2655–2673 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    & Guha, S

    Shi, Y., Patil, A. & Guha, S. Stabilizer entanglement distillation and efficient fault-tolerant encoders.PRX Quantum6, 010339 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    & Guha, S

    Shi, Y., Patil, A. & Guha, S. Measurement-based entan- glement distillation and constant-rate quantum repeaters over arbitrary distances.Physical Review Letters135, 130803 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    & Goswami, A

    Christandl, M., Fawzi, O. & Goswami, A. Fault-tolerant quantum input/output.IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory72, 3098–3128 (2026)

    2026

  80. [88]

    H., DiVincenzo, D

    Bennett, C. H., DiVincenzo, D. P., Smolin, J. A. & Woot- ters, W. K. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction.Physical Review A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  81. [89]

    & Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, R

    Kubica, A. & Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, R. Using quan- tum metrological bounds in quantum error correction: A simple proof of the approximate Eastin-Knill theorem. Physical Review Letters126, 150503 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Omanakuttan, S., Gross, J. A. & Volkoff, T. Quantum er- ror correction-inspired multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16515(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    & Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, R

    G´ orecki, W., Zhou, S., Jiang, L. & Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, R. Optimal probes and error-correction schemes in multi-parameter quantum metrology.Quan- tum4, 288 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    & Jiang, L

    Zhuang, Q., Preskill, J. & Jiang, L. Distributed quantum sensing enhanced by continuous-variable error correction. New Journal of Physics22, 022001 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    Zaiser, S.et al.Enhancing quantum sensing sensitivity by a quantum memory.Nature Communications7, 12279 (2016)

    2016

  86. [94]

    & Gullans, M

    Huang, E., Rozon, P.-G., Dua, A., Gopalakrishnan, S. & Gullans, M. J. A robust phase of continuous transver- sal gates in quantum stabilizer codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01319(2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    Faist, P.et al.Continuous symmetries and approximate 29 quantum error correction.Physical Review X10, 041018 (2020)

    2020

  88. [96]

    & Zhou, S

    Liu, Z.-W. & Zhou, S. Approximate symmetries and quantum error correction.npj Quantum Information9, 119 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    & Haah, J

    Bravyi, S. & Haah, J. Magic-state distillation with low overhead.Physical Review A86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  90. [98]

    & Pfis- ter, H

    Rengaswamy, N., Calderbank, R., Newman, M. & Pfis- ter, H. D. On optimality of CSS codes for transversal T. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory 1, 499–514 (2020)

    2020

  91. [99]

    Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. & Gill, R. D. Fisher information in quantum statistics.Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General33, 4481 (2000)

    2000

  92. [100]

    & Matsumoto, K

    Hayashi, M. & Matsumoto, K. Statistical model with measurement degree of freedom and quantum physics. InAsymptotic theory of quantum statistical inference: se- lected papers, 162–169 (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  93. [101]

    Explicit formulae for the Bures metric

    Dittmann, J. Explicit formulae for the Bures metric. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 2663 (1999)

    1999

  94. [102]

    & Wang, X

    Liu, J., Yuan, H., Lu, X.-M. & Wang, X. Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Discontinuities of the quantum Fisher in- formation and the Bures metric.Physical Review A95, 052320 (2017)

    ˇSafr´ anek, D. Discontinuities of the quantum Fisher in- formation and the Bures metric.Physical Review A95, 052320 (2017)

    2017

  96. [104]

    Limits of noisy quantum metrology with re- stricted quantum controls.Physical Review Letters133, 170801 (2024)

    Zhou, S. Limits of noisy quantum metrology with re- stricted quantum controls.Physical Review Letters133, 170801 (2024)

    2024

  97. [105]

    & Gidney, C

    Higgott, O. & Gidney, C. Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching.Quantum9, 1600 (2025)

    2025

  98. [106]

    deMarti iOlius, A., Fuentes, P., Or´ us, R., Crespo, P. M. & Martinez, J. E. Decoding algorithms for surface codes. Quantum8, 1498 (2024)

    2024

  99. [107]

    & Poulin, D

    Iyer, P. & Poulin, D. Hardness of decoding quantum sta- bilizer codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61, 5209–5223 (2015)

    2015

  100. [108]

    & Vargo, A

    Bravyi, S., Suchara, M. & Vargo, A. Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code. Physical Review A90, 032326 (2014)

    2014

  101. [109]

    & Melko, R

    Torlai, G. & Melko, R. G. Neural decoder for topological codes.Physical Review Letters119, 030501 (2017)

    2017

  102. [110]

    C., Kubica, A., Flammia, S

    Higgott, O., Bohdanowicz, T. C., Kubica, A., Flammia, S. T. & Campbell, E. T. Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes. Physical Review X13, 031007 (2023)

    2023

  103. [111]

    & Preskill, J

    Dennis, E., Kitaev, A., Landahl, A. & Preskill, J. Topological quantum memory.Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452–4505 (2002)

    2002

  104. [112]

    Tomita, Y.et al.Comparison of ancilla preparation and measurement procedures for the Steane [[7, 1, 3]] code on a model ion-trap quantum computer.Physical Review A 88, 042336 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.