Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Mitigating sloppiness in joint estimation of successive squeezing parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inserting a phase shift between two successive squeezings makes the two squeezing parameters jointly estimable, and with optimized phases joint estimation beats stepwise estimation.

desk verdict A clean analytical extension of the group's scrambling recipe to successive squeezings, but the 'joint is always better' claim overreaches: at α=0 the stepwise and joint bounds coincide. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15638 v1 pith:44DDGZBD submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Priyanka Sharma , Stefano Olivares , Devendra Kumar Mishra , Matteo G. A. Paris This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologymultiparameterestimationsloppinesssqueezingparametersFisherinformationHolevoCramér-Raoboundgeneral-dynedetectionphase-shiftscrambling
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

Two successive squeezing operations applied to one optical mode normally hide their individual strengths: the output state depends only on their sum, so the quantum Fisher information matrix is singular and neither parameter can be extracted alone. This paper shows that inserting a tunable phase-shift scrambler between the two squeezings makes the two parameters independently estimable, and that optimizing the scrambler phase and the probe phase at $\pi/4$ minimizes the remaining sloppiness. Comparing the quantum bounds, the authors find that joint estimation after scrambling is always more precise than stepwise estimation in the explored parameter range. They also show that a realistically implementable general-dyne measurement, with its noise parameter adapted from a first estimate of one squeezing strength, can approach the quantum precision limit in the large-amplitude regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-shift scrambler $\hat V=e^{-i\varphi\hat a^\dagger\hat a}$, inserted between the two squeezing unitaries $\hat U_k=e^{-i\lambda_k\hat G/2}$ with generator $\hat G=\hat a^2+\hat a^{\dagger 2}$. Its role is to rotate the field quadratures between the two squeezings so that the output state depends on the individual parameters rather than only on their sum. Alongside it, the calculation relies on the closed-form quantum Fisher information and Uhlmann curvature matrices for the coherent-state probe, and on the optimized choice $\varphi=\theta=\pi/4$, which minimizes the sloppiness quantifier $S=1/\det Q$. For the detection stage, the paper uses general-dyne POVMs with added noise covariance $\sigma_m=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(z,z^{-1})$, optimized at $z=e^{2\lambda_2}$, to show that a feasible Gaussian measurement nearly saturates the quantum bounds.

What would settle it

With the paper's own lossless formulas, one can scan $\alpha\ge0$ and $\lambda_1\ge0$ and compare $C_{\mathrm{sep}}^{\min}$ with $C_Q(1+T_I)$; a single point where $C_{\mathrm{sep}}^{\min} \le C_Q(1+T_I)$ would contradict the statement that joint estimation is always better in this model. Alternatively, in a real experiment, measure the joint and stepwise Fisher informations under the optimized phases $\varphi=\theta=\pi/4$ and see whether the joint advantage survives photon losses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a phase-shift scrambling operation $\hat V=e^{-i\varphi\hat a^\dagger\hat a}$ placed between the two squeezing unitaries $\hat U_k=e^{-i\lambda_k\hat G/2}$, with generator $\hat G=\hat a^2+\hat a^{\dagger 2}$, removes the model's sloppiness and makes the two hyperbolic phases $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ jointly estimable. With the probe in a coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$ and optimized phases $\varphi=\theta=\pi/4$, the quantum Fisher information matrix is no longer singular, and the sloppiness $S=1/\det Q$ is given by a closed expression that decreases with $\lambda_1$ and with the coherent amplitude. The authors show that the optimized joint bound $C_Q(1+T_I)$ lies below the optimized stepwise bounds $C_{\mathrm{sep}1}$ and $C_{\mathrm{sep}2}$ throughout the explored parameter space, so they conclude that joint estimation is always better than separate estimation for this model. For large $\lambda_1$ the Holevo bound collapses onto the SLD bound, making repeated independent preparations sufficient for optimal precision, while optimized general-dyne detection with $z=e^{2\lambda_2}$, $\theta=0$, $\varphi=\pi/4$ gives a classical bound $C_g$ satisfying $C_H/C_g\simeq 1/4$ when both $\alpha$ and $\lambda_1$ are large.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the whole process is lossless and ideal: the probe is a pure coherent state and both the squeezing operations and the inserted phase shift are exact unitaries, so no photon loss or excess noise enters the Fisher information; if a real optical channel adds losses, the precision bounds change and the claimed joint advantage may weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two squeezing parameters that are individually unidentifiable without the scrambler become jointly estimable at finite precision once a phase shift is inserted between the two squeezings.
  • With optimized phases, the joint-estimation bound $C_Q(1+T_I)$ remains below the best stepwise bounds $C_{\mathrm{sep}1}^{\min}$ and $C_{\mathrm{sep}2}^{\min}$ over the studied range, so splitting the experimental runs between two separate single-parameter estimates is never preferable in this lossless model.
  • For large true values of the first squeezing strength $\lambda_1$, the Holevo bound approaches the SLD quantum Cramér-Rao bound, so repeated independent preparations of the probe are enough to reach the ultimate precision; the small-$\lambda_1$ regime instead likely requires collective entangled measurements.
  • A general-dyne measurement with adaptively chosen noise parameter $z=e^{2\lambda_2}$ yields a classical precision within a factor roughly 4 of the quantum bound in the large-amplitude, large-$\lambda_1$ regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same 'open the encoding box and insert a rotation' recipe should apply to other chains of non-commuting unitary encodings; a natural extension is to insert scramblers between every pair of unknown operations in a longer squeezing sequence.
  • The optimized general-dyne setting assumes knowledge of $\lambda_2$ to set $z$, so a practical implementation requires a two-stage adaptive protocol; the cost of that first estimate is not quantified here, and one could test whether the factor-4 gap survives when adaptation overhead is included.
  • In a lossy optical channel the covariance matrix acquires additional terms, and the exact cancellation that makes $\varphi=\theta=\pi/4$ optimal may be disturbed; a concrete next step is to optimize the scrambling phase under photonic loss and check whether the joint advantage over stepwise estimation persists.
  • The asymptotic ratio $C_H/C_g\simeq 1/4$ suggests that noise-matched Gaussian measurements can nearly saturate the Holevo bound for multiparameter Gaussian models; whether exact saturation is possible in other regimes is a natural conjecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the joint estimation of two successive squeezing parameters (hyperbolic phases) acting on a coherent state of a single field mode. Because the two squeezings commute in the absence of an intermediate operation, the output state depends only on the sum of the parameters and the statistical model is sloppy. The authors insert a phase-shift scrambler V=exp(-i φ a†a) between the two unitaries and compute the quantum Fisher information matrix and the Uhlmann curvature for the resulting pure Gaussian model. They claim that the phases φ=θ=π/4 minimize the sloppiness, that the joint-estimation precision bound C_Q(1+T_I) is below the optimized stepwise bounds C_sep1 and C_sep2 over the explored parameter range, and that a suitably optimized general-dyne measurement can approach the quantum Holevo bound in the large-α and large-λ1 regime. The paper contains explicit analytic expressions for the QFIM and Uhlmann curvature in Appendix A, and the comparison with stepwise and general-dyne strategies is developed in Sections IV-VI.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question, namely whether an intermediate scrambling operation can remove sloppiness in a continuous-variable two-parameter estimation problem. The model is clean, the calculations are explicit and standard (pure-state QFIM and Uhlmann curvature, Gaussian Fisher information for general-dyne detection), and the general-dyne analysis gives a concrete, experimentally meaningful measurement family. If the central claims were fully established, the paper would provide a useful CV counterpart to the qubit and interferometric results in Refs. [34,39]. However, the manuscript currently contains an apparent mislabeling of the central sloppiness formula, an unproven phase-optimization claim, and a joint-versus-stepwise comparison that supports a weaker statement than the one asserted. The paper is transparent about its ideal noiseless unitary model, which is a strength because it makes the scope of the claims clear, but the headline 'always better' conclusion needs to be either proven or significantly qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (30) and Fig. 2] The quantity displayed in Eq. (30) and labeled S is not the sloppiness S=1/det[Q] defined in Eq. (19). Using the QFIM elements in Appendix A at φ=θ=π/4, Eq. (30) evaluates to C_Q=Tr[Q]/det[Q]. For example, at α=0 Eq. (30) gives C_Q=(1+cosh^2(2λ1))/(8 cosh^2(2λ1)), whereas 1/det[Q]=1/(64 cosh^2(2λ1)). The two differ by a factor of order cosh^2(2λ1). This is not a purely cosmetic typo because the subsequent discussion of the optimized sloppiness and Fig. 2 use this expression. Please correct either the label or the formula, and re-derive the statement that the optimized quantity is S rather than C_Q.
  2. [Section III and Section VI, phase optimization] The claim that φ=θ=π/4 minimize the sloppiness is introduced with 'Upon inspecting analytically' but no derivation is provided. This is a load-bearing step because all subsequent quantum bounds (Figs. 2-5) and the comparison with stepwise estimation use these phases. Similarly, in Section VI the statement that 'the optimization leads to' θ=0, φ=π/4 and z=exp(2λ2) for the general-dyne measurement is asserted without showing the stationarity or global-minimum conditions. A proof or an explicit derivation of both optimizations should be included; if a full proof is not available, the claims should be downgraded to 'we choose these values' and the optimality statements removed.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 5 and conclusion] The conclusion that 'joint estimation is always better than separate one' is not established by the comparison in Fig. 5. The plotted joint quantity C_Q(1+T_I) is an upper bound on the Holevo bound C_H, and an upper bound strictly below C_sep would indeed certify a joint advantage, but the authors do not provide an analytic proof of this inequality, and the numerical comparison is presented without specifying the grid. Moreover, at α=0 the inequality is an equality: with Q11=8, Q22=8 cosh^2(2λ1) and U12=-8 cosh(2λ1), Eq. (38) gives C_sep1=C_sep2=C_Q(1+T_I) for all λ1. Thus the vacuum-probe case does not support 'always better' in any strict sense. Please either prove the strict inequality for α>0 and handle α=0 separately, or reformulate the conclusion to state that joint estimation is at least as good in the explored region and strictly better in the numerically investigated α>0 cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (34)-(38)] The text says that Csep1 and Csep2 'are equal', but the optimized formulas Cmin_sepk=1/Qkk+QkkS+2√S are generally different when Q11≠Q22. For α>0 and λ1≠0 these two bounds differ (though they may be close numerically). Please correct the statement and specify which curve is shown in Fig. 5.
  2. [Section V, after Eq. (47)] The sentence stating that for φ=0 or φ=π/2 the first moments and variances 'depend only on the sum ... or difference ... thus allowing their joint estimation' is misleading: dependence on only one combination prevents estimation of both parameters jointly. Presumably the intended statement is that the sum and difference can be estimated in separate configurations, or that this illustrates the decoupling mechanism.
  3. [Section IV, text near Eq. (35)] In the second stepwise scenario, the sentence says the total variance is bounded by Csep1/M, but the quantity defined in Eq. (35) is Csep2. Please correct the label.
  4. [General] The paper assumes ideal lossless unitary dynamics throughout. Since the conclusions are phrased as unconditional ('always better', 'approaches the optimal precision'), the ideal-model limitation should be restated explicitly in the Conclusions and the claims should be understood as valid for the noiseless model only.
  5. [General and references] There are several presentation issues: Fig. 2 mentions a 'black region' that is likely a color-region artifact; the notation C=1/det[U] and S=1/det[Q] is easy to confuse with C_Q and should be renamed (e.g., C_inc and S_slop); and Ref. [34] is cited as a 2024 arXiv preprint, which should be updated if a published version is available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: all precision bounds are derived analytically from the stated Gaussian model, and self-citations are motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to data and does not use the target conclusion as an input. The quantities φ, θ, and z are design parameters of the probe and measurement, optimized within the model rather than adjusted to force a result. The QFIM, Uhlmann curvature, Holevo bounds, stepwise bounds, and general-dyne Fisher information are all computed explicitly from the state |ψ⟩ = U₂ V U₁ |α⟩ with V = exp(−iφ a†a). Although some cited works share authors with this paper (e.g., [34], [39], [44]), those citations are used only as motivation for the scrambling idea and the stepwise comparison strategy; the derivation itself is self-contained and does not rely on any cited uniqueness theorem or fitted input. The claim that joint estimation is 'always better' than stepwise is supported only by comparing the upper bound C_Q(1+T_I) with the stepwise bounds, and at α = 0 the two quantities are actually equal rather than strictly separated; however, this is an overstatement or correctness issue about the strength of an inequality, not a circularity, because the compared bounds are independently derived from the same model rather than being equivalent by construction. The paper is therefore not circular, with all central claims following from explicit first-principles calculations for the stated noiseless Gaussian model.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard multiparameter quantum estimation theory, on the choice of a pure coherent probe, and on the assumption that the scrambling phase shift and general-dyne POVM are Gaussian operations. No empirical free parameters are fitted. The only unproved premise is the asserted optimality of φ=θ=π/4, which is a hand-verified optimization rather than an ad hoc fitted parameter. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The standard quantum Cramér-Rao bound and the chain C_Q ≤ C_H ≤ (1+R)C_Q, plus the W=I version C_Q ≤ C_H ≤ (1+T_I)C_Q, are valid for the pure two-parameter model.
    Used in Section II; taken from Refs. [3,4,27,28].
  • domain assumption The probe is a pure coherent state |α e^{iθ}> and the squeezing unitaries are ideal exponentials of G = a^2 + a†^2.
    Defines the model in Section III and is used for all formulas.
  • domain assumption The scrambling operation is the passive rotation V = exp(-iφ a†a) and the measurement family is Gaussian (general-dyne).
    Restricts the analysis to Gaussian states and measurements, Sections V and VI.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal phases are φ=θ=π/4 (and θ=0, z=e^{2λ2} for general-dyne), asserted without a fully shown derivation.
    Section III states this optimum 'upon inspecting analytically' and uses it for all later bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigating sloppiness in joint estimation of successive squeezing parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44DDGZBD

@misc{pith2026250615638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigating sloppiness in joint estimation of successive squeezing parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44DDGZBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15638}
}
read the original abstract

When two successive squeezing operations with the same phase are applied to a field mode, reliably estimating the amplitude of each is impossible because the output state depends solely on their sum. In this case, the quantum statistical model becomes sloppy, and the quantum Fisher information matrix turns singular. However, estimation of both parameters becomes feasible if the quantum state is subjected to an appropriate scrambling operation between the two squeezing operations. In this work, we analyze in detail the effects of a phase-shift scrambling transformation, optimized to reduce sloppiness and maximize the overall estimation precision. We also compare the optimized precision bounds of joint estimation with those of stepwise estimation methods, finding that joint estimation retains an advantage despite the quantum noise induced by the residual parameter incompatibility. Finally, we analyze the precision achievable by general-dyne detection and find that it may approach the optimal precision in some regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of our proposed model to reduce the sloppiness in the estimation of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The sloppiness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The optimized stepwise bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of modern physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Physics Reports1134, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

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

    1976

  4. [4]

    Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(Edizioni della Normale Pisa, 2011)

    A. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(Edizioni della Normale Pisa, 2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Rehacek and M

    J. Rehacek and M. G. A. Paris,Quantum State Estimation(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Infor- mation07, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    P. D. Drummond and Z. Ficek,Quantum squeezing, Vol. 27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, and J. F. Valley, Observation of squeezed states generated by four-wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2409 (1985)

    1985

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. G. A. Paris, Using entanglement improves the precision of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 270404 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

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

    1994

  3. [11]

    Sharma, A

    P. Sharma, A. Kumar, G. Shukla, and D. K. Mishra, Optimizing phase sensitivity of mach-zehnder interferometer having superposition of coherent state with single-photon-added coherent state, Physics Letters A543, 130459 (2025). 19

    2025

  4. [12]

    M. A. C. Rossi and M. G. A. Paris, Entangled quantum probes for dynamical environmental noise, Physical Review A92, 010302 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    M. Bina, F. Grasselli, and M. G. A. Paris, Continuous-variable quantum probes for structured envi- ronments, Physical Review A97, 012125 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    L. J. Fiderer, T. Tufarelli, S. Piano, and G. Adesso, General expressions for the quantum fisher infor- mation matrix with applications to discrete quantum imaging, PRX Quantum2, 020308 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Sharma, A

    P. Sharma, A. K. Pandey, G. Shukla, and D. K. Mishra, Enhancement in phase sensitivity of SU(1,1) interferometer with kerr state seeding, Optics Communications573, 131028 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  9. [17]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imaging, Physics Letters A384, 126311 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu, Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources, Phys. Rev. X6, 031033 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics 4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Baumgratz and A

    T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Quantum enhanced estimation of a multidimensional field, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 030801 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 070403 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 080501 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    R. D. Gill and S. Massar, State estimation for large ensembles, Phys. Rev. A61, 042312 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. A94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Szczykulska, T

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

    2016

  19. [27]

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

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

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Albarelli, J

    F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, Evaluating the holevo cram´ er-rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 200503 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. G´ orecki, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 363001 (2020). 20

    2020

  22. [30]

    Rubio and J

    J. Rubio and J. Dunningham, Bayesian multiparameter quantum metrology with limited data, Phys. Rev. A101, 032114 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    K. K. Lee, C. N. Gagatsos, S. Guha, and A. Ashok, Quantum-inspired multi-parameter adaptive bayesian estimation for sensing and imaging, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 17, 491 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Razavian, M

    S. Razavian, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, On the quantumness of multiparameter estimation problems for qubit systems, Entropy22, 1197 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Bressanini, M

    G. Bressanini, M. G. Genoni, M. S. Kim, and M. G. A. Paris, Multi-parameter quantum estimation of single- and two-mode pure gaussian states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 315305 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Frigerio and M

    M. Frigerio and M. G. A. Paris, Overcoming sloppiness for enhanced metrology in continuous-variable quantum statistical models (2024), arXiv:2410.02989 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gessner, L

    M. Gessner, L. Pezz` e, and A. Smerzi, Sensitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 130503 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Candeloro, Z

    A. Candeloro, Z. Pazhotan, and M. G. A. Paris, Dimension matters: precision and incompatibility in multi-parameter quantum estimation models, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045045 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    G. J. Milburn, W.-Y. Chen, and K. R. Jones, Hyperbolic phase and squeeze-parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. A50, 801 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    C. G. Bollini and L. E. Oxman, Shannon entropy and the eigenstates of the single-mode squeeze operator, Phys. Rev. A47, 2339 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    He and M

    J. He and M. G. A. Paris, Scrambling for precision: optimizing multiparameter qubit estimation in the face of sloppiness and incompatibility (2025), arXiv:2503.08235 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hradil, J

    Z. Hradil, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, and M. Jeˇ zek, 3 maximum-likelihood methodsin quantum mechanics, inQuantum State Estimation, edited by M. Paris and J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004) pp. 59–112

    2004

  33. [41]

    Mauro D’Ariano, M

    G. Mauro D’Ariano, M. G. A. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Parameter estimation in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A62, 023815 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    H. Yuen, R. Kennedy, and M. Lax, Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory21, 125 (1975)

    1975

  35. [43]

    M. G. A. Paris, Small amount of squeezing in high-sensitive realistic interferometry, Physics Letters A 201, 132 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Mukhopadhyay, A

    C. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bayat, V. Montenegro, and M. G. A. Paris, Beating joint quantum estimation limits with stepwise multiparameter metrology, arXiv:2506.06075 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.06075 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Olivares, Quantum optics in the phase space, The European Physical Journal Special Topics203, 3 (2012)

    S. Olivares, Quantum optics in the phase space, The European Physical Journal Special Topics203, 3 (2012). 21

    2012

  38. [46]

    Olivares, Introduction to generation, manipulation and characterization of optical quantum states, Physics Letters A418, 127720 (2021)

    S. Olivares, Introduction to generation, manipulation and characterization of optical quantum states, Physics Letters A418, 127720 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.