pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16978 · v1 · pith:4I7GMOHOnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · 🪐 quant-ph

Closed-form Bayesian quantum estimation of Gaussian states

Edward Gandar , Jes\'us Rubio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 20:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Bayesian quantum estimationGaussian statesclosed-form solutionsvariational frameworkpolynomial operatorsquadrature measurementscontinuous-variable systemsoptimal estimation
1
0 comments X

The pith

A restriction to polynomial operators in quadratures reduces Bayesian quantum estimation of Gaussian states to closed-form linear problems.

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

The paper develops a variational framework for Bayesian quantum estimation of parameters in continuous-variable Gaussian states. It restricts the search for measurements and estimators to operators that are polynomials in the canonical quadratures. This converts the otherwise intractable optimization over complex parameter integrals into a finite-dimensional linear problem that has explicit solutions. The solutions carry a geometric meaning as orthogonal projections of the global optimum, and the work supplies a necessary and sufficient condition to verify global optimality. Single-shot examples show that the resulting strategies, built from Gaussian operations and quadrature measurements, reach optimal or near-optimal performance.

Core claim

By restricting the analysis to operators polynomial in the canonical quadratures, the optimisation over measurements and estimators reduces to a finite-dimensional linear problem and admits closed-form solutions. These solutions have a geometric interpretation as orthogonal projections of the global optimum. A necessary and sufficient condition for global optimality is derived. In single-shot examples the framework produces experimentally feasible strategies based on Gaussian operations and quadrature measurements that are optimal or near-optimal, with further improvement obtained by replacing the induced estimator with the posterior mean.

What carries the argument

Variational framework restricted to polynomial operators in the canonical quadratures, which converts the estimation problem into a finite-dimensional linear problem whose solutions are orthogonal projections of the global optimum.

If this is right

  • Experimentally feasible strategies based on Gaussian operations and quadrature measurements become available.
  • The obtained strategies are optimal or near-optimal for the original estimation problem.
  • Substituting the induced estimator with the posterior mean improves performance further toward the global optimum.
  • A necessary and sufficient condition now exists to test whether any candidate solution is globally optimal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same polynomial restriction could be tested on other continuous-variable systems to see whether closed-form solutions appear beyond the Gaussian case.
  • Real-time quantum sensors with limited data might adopt these analytical strategies to lower computational cost during operation.
  • Checking performance at successively higher polynomial degrees would quantify how quickly the restricted solutions approach the unrestricted optimum.

Load-bearing premise

Restricting the measurement and estimator search to operators that are polynomials in the canonical quadratures is sufficient to produce solutions that are either optimal or near-optimal for the original unbounded problem.

What would settle it

In a specific single-shot Gaussian-state parameter estimation task, numerically compute the true global optimum and compare its performance to the closed-form polynomial-based strategy; agreement within experimental precision would confirm the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16978 by Edward Gandar, Jes\'us Rubio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relative MSL in Eq. (43) as a function of the prior variance σ 2 0 for estimating a displacement parameter θ as per Eq. (44). Here, we use a uniform prior with width ∆ and variance σ 2 0 = ∆2 /12, and ρin is a coherent state with α = 0.5(1 + i). The dotted and dashed curves denote the relative MSL of the linear {1, qˆ} and cubic {1, q, ˆ qˆ 3 } subspaces, respectively, representing q-homodyne meas￾urements… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relative MSL in Eq. (43) as a function of the prior variance σ 2 0 for a Gaussian prior. Here, the task is estimating the squeezing parameter θ encoded as per Eq. (55), for a vacuum (top) and thermal (bottom) state ρin with n¯ = 0.1. In both plots, the dashed and solid green curves denote the relative MSL for the {1, qˆ 2 , pˆ 2 } subspace with the constrained [Eq. (60)] and PM estimator [Eq. (19)] respect… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Bayesian quantum estimation provides a robust framework for quantum technologies, especially in scenarios with limited data and minimal prior information. Yet, its application to continuous-variable Gaussian systems has remained limited and largely numerical due to the complexity of the underlying parameter integrals. Here, we introduce a variational framework reducing the optimisation over measurements and estimators to a finite-dimensional linear problem and admitting closed-form solutions. This is achieved by restricting the analysis to operators polynomial in the canonical quadratures, leading to solutions with a geometric interpretation as orthogonal projections of the global optimum. We further derive a necessary and sufficient condition for global optimality. Through single-shot examples, we show that the framework yields experimentally feasible strategies based on Gaussian operations and quadrature measurements that are either optimal or near-optimal, and that replacing the induced estimator with the posterior mean further improves performance towards the global optimum.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a variational framework for Bayesian quantum estimation of Gaussian states. By restricting the search for measurements and estimators to operators that are polynomials in the canonical quadratures, the optimization reduces to a finite-dimensional linear algebra problem that admits closed-form solutions. These solutions are interpreted geometrically as orthogonal projections of the global optimum onto the polynomial subspace. A necessary and sufficient condition for global optimality is derived, and single-shot examples illustrate that the resulting Gaussian-operation-based strategies are optimal or near-optimal, with further improvement possible by substituting the posterior mean estimator.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work provides a significant advance by offering closed-form, analytically tractable solutions for Bayesian estimation in continuous-variable systems, where previous approaches were largely numerical. The geometric interpretation as orthogonal projections and the necessary-and-sufficient optimality condition are valuable contributions. The framework's reduction to linear problems and use of experimentally feasible Gaussian operations could facilitate practical implementations in quantum technologies with limited data. The provision of closed-form solutions and reproducible linear-algebraic derivations is a notable strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and section on variational framework] The claim that the polynomial-restricted solutions are optimal or near-optimal for the original unbounded estimation task (as stated in the abstract and demonstrated in the single-shot examples) rests on the unquantified assumption that the orthogonal projection distance in operator space translates to small excess Bayesian risk. No general error bounds, quantitative estimates of this excess risk, or comparisons against a larger function class are provided to support this. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of practicality and near-optimality.
  2. [Section deriving the optimality condition] The necessary-and-sufficient optimality condition for the full problem is derived, but the manuscript does not verify whether this condition is met (or nearly met) when the true optimum lies outside the polynomial subspace, nor does it show that the restriction does not exclude the global optimum in general. This verification is needed to substantiate the framework's completeness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and definitions] Clarify the notation for the polynomial degree and the explicit form of the restricted operators in the linear problem setup to improve readability.
  2. [Discussion of examples] Consider adding a brief discussion of how the framework scales with increasing polynomial degree for higher-dimensional Gaussian states.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments correctly identify areas where additional clarification and evidence would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text to incorporate explicit caveats, additional numerical comparisons, and a dedicated discussion of limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and section on variational framework] The claim that the polynomial-restricted solutions are optimal or near-optimal for the original unbounded estimation task (as stated in the abstract and demonstrated in the single-shot examples) rests on the unquantified assumption that the orthogonal projection distance in operator space translates to small excess Bayesian risk. No general error bounds, quantitative estimates of this excess risk, or comparisons against a larger function class are provided to support this. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of practicality and near-optimality.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply general analytic error bounds connecting the operator-space projection distance to excess Bayesian risk. Deriving such bounds in the infinite-dimensional setting is technically demanding and lies outside the present scope. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly states this limitation, clarifies that near-optimality assertions rest on the concrete single-shot examples, and supplies additional quantitative estimates of the excess risk (relative both to the posterior-mean estimator and to numerically optimized reference strategies) for those examples. We have also inserted a brief comparison against a modestly enlarged function class (degree-5 polynomials) to illustrate convergence behavior. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section deriving the optimality condition] The necessary-and-sufficient optimality condition for the full problem is derived, but the manuscript does not verify whether this condition is met (or nearly met) when the true optimum lies outside the polynomial subspace, nor does it show that the restriction does not exclude the global optimum in general. This verification is needed to substantiate the framework's completeness.

    Authors: Direct verification of the optimality condition when the global optimum lies outside the polynomial subspace is not feasible without an independent characterization of that optimum. In the revised manuscript we have added a short subsection that uses the numerical examples to provide indirect verification: we show that the Bayesian risk achieved by the polynomial-restricted estimators is numerically indistinguishable (within sampling error) from the risk of the posterior-mean estimator, which is known to be globally optimal for the chosen risk functional. This supplies evidence that the condition is nearly satisfied in the cases examined. A general proof that the polynomial subspace never excludes the global optimum for arbitrary Gaussian-state problems is not available and would constitute a separate research question. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A general analytic demonstration that the polynomial restriction never excludes the global optimum for arbitrary Gaussian-state estimation tasks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the derivation

full rationale

The paper's core derivation begins with an explicit restriction to polynomial operators in the canonical quadratures, which converts the Bayesian risk minimization into a finite-dimensional linear algebra problem whose solution is obtained in closed form and interpreted geometrically as the orthogonal projection onto that subspace. A separate necessary-and-sufficient optimality condition is stated for the unrestricted problem. Single-shot numerical examples supply empirical checks on performance without any fitted parameters being relabeled as predictions, without self-citations serving as load-bearing justifications for the central claims, and without any self-definitional loops in which an output is presupposed by the input. The framework is therefore self-contained within the stated polynomial ansatz and linear-algebraic construction rather than reducing to its own assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the polynomial subspace is rich enough to capture near-optimal performance; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Operators polynomial in the canonical quadratures form a subspace whose orthogonal projection yields solutions that are optimal or near-optimal for the unrestricted Bayesian estimation problem.
    This restriction is invoked to obtain the finite-dimensional linear problem and closed-form solutions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1260 out tokens · 33023 ms · 2026-05-19T20:42:43.892739+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    or single-shot [21–24] settings, multiparameter schemes [2, 12, 25–27], and symmetry-informed metrologies [28–30]. Despite this progress, Bayesian QET can be more demand- ing computationally than its local counterpart, in part because optimisation depends on integrated, prior-weighted state op- erators rather than on local derivatives. This difficulty is ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    (24) can also be proven using the explicitly variational approach of Personick [19, 20], as shown in Appendix A

    Note that Eq. (24) can also be proven using the explicitly variational approach of Personick [19, 20], as shown in Appendix A. The uniqueness of this minimum is determined by the struc- ture ofG. First, ifGis positive definite, it is invertible and Eq. (24) admits a unique solutionα opt =G −1b. IfGis sin- gular, the inverse does not exist, but convexity e...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This condition is sufficient wheneverSbelongs to the chosen polynomial subspaceV

    Characterisation of exact polynomial solutions A necessary condition for the constrained approach to be exact is thatSis a finite-degree polynomial in the quadratures ˆqandˆp. This condition is sufficient wheneverSbelongs to the chosen polynomial subspaceV. The following theorem characterises precisely when this condition holds, and is most naturally stat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    As shown in Appendix C, the MSL associated with an arbitrary Hermitian operatorXcan always be written as L(X) =L(S) +∥X− S∥ 2 ρ0 ,(35) whereL(X)is defined as in Eq

    Geometric interpretation of constrained optimality For cases whereS V ̸=S, the differenceL(S V)− L(S) admits a simple expression. As shown in Appendix C, the MSL associated with an arbitrary Hermitian operatorXcan always be written as L(X) =L(S) +∥X− S∥ 2 ρ0 ,(35) whereL(X)is defined as in Eq. (14) and the norm with re- spect to theρ0-weighted inner produ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Improved estimator based on posterior mean So far we have performed a constrained optimisation of the MSL by restricting the operatorM 1 to an operator subspace V. This optimisation jointly determines both a measurement, via the spectral PVM ofS V, and an associated estimator ob- tained from (post-processing) the corresponding spectral val- ues. By constr...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The red curve corresponds to the global minimum given by Eq. (15). We observe that the full quadratic basis with the PM estimator (solid green) attains the lowest MSL across the full range, at the cost of a non-Gaussian PVM; the homodyne strategy with the PM estimator (solid blue) is the best directly implementable choice and overtakes the constrained est...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Quantum Control & Sensing: Enhan- cing high-precision quantum sensing in noisy environments via optimised control

    Consequently, any estimator linear in the homodyne out- comex ϕ does not contribute to the MSL in Eq. (29), making a quadratic operator the lowest-order nontrivial choice. For the full quadratic subspaceV= span(1,ˆq 2,ˆp2), we obtained closed-form expressions for the projected SPM operatorS V and the corresponding MSLL(S V)[Eqs. (59) and (60)], al- though...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołody ´nski, Quantum Limits in Optical Interferometry,Prog. Opt.60, 345 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W. Górecki, and M. Gu¸ t˘a,Multi- parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher information,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53, 363001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. Genoni, and I. Gianani,A per- spective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theor- etical tools to applications in quantum imaging,Phys. Lett. A 384, 126311 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Barbieri,Optical quantum metrology,PRX Quantum3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri,Optical quantum metrology,PRX Quantum3, 010202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone,Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum detection and estimation theory, Journal of Statistical Physics1, 231 (1969)

    work page 1969

  15. [15]

    A. S. Holevo,Testing statistical hypotheses in quantum theory, Probability and Mathematical Statistics3, 113 (1982)

    work page 1982

  16. [16]

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

    work page 1994

  17. [17]

    Tsang,Ziv-Zakai Error Bounds for Quantum Parameter Es- timation,Phys

    M. Tsang,Ziv-Zakai Error Bounds for Quantum Parameter Es- timation,Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 230401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Rubio and J

    J. Rubio and J. A. Dunningham,Quantum metrology in the presence of limited data,New J. Phys.21, 043037 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Rubio and J

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

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Valeri, E

    M. Valeri, E. Polino, D. Poderini, I. Gianani, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, T. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino,Exper- imental adaptive Bayesian estimation of multiple phases with limited data,npj Quantum Inf.6, 92 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. Stilck França, J. Eisert, and P. Faist,Quantum Metrology in the Finite-Sample Regime,PRX Quantum6, 030336 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Gebhart, M

    V . Gebhart, M. Gessner, and A. Smerzi,Fundamental bounds for parameter estimation with few measurements,Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043261 (2024), arXiv:2402.14495

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Hradil and J

    Z. Hradil and J. ˇReháˇcek, A Realistic Framework for Quantum Sensing under Finite Resources, arXiv:2603.08306 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Overton, J

    M. Overton, J. Rubio, N. Cooper, D. Baldolini, D. Johnson, J. Anders, and L. Hackermüller,Adaptive, Symmetry-Informed Bayesian Metrology for Precise Quantum Technology Measure- ments,Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 140801 (2026)

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    E. T. Jaynes,Probability Theory: The Logic of Science(Cam- bridge University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    S. D. Personick,Efficient analog communication over quantum channels., Tech. Rep. (MIT Research Laboratory of Electron- ics, 1970)

    work page 1970

  27. [27]

    Personick,Application of quantum estimation theory to ana- log communication over quantum channels,IEEE Trans

    S. Personick,Application of quantum estimation theory to ana- log communication over quantum channels,IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory17, 240 (1971)

    work page 1971

  28. [28]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Ban, and S. M. Barnett,Optimal parameter es- timation of a depolarizing channel,Phys. Rev. A66, 022308 (2002)

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    J. Z. Bernád, C. Sanavio, and A. Xuereb,Optimal estimation of the optomechanical coupling strength,Phys. Rev. A97, 063821 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    B. Zhou, B. A. Bash, S. Guha, and C. N. Gagatsos,Bayesian minimum mean square error for transmissivity sensing,Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043033 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    B. Zhou, S. Guha, and C. N. Gagatsos,Bayesian quantum phase estimation with fixed photon states,Quantum Informa- tion Processing23, 366 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok,Geometric perspective on quantum parameter estimation,A VS Quantum Sci.2, 014701 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Zhang and J

    J. Zhang and J. Suzuki, Bayesian Logarithmic Derivat- ive Type Lower Bounds for Quantum Estimation, (2024), arXiv:2405.10525

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Albarelli, D

    F. Albarelli, D. Branford, and J. Rubio,Measurement in- compatibility in bayesian multiparameter quantum estimation, 12 arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16645 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Rubio,Quantum scale estimation,Quantum Sci

    J. Rubio,Quantum scale estimation,Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 015009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Rubio,First-principles construction of symmetry-informed quantum metrologies,Phys

    J. Rubio,First-principles construction of symmetry-informed quantum metrologies,Phys. Rev. A110, L030401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Boeyens, J

    J. Boeyens, J. Glatthard, E. Gandar, S. Nimmrichter, L. A. Cor- rea, and J. Rubio,On the role of symmetry and geometry in global quantum sensing,Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 045053 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information

    A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris, Gaussian states in con- tinuous variable quantum information, arXiv.quant-ph/0503237 (2005)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd,Gaussian quantum inform- ation,Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee,Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond,Open Sys- tems & Information Dynamics21, 1440001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Serafini,Quantum continuous variables: a primer of theor- etical methods(CRC press, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum continuous variables: a primer of theor- etical methods(CRC press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    H. Miao, N. D. Smith, and M. Evans,Quantum limit for laser interferometric gravitational-wave detectors from optical dis- sipation,Phys. Rev. X9, 011053 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, K

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, K. Banaszek, and R. Schnabel, Fundamental quantum interferometry bound for the squeezed- light-enhanced gravitational wave detector GEO 600,Phys. Rev. A88, 041802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    W. Jia, V . Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti,et al.,Squeez- ing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit,Science385, 1318 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman,Optimal States and Almost Optimal Adaptive Measurements for Quantum Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5098 (2000)

    work page 2000

  46. [46]

    Monras,Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaussian states,Phys

    A. Monras,Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaussian states,Phys. Rev. A73, 033821 (2006)

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Monras and M

    A. Monras and M. G. Paris,Optimal quantum estimation of loss in bosonic channels,Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160401 (2007)

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris,Optical phase estimation in the presence of phase diffusion,Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 153603 (2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states

    A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states, arXiv:1303.3682 (2013)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves,Optimal quantum-enhanced in- terferometry using a laser power source,Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 173601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    C. N. Gagatsos, D. Branford, and A. Datta,Gaussian systems for quantum-enhanced multiple phase estimation,Phys. Rev. A 94, 042342 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Branford, C

    D. Branford, C. N. Gagatsos, J. Grover, A. J. Hickey, and A. Datta,Quantum enhanced estimation of diffusion,Phys. Rev. A100, 022129 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, and S.-Y . Lee,Optimal Gaussian measurements for phase estima- tion in single-mode Gaussian metrology,npj Quantum Inf.5, 10 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Šafránek,Estimation of Gaussian quantum states,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 035304 (2019)

    D. Šafránek,Estimation of Gaussian quantum states,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 035304 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Bressanini, M

    G. Bressanini, M. G. Genoni, M. Kim, and M. G. Paris,Multi- parameter quantum estimation of single-and two-mode pure Gaussian states,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical57, 315305 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Shoukang, M

    C. Shoukang, M. G. Genoni, and F. Albarelli,Efficiently eval- uating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cramér-Rao bounds for multi- parameter quantum estimation with Gaussian states,Commu- nications Physics (2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-026- 02550-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-026- 2026

  57. [57]

    X.-B. Wang, T. Hiroshima, A. Tomita, and M. Hayashi, Quantum information with Gaussian states,Physics reports 448, 1 (2007)

    work page 2007

  58. [58]

    Olivares and M

    S. Olivares and M. G. A. Paris,Bayesian estimation in homo- dyne interferometry,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics42, 055506 (2009)

    work page 2009

  59. [59]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer,Bayesian parameter inference from continuously monitored quantum systems,Phys. Rev. A 87, 032115 (2013)

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer,Bayesian parameter estimation by continuous homodyne detection,Phys. Rev. A94, 032103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Morelli, A

    S. Morelli, A. Usui, E. Agudelo, and N. Friis,Bayesian parameter estimation using Gaussian states and measurements, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 25018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Nichols, L

    R. Nichols, L. Mineh, J. Rubio, J. C. F. Matthews, and P. A. Knott,Designing quantum experiments with a genetic al- gorithm,Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 045012 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    N. K. Kundu, M. R. McKay, and R. K. Mallik,Machine- learning-based parameter estimation of Gaussian quantum states,IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering3, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Fallani, M

    A. Fallani, M. A. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Learning feedback control strategies for quantum metrology, PRX Quantum3, 020310 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Ravell Rodríguez and S

    R. Ravell Rodríguez and S. Morelli,Knowledge-dependent op- timal Gaussian strategies for phase estimation,SciPost Physics 18, 167 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Provable and scalable quantum Gaussian processes for quantum learning

    J. Jäger, P. Braccia, P. Bermejo, M. G. Algaba, D. García- Martín, and M. Cerezo, Provable and scalable quantum gaus- sian processes for quantum learning, (2026), arXiv:2605.00099 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Barnett and P

    S. Barnett and P. M. Radmore,Methods in theoretical quantum optics, V ol. 15 (Oxford University Press, 2002)

    work page 2002

  68. [68]

    W. P. Schleich,Quantum optics in phase space(John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    work page 2011

  69. [69]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    work page 1997

  70. [70]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    G. B. Folland,Harmonic analysis in phase space.(Princeton university press, 2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    M. A. De Gosson,Symplectic methods in harmonic analysis and in mathematical physics, V ol. 7 (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    S. M. Kay,Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: es- timation theory(Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993)

    work page 1993

  74. [74]

    Boeyens, S

    J. Boeyens, S. Seah, and S. Nimmrichter,Uninformed Bayesian quantum thermometry,Phys. Rev. A104, 052214 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Amari and H

    S.-i. Amari and H. Nagaoka,Methods of information geometry, V ol. 191 (American Mathematical Soc., 2000)

    work page 2000

  76. [76]

    M. R. Jørgensen, J. Kołody ´nski, M. Mehboudi, M. Perarnau- Llobet, and J. B. Brask,Bayesian quantum thermometry based on thermodynamic length,Phys. Rev. A105, 042601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Bayesian quantum frequency estimation in presence of collect- ive dephasing,New J. Phys.16, 113002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    A. E. Godley,Optimal Parameter Estimation for Quantum Markov Chains and IID Pure State Models, Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Nottingham (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix analysis(Cambridge uni- versity press, 2012). 13

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott,The mathematical theory of finite element methods(Springer, 2008)

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.