Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Distributed Phase Sensing with Multiphoton States in Optical Interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For N single photons, phase sensitivity is exactly kl/N and peaks at the balanced split k=l.

desk verdict The zero-phase CFI formula F=kl/N is solid and new; the loss comparison and Table III are not. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02977 v1 pith:5Q4M5D7O submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Subhrajit Modak , Danilo Triggiani , Cosmo Lupo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologydistributedphaseestimationclassicalFisherinformationphoton-number-resolvingdetectionlinearopticalinterferometrymultiphotoninterferencelossmultimode
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 asks how to distribute $N$ single photons among phase-encoding and reference modes of a linear-optical interferometer to estimate an unknown phase when the output is read by photon-number-resolving detectors. It derives an exact zero-phase formula: the classical Fisher information is $F_{k,l}=kl/N$, where $k$ photons pass through the phase and $l=N-k$ through the reference. The optimal choice is always the balanced split $k=l$, giving $F=N/4$, and any imbalance costs sensitivity quadratically. The same framework is then applied to lossy channels and to distributed multi-receiver arrays, where relative phase combinations carry more information than symmetric ones. If correct, the result is a simple allocation rule for photonic phase sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the partition $(k,l)$ of $N$ single photons over $N$ mode pairs, followed by a quantum Fourier transform and photon-number-resolving detection. The argument runs through the exact output probability $$P_{\vec n}\propto \left|\sum_{\$\sigma$\in S(N)} $e^{{i2\pi \vec\gamma\cdot\vec\sigma/N+i\varphi M_{\mu,\sigma}}$}\right|^2,$$ which is a permanent-type sum over permutations of the detected photons. At zero phase the first derivative of every outcome probability vanishes, so the Fisher information receives contributions only from outcomes with zero probability at $\varphi=0$; a sum rule over those outcomes collapses to $F_{k,l}=kl/N$. Loss is modeled by coupling each mode to an independent vacuum mode with transmissivities $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$, and the distributed-receiver analysis uses the quantum Fisher information matrix of the local number operators, whose eigenvalues are $4/M$ and $4/M^2$.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eq. (3) numerically at $\varphi=10^{-6}$ for $N=5$ with partition $(k,l)=(2,3)$: the classical Fisher information must equal $6/5$. Separately, set $\eta=\varepsilon$ for the $N=2$, $(1,1)$ lossy calculation; if the Fisher information is $\varepsilon^2/2$ rather than $\varepsilon/2$, the claimed linear-loss advantage of photon-number-resolving detection over homodyne detection is an artifact of assuming a lossless reference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for $N$ single photons distributed over $2N$ modes, with $k$ phase-encoding and $l=N-k$ reference pairs, the classical Fisher information for estimating a small phase at $\varphi=0$ is exactly $F_{k,l}=kl/N$. This formula is maximized uniquely by the balanced partition $k=l$, where $F=N/4$, and it decreases monotonically as the partition becomes asymmetric; the balanced case is also the only one whose response is independent of the phase. With photon loss, the zero-phase Fisher information equals the lossless value times the probability $\eta^l\varepsilon^k$ that no photon is lost. The paper further claims that in a lossy low-flux setting, photon-number-resolving detection retains a Fisher information linear in the phase-mode transmission, whereas local homodyne detection degrades quadratically, and that in a distributed single-photon interferometer the relative-phase combinations are estimated with variance $M$ times smaller than the symmetric combination.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise in the loss comparison is that the reference mode in the photon-counting calculation is lossless ($\eta=1$); if the reference mode loses photons at the same rate as the phase mode, the claimed linear-in-loss advantage over homodyne detection becomes quadratic in the common transmission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any fixed photon number $N$, equal partitioning of photons between phase and reference modes is the unique maximizer of the zero-phase Fisher information, with $F=N/4$; any imbalance reduces $F$ by the squared imbalance factor.
  • Under loss, the zero-phase Fisher information is the lossless value times $\eta^l\varepsilon^k$, so the effect of loss at that point is purely the probability that no photon is lost.
  • In the low-transmission regime, photon-number-resolving detection with one phase photon and one reference photon gives a Fisher information linear in the phase-mode transmission, while local homodyne detection gives a quadratic one.
  • In a distributed $M$-receiver interferometer with one photon, the symmetric phase combination has estimation variance $M$ times that of a relative phase combination, identifying relative phases as the informative parameters.
  • For the three-receiver architecture, the zero-phase Fisher information for each partition retains the $kl/N$ form with prefactors $4/3$ (relative) and $4/9$ (symmetric), so the balanced partition remains optimal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: writing the formula as $kl/N$ suggests a pairwise picture in which each phase-encoding photon pairs with each reference photon to contribute $1/N$ of the Fisher information. That picture is a natural design heuristic for assigning roles in larger networks, although the paper does not foreground it.
  • Editorial extension: for distributed sensing, the variance ratio VarSym/VarRel $=M$ implies that as the number of receivers grows, common-mode phase combinations become relatively harder; a practical distributed sensor should therefore encode information in relative and baseline phases.
  • Editorial extension: an immediate testable consequence is that a photonic chip implementing the quantum Fourier transform network for $N=4$ should show zero-phase Fisher information $1$ for partition $(2,2)$ and $3/4$ for $(1,3)$, visible in the curvature of the output click statistics.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies N single photons distributed over 2N optical modes arranged in N pairs, with k phase-encoding pairs and l reference pairs, followed by a linear-optical network, quantum Fourier transform, and photon-number-resolving detection. The central result is a closed-form expression for the classical Fisher information at zero phase, F_{k,l}=kl/N (Eq. (7) and Appendix A), showing that a balanced partition k=l maximizes sensitivity for every N and uniquely gives a phase-independent response. The paper then analyzes the effect of loss via independent transmissivities ε and η for phase and reference modes, compares the protocol with local homodyne detection, and extends the framework to multimode distributed sensing with a single photon shared among M receivers, including an analysis of the quantum Fisher information matrix and relative versus symmetric phase combinations.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the zero-phase CFI formula is a clean, exact, parameter-free result that offers a simple resource-allocation rule for linear-optical phase estimation with single-photon inputs. The Appendix A derivation is self-contained and is supported by the small-N numerical tables, and the paper contains no fitted parameters. The multimode QFIM analysis in Sec. V gives an appealing geometric explanation for why relative-phase combinations are better estimated than symmetric combinations. However, the paper's headline practical claim that photon-number-resolving detection retains a linear loss scaling whereas homodyne detection degrades quadratically is not supported by the analysis as written, and Table III contains an unphysical loss dependence. These issues are load-bearing for the advertised loss-robustness advantage and must be fixed before the practical claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (18) and Table II] The comparison between PNR and homodyne detection is not performed on the same interferometric scheme. The homodyne analysis uses the single-photon state of Eq. (10), which has N=1 photon, whereas the PNR result F_{1,1}=ε/2 is the Table II entry for N=2, k=1, l=1 with η=1. For a single photon in a phase-encoding and a reference mode but with no reference photon (l=0), Eq. (7) gives F=0, so the statement that PNR 'in the same interferometric scheme' retains linear loss scaling is not demonstrated by the quoted entries.
  2. [Sec. IV and Appendix C] The loss models used for the two detection strategies are not matched. The homodyne loss in Appendix C, Eq. (C1), is a common erasure channel acting on the whole two-mode single-photon state with a single parameter ε, while the PNR result in Table II uses two independent transmissivities ε and η. Evaluating the paper's own two-parameter expression under the common-loss condition η=ε gives F_{1,1}=ε²/2, which is quadratic in ε, not linear. The advertised linear-versus-quadratic loss advantage is therefore an artifact of setting η=1 for the PNR comparison while using a common ε for homodyne detection.
  3. [Table III and Sec. V] The variances in Table III are listed as scaling with η^l ε^k, meaning they decrease as loss increases. For example, the N=2, k=1, l=1 row gives Var(φRel)=3ηε/2, which tends to zero as η,ε→0. A variance lower bound must increase under loss, scaling as the inverse of the survival-probability factor, so these entries are unphysical and contradict the text stating that loss degrades precision. This affects the quantitative claims in Sec. V and requires either correcting the entries to inverse scaling or relabeling them as CFI values rather than variances.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, paragraph before Eq. (10)] The text contains the typo 'typically typically'; later in the same section, 'detoriates' should be 'deteriorates'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption begins with 'The table highlights...' but the object is a figure; this should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The displayed matrix in Eq. (D1) appears garbled, with repeated and misplaced sine terms in the off-diagonal entries; it should be checked and rewritten.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries (Refs. 6 and 16; Refs. 7 and 12).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central CFI formula is derived from first principles without fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (7) F_{k,l}=kl/N, is derived in Appendix A from the permanent-based output probabilities of the QFT network. The derivation introduces no fitted parameters; k and l are resource choices, and the result follows by summing over the zero-probability outcomes that contribute to the Fisher information. The loss suppression factors η^l ε^k in Table II are stated as a consequence of only no-loss events contributing at φ=0, and the homodyne comparison in Appendix C uses standard Wigner-function calculations. Neither relies on the paper's own conclusions nor on self-citations; the references are to standard results such as the Born rule, permanent formulas, and Wigner distributions. The unbalanced comparison between the PNR result (evaluated at η=1) and the homodyne common-loss model is a modeling asymmetry rather than a circular reduction: it affects the robustness conclusion but does not make any derivation equivalent to its own input. The explicitly stated limitation that the extension to arbitrary M and N is yet to be investigated is an honest scope statement, not a circularity. No prediction is obtained by renaming an input, no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is justified only by a self-citation.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; k, l, ε, and η are model choices. The derivation relies on standard linear-optical permanents, quantum Fisher information formulas, and open-system loss models. The paper introduces no new particles, mediators, or invented physical entities.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Born rule and permanent formula for transition amplitudes of linear-optical networks
    Used to express output probabilities in Eq. (3) and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Independent vacuum-coupling beam-splitter loss model
    Each mode couples to an independent vacuum mode with transmissivities ε and η, as in Eqs. (8)-(9).
  • standard math Pure-state QFIM with commuting generators equals four times the covariance matrix
    Used in Eq. (21) for the M-mode single-photon state.
  • standard math Wigner-function description of single-photon states for homodyne statistics
    Used in Appendices C and D to compute homodyne CFI distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Phase Sensing with Multiphoton States in Optical Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Q4M5D7O

@misc{pith2026260802977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Phase Sensing with Multiphoton States in Optical Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Q4M5D7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02977}
}
abstract

We investigate interferometric phase-estimation using separable photon inputs that evolve into number-path entangled states through linear optical networks, followed by photon-number-resolving detection. A simple analytical expression for the classical Fisher information at zero phase is derived for arbitrary $N$-photon states distributed across 2$N$ optical modes, partitioned into phase-encoding and reference blocks. Among all possible photon distributions between these blocks, the balanced configuration maximizes the phase sensitivity for every photon number $N$ and uniquely exhibits a phase-independent response. The achievable sensitivity degrades monotonically with increasing asymmetry in the photon distribution. We further investigate the robustness of the protocol in the presence of realistic photon loss and extend the analysis to distributed architectures with multiple receivers. In the low photon-flux regime, vacuum fluctuations fundamentally limit local quadrature measurements, whereas nonlocal photon-number-resolving measurements exploit multiphoton interference to mitigate loss-induced sensitivity degradation. Together, these results establish a scalable framework for quantum-enhanced distributed multimode metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of a linear-optical interferometric architecture for multiphoton phase estimation. The input state consists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The table highlights the suppression of multiphoton advan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic of a three-receiver single-photon optical telescope for multiparameter phase estimation. A single photon is coherently [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustrates CFI under transmission loss. The eigenvalues of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, Journal of statistical physics1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  2. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2006

  3. [3]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Su(2) and su(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology – the lowdown on high-n00n states, Contemporary Physics49, 125 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four- entangled photons, Science316, 726 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dynamics, and the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100401 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum interferometric optical lithography: Exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2733 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four- entangled photons, Science316, 726 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of op- tical phase shifts at the heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    T. Kim, J. Shin, Y . Ha, H. Kim, G. Park, T. G. Noh, and C. K. Hong, The phase-sensitivity of a mach–zehnder interferometer for fock state inputs, Optics Communications156, 37 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology–the lowdown on high-n00n states, Contemporary physics49, 125 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Walther, J.-W

    P. Walther, J.-W. Pan, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Ursin, S. Gasparoni, and A. Zeilinger, De broglie wavelength of a non-local four- photon state, Nature429, 158 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Tillmann, B

    M. Tillmann, B. Daki ´c, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Experimental boson sampling, Nature photonics7, 540 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, inProceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  12. [20]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołody ´nski, Quantum limits in optical interferometry, Progress in Optics60, 345 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

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

    2011

  14. [22]

    C. F. Wildfeuer, A. J. Pearlman, J. Chen, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and J. P. Dowling, Resolution and sensitivity of a fabry-perot interferometer with a photon-number-resolving detector, Phys. Rev. A80, 043822 (2009). 8

    2009

  15. [23]

    Aaronson, A linear-optical proof that the permanent is p- hard, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences467, 3393 (2011)

    S. Aaronson, A linear-optical proof that the permanent is p- hard, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences467, 3393 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Kołody ´nski, and M. Gu¸ t˘a, The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Na- ture communications3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Escher, R

    B. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Physics7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    S. Hong, J. ur Rehman, Y .-S. Kim, Y .-W. Cho, S.-W. Lee, H. Jung, S. Moon, S.-W. Han, and H.-T. Lim, Quantum en- hanced multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode n 00 n states, Nature communications12, 5211 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Huang, O

    Z. Huang, O. Titov, M. K. Schmidt, B. Pope, G. K. Bren- nen, D. K. L. Oi, and P. Kok, Quantum-enabled optical large- baseline interferometry: applications, protocols and feasibility, Advances in Physics: X11, 2597311 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Czupryniak, J

    R. Czupryniak, J. Steinmetz, P. G. Kwiat, and A. N. Jordan, Optimal qubit circuits for quantum-enhanced telescopes, Phys. Rev. A108, 052408 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    M. R. Brown, M. Allgaier, V . Thiel, J. D. Monnier, M. G. Raymer, and B. J. Smith, Interferometric imaging using shared quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210801 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Padilla, A

    I. Padilla, A. Sajjad, B. N. Saif, and S. Guha, Superresolu- tion imaging with entanglement-enhanced telescopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 010803 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Mach-zehnder interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    C. R. Schwarze, D. S. Simon, A. Ndao, and A. V . Sergienko, Tunable linear-optical phase amplification, Phys. Rev. A109, 053508 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Z.-E. Su, Y . Li, P. P. Rohde, H.-L. Huang, X.-L. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, J. P. Dowling, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Multipho- ton interference in quantum fourier transform circuits and ap- plications to quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 080502 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Exper- imental realization of any discrete unitary operator, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  27. [35]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics(Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Dorner, R

    U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lun- deen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Opti- mal quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 040403 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Tsang, Quantum nonlocality in weak-thermal-light interfer- ometry, Phys

    M. Tsang, Quantum nonlocality in weak-thermal-light interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 270402 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009). Appendix A: Derivation of the Generalized Classical Fisher Information Here, we derive a general expression for the CFI atφ≃0 associated with the detection st...

    2009

  33. [41]

    frequency

    Characterization of Detection Outcomes and Their Phase Dependence We consider an interferometric scheme where each photon is distributed over a pair of optical modes{a i,b i}, with the firstk mode pairs acquiring the unknown phaseφ. We defineφ i as the phase applied to theith ...

  34. [42]

    Consequently, only the outcomes satisfyingP ⃗n=0 contribute non-vanishingly to the CFI

    Vanishing First-Order Contribution and Relevant Outcomes We first verify that∂ φ P⃗n φ=0 =0 for all⃗n. Consequently, only the outcomes satisfyingP ⃗n=0 contribute non-vanishingly to the CFI. Indeed, we have ∂φ P⃗n≃iN ⃗n ∑ σ,σ ′∈S(N) ei 2π N (⃗σ−⃗σ ′)·⃗γ Mµ,σ −M µ,σ ′ =iN ⃗n ∑ ...

  35. [43]

    Identifying the Outcomes Contributing to the CFI One can verify that outcomes⃗n∗ satisfying N ∑ i=1 γ ∗ i ̸=0(modN),(A18) also satisfyP⃗n∗ φ=0 =0, or equivalently ∑ σ∈S(N) ei 2π N ⃗σ·⃗γ ∗ =0.(A19) Indeed, if ⃗σ+ ⃗1 denotes the permutation obtained by adding the vector⃗1= (1, ....

  36. [44]

    Denoting this contribution byF ∗, and using Eq

    Deriving the CFI from the Contributing Outcomes Here, we evaluate the contribution to the CFI from the outcomes⃗n∗ satisfying ∑i γ ∗ i ̸=0(modN). Denoting this contribution byF ∗, and using Eq. (A17), which applies sinceP⃗n∗ =0, we obtain F ∗ = ∑ ⃗n∗ ∂φ P⃗n∗ 2 P⃗n∗ =−2 ∑ ⃗n∗ N...

  37. [45]

    We can still write F¯n=4N ′ ∑ σ,σ ′∈S(N) ei 2π N (⃗σ−⃗σ ′)·⃗¯γ Mµ,σ Mµ,σ ′ =4N ′ ∑ σ,σ ′∈S(N) ei 2π N (⃗σ−⃗σ ′)·⃗¯γ N ∑ t,t ′=1 χk(σt )χk(σ ′ t′)ξµ (t)ξµ (t′)

    Vanishing Contribution of Zero-Probability Outcomes We are now left with the task of proving that any outcome ⃗¯nsuch thatP⃗¯n=0 and ∑i ¯γi =0 mod(N) gives no contribution to the Fisher information, i.e.,F ¯n=0 for all ¯n. We can still write F¯n=4N ′ ∑ σ,σ ′∈S(N) ei 2π N (⃗σ−⃗...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.