Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Dynamic Range of Sub-Quantum-Limit Measurements via Quantum Deamplification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A squeeze-encode-squeeze sequence can deamplify the encoded phase, letting a single ensemble stay near the optimal Bayesian quantum limit over almost the full phase period.

desk verdict A simple squeezing-encoding-squeezing protocol that likely extends dynamic range to nearly full period while approaching the OQI; solid and worth refereeing, despite a small internal contradiction in the supplement and thin numerical scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15061 v4 pith:6WW3MU4B submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Qi Liu , Ming Xue , Matthew Radzihovsky , Xinwei Li , Denis V. Vasilyev , Ling-Na Wu , Vladan Vuletić This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords quantummetrologyspinsqueezingtwo-axiscounter-twistingdynamicrangeBayesianphaseestimationoptimalinterferometerdetectionnoiseatomicclocks
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 argues that the usual quantum-amplification trick can be inverted: instead of amplifying a small phase to beat noise, one can squeeze again after the phase is encoded, deamplifying the phase signal so it stays inside the unambiguous interval of the readout. Using two-axis counter-twisting (TACT) interactions, this squeeze-encode-squeeze sequence turns a single ensemble into a Bayesian phase sensor whose error stays low across nearly the full $[-\pi,\pi]$ range, approaching the optimal quantum interferometer (OQI) limit. Adding more squeeze-encode-squeeze layers extends the unambiguous range beyond $[-\pi,\pi]$ and lowers the Bayesian error further, and a hybrid scheme that pairs deamplification with amplification keeps the protocol accurate when detection is noisy. If this works as claimed, entanglement-enhanced clocks and interferometers could gain a much wider operating range without giving up much sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is quantum deamplification (QD): a squeezing-encoding-squeezing sequence in which the second spin-squeezing stage is applied with the same sign as the first, so it shrinks the phase-dependent signal instead of undoing the squeezing. Concretely, the paper uses the two-axis counter-twisting (TACT) Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{TACT}} = -\chi(\hat{S}_y\hat{S}_z+\hat{S}_z\hat{S}_y)$, with $t_1$ for probe preparation and $t_2$ for interaction-based readout, and quantifies the intermediate squeezing by the Wineland parameter $\xi_W^2=N \Delta^2 \hat{S}_{\perp,\min}/|\langle\hat{S}\rangle|^2$. The same QD mechanism is generalized in the supplementary material to other collective-spin models, and the hybrid protocol combines QD with quantum amplification (QA), where the second segment has the opposite sign.

What would settle it

Take the same optimized QD states and compute the Bayesian mean squared error with an optimal estimator, such as the posterior mean or a maximum-likelihood grid over $\phi$, instead of the fitted linear slope $\phi_{\mathrm{est}}(m)=am$; if the resulting errors at large $\delta\phi$ differ noticeably from the reported curves, or if an experimental measurement of $\hat{S}_y$ for phases near $\pm\pi$ shows the error rising sharply, the claim that QD nearly approaches the OQI limit over the full range would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two sequential TACT squeezing segments, one before and one after phase encoding, act as a quantum deamplifier: the second segment compresses the phase-dependent part of the state, mapping the encoded phase $\phi$ to a smaller deamplified phase $\varphi$ that lies within the classical ambiguity-free window. The paper demonstrates numerically that, with a linear estimator $\phi_{\mathrm{est}}(m)=am$ and a Gaussian prior, there are squeezing times $t_1,t_2$ such that the Bayesian mean squared error of the QD sensor nearly reaches the OQI limit, and the error is reduced throughout the whole $[-\pi,\pi]$ interval rather than only near zero. Sequential QD, with several phase-encoding layers interleaved with squeezing, extends the unambiguous range beyond $[-\pi,\pi]$ and further decreases the BMSE, converging toward the OQI limit as the number of layers grows. Finally, a two-sensor hybrid design, in which a QD sensor provides a coarse wide-range estimate and a QA sensor provides a fine corrected estimate, keeps the Bayesian error low and degrades slowly as detection noise strength $\sigma_{\mathrm{det}}$ increases.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical case rests on recovering the phase with a straight-line estimator $\phi_{\mathrm{est}}(m)=am$ whose slope is fitted to the measurement distribution; the paper does not prove this estimator is near-optimal for its highly non-Gaussian final states, and the reported Bayesian errors also assume a Gaussian prior centered at zero and a fixed atom number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ensemble, with two TACT squeezes, can simultaneously give near-optimal Bayesian precision and a nearly $[-\pi,\pi]$ unambiguous range, removing the need for multiple ensembles or auxiliary interferometers in that operating regime.
  • For atomic clocks, the wider unambiguous window allows longer phase interrogation times without phase-slip errors, which directly targets long-term frequency stability.
  • Sequential QD pushes the unambiguous range past $[-\pi,\pi]$, at the price of some local sensitivity, and its BMSE approaches the OQI limit as the number of layers grows.
  • Pairing QD with QA in the hybrid two-sensor design preserves most of the wide-range advantage while resisting detection noise better than QD alone, and the same deamplification idea transfers to other collective-spin models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: an optimal nonlinear estimator could be tested against the fitted linear slope; if the gap to the OQI widens or closes significantly, the 'minimal cost of sensitivity' conclusion would need to be re-stated in terms of the estimator used.
  • Beyond the paper: the sequential-QD result that BMSE can dip below the one-time-encoding OQI curve at large $\delta\phi$ likely reflects the OQI's single-encoding constraint rather than a real violation; a fairer benchmark would allow the OQI multiple encoding passes or compare at equal total interaction time.
  • Beyond the paper: the hybrid QD+QA feedback protocol could be combined with multi-ensemble averaging to reduce quantum projection noise while keeping the bias error from phase slips low, a combination the paper treats only separately.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a 'quantum deamplification' (QD) mechanism to extend the dynamic range of phase estimation while maintaining near-optimal sensitivity. The protocol uses two sequential TACT squeezing operations, one before and one after phase encoding, with the second operation deamplifying the encoded signal. The authors numerically optimize the two TACT durations and a linear estimator slope to minimize the Bayesian mean squared error (BMSE) under a Gaussian prior. They report that the QD sensor approaches the optimal quantum interferometer (OQI) limit, that sequential QD interspersed with multiple phase encodings extends the dynamic range further, and that a hybrid QD+QA two-ensemble scheme improves robustness to detection noise. The numerical results use N=100 in the main text and N=64 in the supplementary material.

Significance. If correct, the QD protocol offers a simple two-TACT-circuit route to near-optimal Bayesian phase estimation with nearly full-period dynamic range, which is directly relevant to atomic clocks and entanglement-enhanced interferometry. The numerical work is internally consistent within the main text, and the data are openly deposited at Zenodo, which is a concrete reproducibility strength. The paper also provides a useful mechanistic picture through Wineland-parameter evolution and Wigner-function comparisons. The main weaknesses are the lack of an N-scaling study, the ambiguous resource accounting in the hybrid sensing comparison, and an apparent inconsistency in the supplementary discussion of sequential QD versus the OQI limit; these need to be clarified before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. II and Fig. S3(a)] The supplementary states that sequential QD schemes 'are capable of obtaining even smaller BMSE than the OQI limit at large δφ', but then immediately concludes that 'the optimal performance of sequential QD can only converge to the OQI rather than beating the limit.' These statements are contradictory. Since the main text (Fig. 3(d)) claims convergence to the OQI with increasing n, please specify the resource constraints under which each statement holds. In particular, if sequential QD uses n phase-encoding segments, the comparison should be against an OQI with the same number of encodings, not the one-encoding OQI shown in Fig. 2.
  2. [Section 'QD-based sensing with TACT interactions' and Fig. 2(b-c)] The BMSE is minimized over t1 and t2 while fixing the linear estimator φ_est(m)=a m. For any fixed POVM, the posterior-mean estimator minimizes the BMSE, so the reported QD curve is an upper bound on the achievable error. This direction is conservative for the claim that QD approaches the OQI. However, the optimal values of t1 and t2 for the posterior-mean estimator may differ from the values reported here, and the size of the gap is not quantified. Please compare the linear-estimator BMSE with the posterior-mean BMSE at representative δφ values, or state explicitly that the linear estimator is a deliberate suboptimal choice whose replacement would only reduce the gap to the OQI.
  3. [Section 'Hybrid sensing with adaptive measurement' and Fig. 4] The resource accounting for the hybrid sensor is unclear. The text says that 'the same total number of particles' is used in all schemes, but the parenthetical 'either split into two independent sensors of N atoms each or measured independently twice with N atoms' appears to assign N atoms to each sensor in the multi-sensor cases, which would give 2N total atoms. Please state the atom number per sensor and the total atom number for each curve in Fig. 4(c-d). Without this clarification, the claim that the hybrid sensor 'consistently outperforms' the other schemes cannot be fully evaluated.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract describes the protocol as 'scalable,' but the numerical demonstrations are restricted to N=100 in the main text and N=64 in the supplementary, with no N-scaling study. Please add at least one additional value of N or derive the expected N dependence of the QD-to-OQI gap, so that the scalability claim is supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. II] The sentence 'Finally, we comment that the sequence QD BMSE through extending interrogation time' is incomplete and should be rewritten to state the intended point about the role of extended interrogation time.
  2. [Fig. 4(c)] The phrase 'highlighted by the shading area' is not defined; please specify in the caption which curve or region the shading refers to.
  3. [Section 'Hybrid sensing with adaptive measurement'] The parenthetical 'either split into two independent sensors of N atoms each or measured independently twice with N atoms' should be corrected to 'N/2 atoms each' if equal total resources are intended, and the total atom number should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Data availability] The Zenodo deposit is a useful step, but the paper would be more reproducible if the code used to generate Figs. 2-4 were also deposited, since all central figures are numerical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QD protocol is benchmarked against the independently computed OQI bound, and the optimized times and linear estimator are explicit estimation choices rather than hidden inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The protocol is defined by the unitary sequence U(t2)e^{-iφSz}U(t1)|CSS> and the BMSE cost (Δφ)^2 = ∫dφ ε(φ)P_{δφ}(φ), with ε(φ)=Σ_m [φ - φ_est(m)]^2 p(m|φ). The times t1, t2 and the slope a of the linear estimator are explicitly optimized against this cost; this is standard variational estimation, not a prediction smuggled from data. The benchmark OQI curve is taken from Macieszczak et al. (Ref. [62]), an external Bayesian bound for one-time phase encoding, so the statement that the QD sensor 'nearly approaches' it is a genuine comparison against an independent limit, not a restatement of the optimization objective. The Wineland-parameter analysis and the Bloch-sphere discussion in the Supplementary explain the mechanism but do not define the figure of merit in terms of the fitted parameters. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [30,39,45-47]) are background for TACT/cyclic dynamics and interaction-based readouts; no load-bearing premise is justified only by a self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the ansatz. I also note two non-circular limitations: the numerical near-OQI result is shown for N=100 (N=64 in Supplementary) without an N-scaling study, and Supplementary Sec. II states that sequential QD can give 'even smaller BMSE than the OQI limit' while later saying it 'can only converge to the OQI rather than beating the limit' — an internal consistency issue, not a circular one. For the fixed linear estimator, the Bayesian posterior mean would only improve the reported BMSE, so the linear-estimator choice does not inflate the central claim.

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

The protocol relies on standard collective spin physics and on several modeling choices that are not derived from first principles: the TACT Hamiltonian, Gaussian prior, Gaussian detection noise, and linear estimator. No new physical entities are introduced. The squeezing times and estimator slope are free parameters optimized numerically.

free parameters (5)
  • t1 (first TACT squeezing time) = varies with δϕ; e.g., t1=0.0022 for n=2 sequential case in Fig. 3
    Chosen by numerical minimization of BMSE at each prior width δϕ; not derived from first principles.
  • t2 (second TACT squeezing time) = varies with δϕ; e.g., t2=0.014 in Fig. 3
    Same as t1; variational parameter in the QD sequence.
  • Sequential squeezing times t_i (i=1..n+1) = optimized per n and δϕ
    Additional variational degrees of freedom in the sequential QD protocol.
  • Hybrid sensor times {t1_D, t2_D, t1_A, t2_A} = optimized at each noise level σdet
    Four variational parameters in the two-ensemble adaptive scheme.
  • Linear estimator slope a = not quoted
    The paper sets a to the value that minimizes the BMSE given the outcome distribution (main text, QD sensing section).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TACT Hamiltonian H_TACT = -χ(S_y S_z + S_z S_y) generates spin squeezing and deamplification.
    The entire protocol is analyzed under this model, motivated by cavity QED and polar molecule experiments [63,64].
  • domain assumption Measurement of S_y with projective outcomes |m> and Gaussian detection noise model.
    The noise model Γ_m,m' = exp[-(m-m')^2/2σdet^2] / normalization is assumed.
  • domain assumption Gaussian prior phase distribution and BMSE as the figure of merit.
    The optimization is performed for Pδϕ(ϕ) = exp[-ϕ^2/(2 δϕ)^2] / sqrt(2π δϕ^2).
  • ad hoc to paper Linear estimator suffices for near-optimal performance.
    The paper states 'We assume a linear estimator ϕest(m) = a m' without proving optimality; this restricts the achievable MSE.
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Bayesian inference rules.
    Calculation of p(m|ϕ) from Born rule and BMSE definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Dynamic Range of Sub-Quantum-Limit Measurements via Quantum Deamplification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WW3MU4B

@misc{pith2026241215061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Dynamic Range of Sub-Quantum-Limit Measurements via Quantum Deamplification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WW3MU4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15061}
}
read the original abstract

Balancing high sensitivity with a broad dynamic range is a fundamental challenge in measurement science, as improving one often compromises the other. While traditional quantum metrology has prioritized enhancing local sensitivity, a large dynamic range is crucial for applications such as atomic clocks, where extended phase interrogation times contribute to wider phase range. In this Letter, we introduce a novel quantum deamplification mechanism that extends dynamic range at a minimal cost of sensitivity. Our approach uses two sequential spin-squeezing operations to generate and detect an entangled probe state, respectively. We demonstrate that the optimal quantum interferometer limit can be approached through two-axis counter-twisting dynamics. Further expansion of dynamic range is possible by using sequential quantum deamplification interspersed with phase encoding processes. Additionally, we show that robustness against detection noise can be enhanced by a hybrid sensing scheme that combines quantum deamplification with quantum amplification. Our protocol is within the reach of state-of-the-art atomic-molecular-optical platforms, offering a scalable, noise-resilient pathway for entanglement-enhanced metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The interferometry time sequence and corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) QD-based sensing with TACT interactions. The proto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematics of the sequential QD interspersed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hybrid sensing with adaptive measurement. (a) Two sen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extending the dynamic range in quantum frequency estimation with sequential weak measurements

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sequential weak measurements followed by a final projective measurement extend the dynamic range of coherent-spin-state frequency estimation and asymptotically saturate the noiseless quantum Fisher information bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Pezz `e, A

    L. Pezz `e, 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

  3. [3]

    Huang, M

    J. Huang, M. Zhuang, and C. Lee, Entanglement-enhanced quantum metrology: From standard quantum limit to heisen- berg limit, Applied Physics Reviews 11, 031302 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  5. [5]

    Kuzmich, K

    A. Kuzmich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Spin squeezing in an ensemble of atoms illuminated with squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4782 (1997)

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Spin squeezed atoms: A macroscopic entangled ensemble created by light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1319 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est`eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    M. F. Riedel, P. B ¨ohi, Y . Li, T. W. H ¨ansch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology, Nature 464, 1170 (2010)

    2010

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Pezz ´e and A

    L. Pezz ´e and A. Smerzi, Ultrasensitive two-mode interferome- try with single-mode number squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 163604 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Schmied, J.-D

    R. Schmied, J.-D. Bancal, B. Allard, M. Fadel, V . Scarani, P. Treutlein, and N. Sangouard, Bell correlations in a bose- einstein condensate, Science 352, 441 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    E. S. Polzik and J. Ye, Entanglement and spin squeezing in a network of distant optical lattice clocks, Phys. Rev. A 93, 021404 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum spin dynam- 6 ics and entanglement generation with hundreds of trapped ions, Science 352, 1297 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, and V . Vuleti ´c, Entanglement-enhanced optical atomic clocks, Applied Physics Letters 121 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    T.-W. Mao, Q. Liu, X.-W. Li, J.-H. Cao, F. Chen, W.-X. Xu, M. K. Tey, Y .-X. Huang, and L. You, Quantum-enhanced sens- ing by echoing spin-nematic squeezing in atomic bose–einstein condensate, Nature Physics 19, 1585 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high- finesse cavity, Nature 610, 472 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, and et al (LIGO O4 De- tector Collaboration), Broadband quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    W. Jia, V . Xu, K. Kuns, and et al, Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science 385, 1318 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y . M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Both- well, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock ensembles at the 10−17 level, Nature Physics 20, 208 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997)

    1997

  12. [20]

    L ¨ucke, M

    B. L ¨ucke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezz ´e, F. Deuretzbacher, P. Hyllus, O. Topic, J. Peise, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Twin matter waves for interferome- try beyond the classical limit, Science 334, 773 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Zhang and L

    Z. Zhang and L. M. Duan, Quantum metrology with dicke squeezed states, New Journal of Physics 16, 103037 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Luo, Y .-Q

    X.-Y . Luo, Y .-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, M.-F. Han, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Deterministic entanglement generation from driving through quantum phase transitions, Science 355, 620 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Zou, L.-N

    Y .-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, X.-Y . Luo, S.-F. Guo, J.-H. Cao, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Beating the classical precision limit with spin-1 dicke states of more than 10,000 atoms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 6381 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Chalopin, C

    T. Chalopin, C. Bouazza, A. Evrard, V . Makhalov, D. Dreon, J. Dalibard, L. A. Sidorenkov, and S. Nascimbene, Quantum- enhanced sensing using non-classical spin states of a highly magnetic atom, Nature Communications 9, 4955 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Darkwah Oppong, et al., Multi-qubit gates and schr¨odinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature 634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Direkci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quan- tum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Kielinski, P

    T. Kielinski, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, GHZ protocols enhance frequency metrology despite spontaneous decay, Sci- ence Advances 10, eadr1439 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y . A. Yang, W. T. Luo, J. L. Zhang, S. Z. Wang, C.-L. Zou, T. Xia, and Z. T. Lu, Minute-scale schr ¨odinger-cat state of spin-5/2 atoms, Nature Photonics 10.1038/s41566-024-01555- 3 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Hu, and Y .-C. Liu, Fast generation of ghz-like states using collective-spin XYZ model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113402 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kaubruegger, D

    R. Kaubruegger, D. V . Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, Quantum variational optimization of ramsey interfer- ometry and atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041045 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kaubruegger, A

    R. Kaubruegger, A. Shankar, D. V . Vasilyev, and P. Zoller, Op- timal and variational multiparameter quantum metrology and vector-field sensing, PRX Quantum 4, 020333 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    D. V . Vasilyev, A. Shankar, R. Kaubruegger, and P. Zoller, Opti- mal multiparameter metrology: The quantum compass solution (2024), arXiv:2404.14194 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Andr ´e, A

    A. Andr ´e, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Stability of atomic clocks based on entangled atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 230801 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Schulte, C

    M. Schulte, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, U. Sterr, and K. Ham- merer, Prospects and challenges for squeezing-enhanced optical atomic clocks, Nature Communications 11, 5955 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Davis, G

    E. Davis, G. Bentsen, and M. Schleier-Smith, Approaching the heisenberg limit without single-particle detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 053601 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Fr ¨owis, P

    F. Fr ¨owis, P. Sekatski, and W. D ¨ur, Detecting large quantum fisher information with finite measurement precision, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 090801 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    S. P. Nolan, S. S. Szigeti, and S. A. Haine, Optimal and robust quantum metrology using interaction-based readouts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 193601 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    Liu, T.-W

    Q. Liu, T.-W. Mao, M. Xue, L.-N. Wu, and L. You, Cyclic non- linear interferometry with entangled non-gaussian spin states, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052613 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    Z. Hu, Q. Li, X. Zhang, L.-G. Huang, H.-b. Zhang, and Y .- C. Liu, Spin squeezing with arbitrary quadratic collective-spin interactions, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023722 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Z. Hu, Q. Li, X. Zhang, H.-b. Zhang, L.-G. Huang, and Y .-C. Liu, Nonlinear time-reversal interferometry with arbi- trary quadratic collective-spin interaction, Chinese Physics B (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Hosten, R

    O. Hosten, R. Krishnakumar, N. J. Engelsen, and M. A. Kase- vich, Quantum phase magnification, Science 352, 1552 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Linnemann, H

    D. Linnemann, H. Strobel, W. Muessel, J. Schulz, R. J. Lewis- Swan, K. V . Kheruntsyan, and M. K. Oberthaler, Quantum- enhanced sensing based on time reversal of nonlinear dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 013001 (2016)

    2016

  35. [44]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, J. J. Bollinger, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, D. H. Slichter, and D. T. C. Allcock, Quantum amplification of mechanical oscillator motion, Sci- ence 364, 1163 (2019)

    2019

  36. [45]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Penafiel, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, C. Shu, and V . Vuleti ´c, Time-reversal-based quantum metrology with many-body entangled states, Nature Physics 18, 925 (2022)

    2022

  37. [46]

    Liu, L.-N

    Q. Liu, L.-N. Wu, J.-H. Cao, T.-W. Mao, X.-W. Li, S.-F. Guo, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Nonlinear interferometry beyond clas- sical limit enabled by cyclic dynamics, Nature Physics 18, 167 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    J.-H. Cao, F. Chen, Q. Liu, T.-W. Mao, W.-X. Xu, L.-N. Wu, and L. You, Detection of entangled states supported by rein- forcement learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 073201 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, and V . Vuleti ´c, Entanglement-enhanced optical atomic clocks, Applied Physics Letters 121, 210502 (2022)

    2022

  40. [49]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  41. [50]

    Rosenband and D

    T. Rosenband and D. R. Leibrandt, Exponential scaling of clock stability with atom number (2013), arXiv:1303.6357 [quant- 7 ph]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [51]

    W. Li, S. Wu, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz`e, Improved absolute clock stability by the joint interrogation of two atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. A 105, 053116 (2022)

    2022

  43. [52]

    D. B. Hume and D. R. Leibrandt, Probing beyond the laser co- herence time in optical clock comparisons, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032138 (2016)

    2016

  44. [53]

    Borregaard and A

    J. Borregaard and A. S. Sørensen, Near-heisenberg-limited atomic clocks in the presence of decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090801 (2013)

    2013

  45. [54]

    Yankelev, C

    D. Yankelev, C. Avinadav, N. Davidson, and O. Firstenberg, Atom interferometry with thousand-fold increase in dynamic range, Science Advances 6, eabd0650 (2020)

    2020

  46. [55]

    A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, P. Scholl, T. H. Yoon, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Multi-ensemble metrology by program- ming local rotations with atom movements, Nature Physics 20, 195 (2024)

    2024

  47. [56]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, and S. Kolkowitz, Reducing the instabil- ity of an optical lattice clock using multiple atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011006 (2024)

    2024

  48. [57]

    Direkci, R

    S. Direkci, R. Finkelstein, M. Endres, and T. Gefen, Heisenberg-limited bayesian phase estimation with low-depth digital quantum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06006 (2024)

    2024

  49. [58]

    Liu, Y .-Y

    L.-Z. Liu, Y .-Y . Fei, Y . Mao, Y . Hu, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y .-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Full-period quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 120802 (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    J. Zhou, J. Huang, J. Wei, C. Han, and C. Lee, High-dynamic- range atomic clocks with dual heisenberg-limited precision scaling (2024), arXiv:2411.14944 [quant-ph]

    2024

  51. [60]

    T. G. Thurtell and A. Miyake, Optimizing one-axis twists for variational bayesian quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023179 (2024)

    2024

  52. [61]

    C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V . Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Optimal metrology with programmable quantum sensors, Nature 603, 604 (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Bayesian quantum frequency estimation in presence of collec- tive dephasing, New Journal of Physics 16, 113002 (2014)

    2014

  54. [63]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, A. Chu, C. Maruko, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Hamiltonian engineering of collective xyz spin models in an optical cavity (2024), arXiv:2402.19429 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Miller, A

    C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, J. Lin, H. Hirzler, H. Gao, H. Zhou, M. D. Lukin, and J. Ye, Two-axis twisting using floquet- engineered xyz spin models with polar molecules, Nature 633, 332 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Man ˇcinska, M. Ozols, and A. Win- ter, Everything you always wanted to know about LOCC (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Mathematical Physics 328, 303 (2014)

    2014

  57. [66]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C.-P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeez- ing, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  58. [67]

    Pezz `e and A

    L. Pezz `e and A. Smerzi, Heisenberg-limited noisy atomic clock using a hybrid coherent and squeezed state protocol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 210503 (2020)

    2020

  59. [68]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  60. [69]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994)

    1994

  61. [70]

    The supplementary material includes: (1) a discussion on the generality of the QD mechanism, (2) additional details and dis- cussions on the sequential QD scheme, and (3) specifics on the variational parameter optimization in a multi-ensemble system, (4) similarities between t...

  62. [71]

    S. A. Haine and J. J. Hope, Machine-designed sensor to make optimal use of entanglement-generating dynamics for quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 060402 (2020)

    2020

  63. [72]

    Huang, M

    J. Huang, M. Zhuang, J. Zhou, Y . Shen, and C. Lee, Quantum metrology assisted by machine learning, Advanced Quantum Technologies n/a, 2300329

  64. [73]

    S. A. Haine, Using interaction-based readouts to approach the ultimate limit of detection-noise robustness for quantum- enhanced metrology in collective spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 98, 030303 (2018)

    2018

  65. [74]

    Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, S

    E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, S. Colombo, C. Shu, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, D. Akamatsu, Y . Xiao, and V . Vuleti´c, Entanglement on an optical atomic- clock transition, Nature 588, 414 (2020)

    2020

  66. [75]

    Z. Li, S. Colombo, C. Shu, G. Velez, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, R. Schmied, S. Choi, M. Lukin, E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, and V . Vuleti´c, Improving metrology with quantum scrambling, Sci- ence 380, 1381 (2023)

    2023

  67. [76]

    Koppenh ¨ofer and A

    M. Koppenh ¨ofer and A. A. Clerk, Revisiting the impact of dis- sipation on time-reversed one-axis-twist quantum-sensing pro- tocols, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043279 (2023)

    2023

  68. [77]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum- enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two- dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science 373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individ- ually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  70. [79]

    X. Wu, X. Liang, Y . Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y .-C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. You, A concise review of rydberg atom based quan- tum computation and quantum simulation, Chinese Physics B 30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  71. [80]

    Ye and P

    J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024)

    2024

  72. [81]

    Q. Liu, M. Xue, M. Radzihovsky, X. Li, D. V . Vasilyev, L.-N. Wu, and V . Vuleti´c, Enhancing dynamic range of sub- standard-quantum-limit measurements via quantum deamplifi- cation, 10.5281/zenodo.15726526 (2025). Supplementary Material: Enhancing Dynamic Range of Sub-Standar...

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    Kaubruegger, D

    R. Kaubruegger, D. V . Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. X11, 041045 (2021), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041045

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    Z. Li, S. Colombo, C. Shu, G. Velez, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, R. Schmied, S. Choi, M. Lukin, E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, and V . Vuleti´c, Science 380, 1381 (2023), URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adg9500

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    Koppenh ¨ofer and A

    M. Koppenh ¨ofer and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043279 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.5.043279. 15

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.