Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Private quantum network sensing with efficient multi-partite entanglement distribution via lossy channels

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a loss-tolerant GHZ distribution scheme lets a four-node quantum sensor network estimate linear combinations of distributed phases with lower variance than direct transmission in the high-loss regime.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting single-parameter result is undercut by flawed multi-parameter resource accounting and an unfulfilled privacy promise. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10148 v2 pith:EG6U47SV submitted 2025-05-15 quant-ph

Yoshihiro Ueda , Makoto Ishihara , Wojciech Roga , Masahiro Takeoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ta42.50.-p
keywords quantumnetworksensingdistributedGHZstatesloss-tolerantentanglementdistributionFisherinformationCramér–Raoboundphotonicphaseestimationstar
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

This paper tries to establish that a loss-tolerant way of distributing GHZ states makes quantum network sensing work over lossy optical fibers where the standard approach fails. In a four-station star network, the proposed distribution has success probability scaling $\eta^2$ instead of $\eta^4$, and for the global phase $\theta=\frac{1}{4}(\theta_1-\theta_2+\theta_3-\theta_4)$ the estimation variance stays below the direct-transmission benchmark at high loss. By combining three different heralded GHZ states and using one mode as a reference, the same protocol estimates arbitrary linear combinations of the other three phases. The paper also claims that a user controlling a further reference phase can hide the target parameter from everyone else, giving the protocol a private-sensing capability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the loss-tolerant GHZ distribution protocol of Ref. [32]: each station prepares a two-photon state and sends one photon to a central node, where a beam-splitter network and single-photon detections herald, on certain two-click patterns, a GHZ state (up to local bit flips) in the retained modes. Its analysis rests on the decomposition $\rho_{CS}=p|GHZ\rangle\langle GHZ|+\sum_i r_i|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|$, with all $|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|$ diagonal in the photon-number basis, so they contain no information about $\theta$ and the quantum Fisher information is bounded by $16p$. The classical Fisher information is computed for the local measurement defined by the binary projectors $|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|$ and $I-|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|$, with $\alpha=1/\sqrt{2}$, which is the feasible substitute for the ideal $\sigma_x$ measurement. The ability to estimate arbitrary linear combinations comes from the pattern table: each two-detector pattern produces a different GHZ state and therefore a different linear phase functional, and the estimators are combined through Eq. (30) with variances adding as in Appendix B.

What would settle it

Tomographically reconstruct the heralded state $\rho_{CS}$ after distribution through a lossy channel, then scan the phase $\theta$ and check whether the non-GHZ part $\sum_i r_i|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|$ changes with $\theta$; any such phase dependence would falsify the diagonal-noise decomposition on which the bound $F_Q[\rho_{CS},\theta]\le 16p$ depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the loss penalty for multipartite entanglement need not scale as the worst case of every photon arriving. The paper uses a protocol in which each sensing station keeps one half of a two-mode state $a|00\rangle+b|11\rangle$ and sends the other half to a central station, where interference and photon-number detection herald a GHZ state among the four retained modes whenever a two-detector pattern clicks. For the target $\theta=\frac{1}{4}(\theta_1-\theta_2+\theta_3-\theta_4)$, the heralded state is written as $\rho_{CS}=p|GHZ\rangle\langle GHZ|+\sum_i r_i|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|$ whose noise terms are diagonal and phase-independent, and convexity of the quantum Fisher information gives $F_Q[\rho_{CS},\theta]\le 16p$. The paper computes both the quantum and classical Cramér–Rao bounds for this state, with the classical bound evaluated for a feasible measurement made of a displacement followed by photon counting, and finds that the protocol beats the idealized direct-transmission benchmark whenever loss is high. Three different detection patterns yield three GHZ states with different phase functionals, allowing arbitrary linear combinations of three phases to be reconstructed against a reference mode.

Load-bearing premise

The whole advantage rests on the assumption that the noisy part of the heralded state carries no phase information—that every $|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|$ term stays diagonal in the photon-number basis—so only the ideal GHZ component contributes to the Fisher information; if loss creates phase-sensitive coherences in the noise, the bound $F_Q[\rho_{CS},\theta]\le 16p$ and the claimed advantage can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a four-station network with equal-length fibers, the estimation variance of $\theta=\frac{1}{4}(\theta_1-\theta_2+\theta_3-\theta_4)$ becomes smaller than in direct transmission once the fiber loss is sufficiently high, with the crossover visible in the paper's plots around tens of decibels.
  • Because the distribution success probability scales as $\eta^{M/2}$ rather than $\eta^M$ for even $M$, adding sensing stations costs less in lost transmission efficiency than it does under direct distribution.
  • With one mode used as a reference, the three GHZ states from the three two-click patterns yield three independent phase estimates, and any linear combination of the remaining three phases can be reconstructed with variance equal to the weighted sum of the component variances.
  • The feasible displacement-and-photon-counting measurement does not reach the quantum Cramér–Rao bound for the noisy heralded state, so the protocol has a known, quantified gap that an improved local measurement could close.
  • The direct-transmission comparison assumes a deterministic pure GHZ source; including generation noise and failure in the benchmark would only make the proposed protocol look better.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The abstract's privacy claim is not developed in the main text; a natural extension is to compute the Fisher information about the target parameter available to non-privileged stations and to verify whether the extra reference phase truly suppresses it.
  • The variance diverges at some phase values, so an adaptive protocol that changes the operating point or merges estimates from several detection patterns could smooth these singularities; the paper leaves that open.
  • The $\eta^{M/2}$ scaling invites a direct calculation of the distance at which the crossover to lower variance occurs as a function of loss per kilometer, and of how that crossover moves as $M$ grows; the formulas in Appendix A are enough to generate such a map.
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. The manuscript analyzes a four-node quantum network sensing protocol based on the loss-tolerant GHZ-state distribution scheme of Ref. [32]. In the proposed scheme, each sensing station prepares a two-photon state and sends one photon to a central node; upon a heralded detection pattern, the stations share an approximate four-qubit GHZ state. The authors compute the quantum and classical Fisher information for estimating phase combinations such as θ=(θ1−θ2+θ3−θ4)/4, and for arbitrary linear combinations of three phases using three different GHZ patterns. They compare variance lower bounds with a direct-transmission reference in which a pure GHZ state is distributed through lossy fibers, using N′=N×P_suc (Eq. 31) to include the distribution success probability. They report lower estimation variance than direct transmission under high loss, and the abstract promises a privacy feature in which an additional parameter hides the target parameter from all users except the one who controls it. Appendices provide the success-probability formula (imported from Ref. [32]) and the variance propagation for linear combinations.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the result would be practically relevant: a quadratic improvement in distribution success probability (η^{M/2} vs η^M) could partially compensate for loss-induced degradation of multipartite entanglement in quantum network sensing, and the use of an implementable displacement-plus-photon-counting measurement is a useful feature. The paper correctly handles the single-parameter comparison with attempt-based resource accounting (Eq. 31), correctly uses convexity of the quantum Fisher information to bound the noisy-state QFI by 16p, and the direct-transmission QFI/CFI calculation (Eqs. 22–26) checks out. Building on a concrete distribution protocol with an explicit success probability is a strength. However, the multiparameter comparison in Figs. 5–6 does not follow the same resource accounting, and the advertised privacy result is absent from the body of the manuscript. These gaps currently prevent the main claims from being accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 5–6 and Eq. (31)] The single-parameter comparison correctly uses N′=N×P_suc (Eq. 31), but the multiparameter comparison in Figs. 5 and 6 instead assigns 30 successful copies to each detection pattern for both protocols. This removes the success-probability difference—the core resource advantage of the proposed scheme—from the comparison. Because the direct-transmission state is pure with QFI 16 per copy, while the proposed heralded state has QFI at most 16p with p<1 (Eq. 29), a per-success comparison cannot produce the plotted advantage; the advantage in the figures must come from an implicit unequal total-attempt budget. The claim of lower variance in the high-loss regime for arbitrary linear combinations is therefore not established as presented. Please redo Figs. 5–6 under a common attempt budget, for example N_i′=N_attempts×P_suc for each pattern and N′=N_attempts×η^4 for direct transmission.
  2. [Abstract and title; no corresponding analysis] The abstract and title advertise private quantum network sensing and state that 'an additional parameter can be used to hide the information about the target parameter from everyone, except the person who controls the parameter.' The manuscript body contains no adversary model, no definition of privacy, and no analysis of this hiding mechanism. This is a central advertised contribution, not a side remark. Either add the missing analysis or remove the privacy claims from the abstract and title and adjust the framing accordingly.
  3. [Section II.A, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The decomposition ρ_CS=p|GHZ⟩⟨GHZ|_4+Σ_i r_i|ψ_i⟩⟨ψ_i|, with all noise terms declared diagonal in the photon-number basis and hence θ-independent, is asserted without derivation. This decomposition is the premise for the bound F_Q≤16p (Eq. 29) and for the statement that the noise terms carry no phase information. Please provide the explicit form of the states |ψ_i⟩ and weights r_i (for example from the loss model in Appendix A.1) and show explicitly that they are diagonal under the phase-shift unitaries; if the derivation is already in Ref. [32], state the correspondence precisely and state whether P_CS in Eq. (A1) refers to a single detection pattern or to the union of the two equivalent patterns in Table I.
  4. [Section II.B, Eq. (14) and Figs. 4–6] The measurement uses |α⟩⟨α| with the coherent state approximated by e^{−|α|²/2}(|0⟩+α|1⟩). For the chosen α=1/√2 the |2⟩ component is not negligible: about 9% of the population lies in Fock states |n≥2⟩. The reported CCRB values therefore depend on this truncation. Please justify the approximation quantitatively or evaluate the classical Fisher information with the full coherent-state POVM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (29)] The right-hand side should use the quantum Fisher information matrix of the pure GHZ state, not of ρ_CS,θ; as written the inequality would reduce to F_Q(ρ_CS)≤p F_Q(ρ_CS), which is false for p<1.
  2. [Eq. (A1) and Section III] The notation N is used for the number of stations in Eq. (A1) while the main text uses M=4. In addition, 'η=0.2 [db/km]' is an attenuation coefficient with units dB/km, not a transmittance; the distance dependence of the transmittance should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] Fig. 5(b) is captioned with the parameter (θ1+θ2+2θ3)/4, which is the parameter of Fig. 6, while the text and Fig. 5(a) refer to the average (θ1+θ2+θ3)/3. Please align the caption with the text.
  4. [Section III, paragraph before Eq. (31)] The statement that α=1/√2 corresponds to the minimum CCRB is not supported by a derivation or an optimization plot; please provide the calculation or a reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the sensing analysis is self-contained, and the cited GHZ-distribution success probability from the authors' prior work [32] is an independent building block rather than an assumed target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The protocol's success probability P_CS (Eq. A1) and generated states (Table I) are imported from Ref. [32], which has overlapping authors (Roga and Takeoka). However, [32] is an independent prior derivation of a loss-tolerant GHZ distribution protocol whose objective is distribution success probability, not the sensing precision claimed here. The present paper's sensing results — Eq. (7) as the parametrized heralded state, the convexity bound FQ[rho_CS,theta] <= 16p (Eqs. 27-29), the classical Fisher information from displacement-and-photon-counting measurements (Eqs. 14-15), and the combination of three GHZ estimates to reach arbitrary linear combinations (Eq. 30, Appendix B) — are derived in this paper from stated assumptions and do not reduce to the input. The decomposition rho_CS = p|GHZ><GHZ| + sum_i r_i |psi_i><psi_i| is an assumption about the protocol output, not a fit to the sensing data. The displacement parameter alpha is optimized (set to 1/sqrt(2)) as a legitimate measurement optimization, not a hidden data fit. The paper also flags its own idealization of the reference (Conclusions: 'we idealize the reference method to search for the worst case advantages of our scheme'), which is a limitation rather than circularity. The potentially unequal resource accounting in Figs. 5-6 (fixing N=30 successful GHZ copies for both arms instead of applying the per-attempt success probabilities) is a fairness/comparison concern for the claimed high-loss advantage, but it is not a self-referential derivation step: neither arm's variance is constructed from the other's. Overall score 1: one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the sensing derivation.

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

The core scaling advantage comes from the success probability formula of the distribution protocol, which is assumed from the self-cited Ref [32]. The state decomposition and the coherent-state truncation are additional unverified modeling choices. The only tuned parameters are a, b, α, and the per-figure repetition count N=30.

free parameters (4)
  • a = sqrt(0.8)
    Amplitude of the |00> term in the local bipartite state (Eq. 4); chosen to balance fidelity and success rate of the heralded GHZ state, affecting both p and P_CS.
  • b = sqrt(0.2)
    Amplitude of the |11> term in Eq. (4); normalized with a, set to the same value as in Ref [32].
  • alpha = 1/sqrt(2)
    Displacement amplitude in the local measurement (Eq. 14); selected because it corresponds to the minimum CCRB for this protocol.
  • N = 30
    Number of repetitions per detection pattern in Figs. 5-6; chosen by the authors to illustrate the multi-parameter case.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Fisher information formalism and Cramer-Rao bounds are standard and applicable to the states considered.
    Used throughout Section II B; accepted background, not a source of error.
  • domain assumption The success probability of the loss-tolerant GHZ distribution is given by Eq. (A1) from the self-cited preprint [32].
    The scaling advantage depends on this formula, which is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The postselected state has the form ρ_CS = p|GHZ><GHZ| + Σ r_i |ψ_i><ψ_i| with θ-independent diagonal noise, Eq. (6).
    Stated without derivation; it is required for the QFI bound FQ ≤ 16p.
  • domain assumption The coherent state |α> is truncated to the two lowest Fock components, |α> ≈ e^{-|α|^2/2}(|0> + α|1>).
    Used in the measurement model, Eq. (14); for α=1/√2 the neglected |2> component has probability ≈7.6%, and the truncation error is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Private quantum network sensing with efficient multi-partite entanglement distribution via lossy channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EG6U47SV

@misc{pith2026250510148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Private quantum network sensing with efficient multi-partite entanglement distribution via lossy channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EG6U47SV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10148}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum network sensing shows potential to enhance the estimation precision for functions of spatially distributed parameters beyond the shot noise limit. The key resource required for this task is possibly multi-partite quantum entanglement. Such protocols can also provide privacy, preventing sensitive information from leaking to unauthorized parties. The photonic entanglement is the most natural for this task; however, distributing it over long distances presents significant difficulties, mainly because of unavoidable loss in communication channels. The resource efficiency is also fundamental, both for precise network sensing and for private sensing In this research, we analyze a quantum network sensing protocol based on a recently proposed, efficient GHZ state distribution scheme. In comparison to conventional methods based on entanglement distribution, our protocol shows the decreasing loss-induced estimation error of certain functions of distributed parameters including their arbitrary linear combinations. Moreover, we consider a scenario in which one person can estimate linear combinations of distributed parameters without violating privacy of the other users. We show that an additional parameter can be used to hide the information about the target parameter from everyone, except the person who controls the parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A star network for estimation of functions of tar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Configuration of central node. Each station sends one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measurement setup for extracting information about [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lower bound of variance derived by QCRB and CCRB. QCRB of our protocol is shown as red dotted line. Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The result when the sensed parameter is the average of phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The result when the sensed parameter is arbitrary linear combination of phases. This figure is plotted when the sensed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Y. M. Zhang, X. W. Li, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, Quan- tum fisher information of entangled coherent states in the presence of photon loss, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043832 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [1]

    As we men- tioned before, distribution process in the direct trans- mission method, which is our reference, records a success if all photons arrive at the end stations

    Success probability of GHZ state generation Here we show the calculation of the success probabil- ity of four-partite GHZ state generation. As we men- tioned before, distribution process in the direct trans- mission method, which is our reference, records a success if all photons arrive at the end stations. Therefore, the success probability is η4. In our...

    work page

  3. [2]

    In this section, we show how to cal- culate the variance of ¯θ and ˆθ

    Analysis of the variance of ˆθ As we mentioned in the main text, our scheme allows us to estimate an arbitrary linear combination of the pa- rameters ¯θ and ˆθ. In this section, we show how to cal- culate the variance of ¯θ and ˆθ. According to Eq. (30) and standard statistical analysis, the variance ∆ ˆθ 2 is ex- pressed as follows: ∆ˆθ 2 =V [¯θ] =V h w1...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. Bardhan, T. Gehring, et al., Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photonics 12, 724–733 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

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

    2017

  6. [5]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  7. [6]

    T. Ono, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, An entanglement- enhanced microscope, Nat. Commun. 4, 2426 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Chapter four - quantum limits in optical interferometry, in Progress in Optics , Vol. 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    work page 2015

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    K. Qian, Z. Eldredge, W. Ge, et al. , Heisenberg-scaling measurement protocol for analytic functions with quan- tum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 100, 042304 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

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

    2018

  3. [10]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photonics 7, 613–619 (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    K´ om´ ar, E

    P. K´ om´ ar, E. Kessler, and M. a. o. Bishof, A quantum network of clocks, Nat. Phys. 10, 582–587 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Y. Yang, B. Yadin, and Z.-P. Xu, Quantum-enhanced metrology with network states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210801 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and Maccone, Quantum- enhanced positioning and clock synchronization, Nature 412, 417–419 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    E. T. Khabiboulline, J. Borregaard, K. De Greve, and M. D. Lukin, Optical interferometry with quantum net- works, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070504 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Gottesman, T

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer- baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070503 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    Purvis, R

    B. Purvis, R. Lafler, and R. N. Lanning, Practical approach to extending baselines of telescopes using continuous-variable quantum information, New J. Phys. 26, 103006 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Pezz` e and A

    L. Pezz` e and A. Smerzi, Distributed quantum multi- parameter estimation with optimal local measurements (2024), arXiv:2405.18404 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Distributed quantum sensing using continuous-variable multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Zhuang, J

    Q. Zhuang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Distributed quan- tum sensing enhanced by continuous-variable error cor- rection, New J. Phys. 22, 022001 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maxi- mally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  15. [22]

    In addition, exceeding the classical limit based on CV [23, 24] and DV [25–28] en- tanglement was also observed experimentally

    are known to be the optimal probes which can at- tain the Heisenberg limit [2]. In addition, exceeding the classical limit based on CV [23, 24] and DV [25–28] en- tanglement was also observed experimentally. Although several research papers have estimated the performance of qu...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    D. Kim, S. Hong, Y. Kim, et al. , Distributed quantum sensing of multiple phases with fewer photons, Nat. Com- mun. 15, 266 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

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

    2013

  18. [25]

    Greenberger, M

    D. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990)

    1990

  19. [26]

    X. Guo, C. Breum, J. Borregaard, et al. , Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-variable entangled net- work, Nat. Phys. 16, Nat. Phys. (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Y. Xia, W. Li, W. Clark, et al. , Demonstration of a re- configurable entangled radio-frequency photonic sensor network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 150502 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    S. Hong, J. ur Rehman, Y. Kim, et al. , Quantum en- hanced multiple-phase estimation with multi-mode n00n states, Nat. Commun. 12, 5211 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    L. Liu, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, et al., Distributed quantum phase estimation with entangled photons, Nat. Photonics 15, 137–142 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Zhang, L

    J. Zhang, L. Wang, Y.-J. Hai, et al. , Distributed multi- parameter quantum metrology with a superconducting quantum network (2024), arXiv:2412.18398 [quant-ph]

    2024

  24. [31]

    Daryanoosh, S

    S. Daryanoosh, S. Slussarenko, D. Berry, et al. , Experi- mental optical phase measurement approaching the exact heisenberg limit, Nat. Commun. 4606, 4606 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    A. Zang, A. Kolar, A. Gonzales, et al. , Quantum advan- tage in distributed sensing with noisy quantum networks (2024), arXiv:2409.17089 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sekatski, S

    P. Sekatski, S. W¨ olk, and W. D¨ ur, Optimal distributed sensing in noisy environments, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023052 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Shimizu, W

    H. Shimizu, W. Roga, D. Elkouss, and M. Takeoka, Sim- ple loss-tolerant protocol for ghz-state distribution in a quantum network (2024), arXiv:2404.19458 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Proietti, J

    M. Proietti, J. Ho, F. Grasselli, P. Barrow, M. Malik, and A. Fedrizzi, Experimental quantum conference key agreement, Sci. Adv. 7, eabe0395 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Takeoka, M

    M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, P. van Loock, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Implementation of projective measurements with linear optics and continuous photon counting, Phys. Rev. A71, 022318 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Takeoka, M

    M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Binary pro- jective measurement via linear optics and photon count- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 040502 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Asshab, K

    S. Asshab, K. Maruyama, and F. Nori, Detecting mode entanglement: The role of coherent states, superselection rules and particle statistics, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052113 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Y. Ota, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Implementing general measurements on linear optical and solid-state qubits, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043808 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, B. C. Nichol, G. Araneda, D. Main, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, K. Ivanov, E. Y.-Z. Tan, P. Sekatski, R. L. Urbanke, R. Renner, N. Sangouard, and J.-D. Bancal, Experimen- tal quantum key distribution certified by Bell’s theorem, Nature ...

    2022

  34. [42]

    W. Roga, R. Ikuta, T. Horikiri, and M. Takeoka, Efficient dicke-state distribution in a network of lossy channels, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012612 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. 10 Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Cao and X

    Y. Cao and X. Wu, Distributed quantum sensing network with geographically constrained measurement strategies, in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2023) pp. 1–5

    2023

Pith tools

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