Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Tutorial: Optical quantum metrology

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This tutorial shows how quantum Fisher information governs optical phase estimation and why nonclassical probe states beat classical shot noise.

desk verdict A useful tutorial with a load-bearing sign error in the squeezed-state section that needs a fix before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22680 v1 pith:OPWDLNXB submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph

Marco Barbieri This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologyopticalinterferometryFisherinformationCramér-Raoboundshot-noiselimitHeisenbergsqueezedlightN00Nstates
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 tutorial sets out to show why nonclassical light can measure better than classical light under the same resource budget, and how to quantify that advantage with Fisher information. It builds from the three steps of any estimate—probe preparation, parameter-dependent interaction, measurement—and introduces the classical and quantum Cramér-Rao bounds as the figures of merit. The central message is that the right probe state changes the scaling of achievable variance from the shot-noise limit (1/√M for M photons) to the Heisenberg limit (1/M), with loss and detector efficiency deciding how much of that scaling survives. A sympathetic reader finishes with a working framework for comparing strategies rather than a list of records.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum Fisher information and its associated symmetric logarithmic derivative $L_\phi$, defined by $\partial\rho_\phi/\partial\phi=\frac12(L_\phi\rho_\phi+\rho_\phi L_\phi)$, which upper-bounds the Fisher information of any measurement and is saturated by measuring in the eigenbasis of $L_\phi$. For pure states and unitary evolution generated by $\hat G$, this reduces to $H(\phi)=4\Delta^2 G$, turning the quantum Cramér-Rao bound into a Heisenberg-like uncertainty relation. The paper uses this identity to compare classical strategies (product states over $N$ particles, linear shot-noise scaling) with quantum strategies (collective entangled states, quadratic Heisenberg scaling), and then examines how the same quantity behaves under loss for squeezed states and fixed-photon-number states.

What would settle it

Operate a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with squeezed vacuum in the dark port and equal energies in the coherent and squeezed arms, then compare the phase variance with a coherent state of the same total photon number; the tutorial predicts the squeezed strategy reaches Heisenberg scaling while coherent light stays at $1/\sqrt{N}$. A measured variance that does not improve with the squeezing parameter $s$ would falsify the central mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the precision of phase estimation is governed by the quantum Fisher information $H(\phi)=\mathrm{Tr}[L_\phi^2\rho_\phi]$, defined through the symmetric logarithmic derivative, and that for unitary parameter shifts generated by $\hat G$ this reduces to $H(\phi)=4\Delta^2 G$. Since a classical experimenter restricted to $N$ independent particles reaches $H=N(g_M-g_m)^2$ while a quantum experimenter can prepare collective superpositions reaching $H=N^2(g_M-g_m)^2$, the tutorial establishes the shot-noise-to-Heisenberg transition as a matter of state design. It then shows how resource states—squeezed vacuum, two-mode squeezed vacuum, N00N states, and Holland-Burnett states—realize or approximate that advantage, and how loss degrades it, including the criterion $\eta_{\rm tot}v^2N>1$ for a genuine advantage with N00N states.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between classical and quantum strategies assumes a fixed, fair way of counting resources such as photons and runs, yet the paper notes that a rigorous, general definition of this resource count is elusive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An experimenter can judge whether a proposed probe and measurement are optimal by comparing the achieved Fisher information with $H(\phi)$; saturation means the strategy already operates at the quantum limit for that state.
  • With equal average photon number, coherent light and single photons both hit the shot-noise limit $1/\sqrt{M}$, so quantum advantage requires a nonclassical state rather than simply more intensity.
  • When the energy in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is split equally between a coherent state and a squeezed vacuum, the phase variance reaches Heisenberg scaling with the total photon number.
  • Loss suppresses the Fisher information of N00N states by a factor that scales as $\eta^N$, which is why high-efficiency detectors and loss-tolerant states such as Holland-Burnett states are central to practical quantum metrology.
  • For multiparameter estimation, the matrix quantum Cramér-Rao bound together with the weak-commutator matrix $D$ determines when two parameters can be estimated at their joint ultimate precision and when no single measurement can achieve that.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The resource-counting caveat suggests that claims about Heisenberg scaling should be read as statements about a fixed photon number per run rather than a universal physical speedup; an extension the tutorial leaves implicit is a resource theory that makes the trade-off between invasivity and precision quantitative.
  • The Fisher-information framing invites a pedagogical bridge to imaging: the vanishing Fisher information for small separations of two point sources is a measurement-choice problem, and the tutorial's multiparameter tools imply that mode-selective measurements are a general recipe beyond the specific examples discussed.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same symmetric-logarithmic-derivative comparison to biological or plasmonic sensors with time-varying parameters, where nuisance parameters such as loss must be estimated jointly with the signal; the tutorial points to this need but does not provide a concrete protocol.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a tutorial on optical quantum metrology. It develops the classical Fisher-information and Cramér-Rao framework, introduces the quantum Fisher information and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, illustrates the shot-noise and Heisenberg limits with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and reviews squeezed-light and fixed-photon-number strategies, multiparameter estimation, and recent applications. Three appendices provide derivations and a quantum-optics primer.

Significance. If the errors noted below are fixed, this will be a useful and broadly accurate entry point to the field. Its strengths are the self-contained derivations of the CRB and QCRB, the clear worked example of the single-photon Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the honest discussion of resource-counting ambiguities, and a well-curated reference list. The paper makes no new research claims, so its value lies in exposition rather than originality. However, the main quantitative demonstration of squeezed-light enhancement currently contains a sign error in the displayed quantum Fisher information that invalidates the resulting Heisenberg-scaling claim, so the tutorial requires correction before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [IV.A] In the paragraph beginning "an explicit calculation gives F(phi)=alpha^2 e^{-2s}+nbar [64]", the displayed formula for the quantum Fisher information has the wrong sign in the exponential. The preceding error-propagation result sigma^2=e^{-2s}/alpha^2, interpreted as the variance of a locally unbiased estimator, implies via the Cramér-Rao bound that the classical Fisher information of the intensity measurement is at least alpha^2 e^{2s}; since the quantum Fisher information H must be at least the Fisher information of any measurement, H cannot be as small as alpha^2 e^{-2s}+nbar at large s. The correct result from Pezzé-Smerzi (Ref. [64]) is H=alpha^2 e^{2s}+sinh^2 s, with nbar=sinh^2 s. This is not a cosmetic typo: with the printed expression, the equal-energy condition |alpha|^2=nbar gives H approximately N/2 for total photon number N=|alpha|^2+nbar, i.e. shot-noise scaling, whereas the corrected expression gives H approximately N^2, which is the Heisenberg scaling claimed in the text. The subsequent sentence attributing the discrepancy to "the poor performance of the average intensity as the estimator" should also be revisited, since with the corrected QFI the intensity measurement is close to optimal in the regime nbar << |alpha|^2.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B] Equation (B2) misstates the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality: the displayed bound V[phi~]V[V] >= E[phi~V] is missing the square on the right-hand side. It should read V[phi~]V[V] >= (E[phi~V])^2. The following line (B3) uses the squared form, so the final Cramér-Rao bound is correct, but the intermediate display is wrong as written.
  2. [V.B] In the text after Eq. (24), the phrase "the curly brackets denote the commutator" is incorrect: curly brackets denote the anticommutator, while the commutator is written with square brackets. The definition of H_{h,k} uses an anticommutator, as is standard; please correct the wording.
  3. [IV.A] The text states that the mean photon number of the squeezed vacuum is "nbar = sinh 2(s)"; this should be nbar = sinh^2(s). As printed, the expression is quantitatively incorrect, although it is likely a formatting loss of the superscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: tutorial derivations are self-contained and cited results are external.

full rationale

This is a tutorial/review, not an original derivation with novel claims, so the circularity criteria must be applied to whether any presented derivation reduces to its own inputs. The Fisher-information and quantum Cramer-Rao derivations in Sections II.C, III.A, Appendix B, and Appendix C are carried out from the definitions of the score, Born's rule, and the symmetric logarithmic derivative, using standard Cauchy-Schwarz steps; the single-photon Mach-Zehnder example computes the Fisher information directly in Eq. (8), and the N00N-state QFI follows from Eq. (12)-(13) as the generator variance, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The squeezed-state QFI in Section IV.A is quoted from an external source [64] rather than derived from this paper's own fitted inputs, so even if the printed expression were erroneous, that would be a correctness issue rather than circularity. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., [154, 156, 198]) are contextual review citations for specific results and do not carry the tutorial's load-bearing argument. The paper's own admission in Section II.A that a rigorous definition of resources is 'perhaps elusive' weakens the classical-versus-quantum comparison, but that is a caveat about framing, not a circular step. No passage was found in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, or a load-bearing premise rests solely on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The tutorial relies on standard quantum mechanics, quantum optics, and statistical estimation theory. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are introduced. The main modeling assumptions are the measurement models and the resource counting convention, both standard or explicitly flagged as conventions.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Born's rule and the POVM description of measurements
    Used throughout for probabilities p(x|φ) = Tr[ρ Π_x], foundational to Fisher information and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound.
  • standard math Existence and properties of the symmetric logarithmic derivative
    The quantum Fisher information H(φ)=Tr[L²ρ] and saturability by projective measurement in the eigenbasis of L are cited to Helstrom; Appendix C sketches the proof.
  • standard math Quantum uncertainty relation and the generator variance formula H=4Δ²G
    The derivation of the Heisenberg limit in Section III.B relies on this formula for pure states under unitary evolution.
  • domain assumption The resource counting convention (anything useful to extract information)
    Section II.A notes the rigorous definition is elusive; the shot-noise versus Heisenberg limit comparison depends on this convention.
  • domain assumption Standard models of photodetectors (on/off clicks, homodyne, photon-number resolving)
    Section II.B describes APDs, SNSPDs, TES, and homodyne detection; these models are used in the interferometric examples.
  • standard math Cramér-Rao regularity conditions
    Appendix B states two regularity conditions for the Cramér-Rao bound to hold, and the tutorial assumes these are met.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tutorial: Optical quantum metrology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPWDLNXB

@misc{pith2026250722680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tutorial: Optical quantum metrology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPWDLNXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22680}
}
read the original abstract

The purpose of quantum technologies is to explore how quantum effects can improve on existing solutions for the treatment of information. Quantum photonics sensing holds great promises for reaching a more efficient trade-off between invasivity and quality of the measurement, when compared with the potential of classical means. This tutorial is dedicated to presenting how this advantage is brought about by nonclassical light, examining the basic principles of parameter estimation and reviewing the state of the art.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Heisenberg’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Conceptual scheme of the estimation procedure, high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Photon counting detectors. The Avalanche Photo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Homodyne detection makes it possible to measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Phase estimation in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: To our purposes, the classical Fisher information (3) provides a tool to compare different choices, but no con￾structive guideline. Intuitively, this is because the Fisher information looks at how the specific outcome distri￾butions vary with the parameter ϕ, rather th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scheme for the production of squeezed vacuum states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.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. Measurement incompatibility in Bayesian multiparameter quantum estimation

    quant-ph 2025-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Measurement incompatibility at most doubles the minimum mean-square loss in Bayesian multiparameter quantum estimation, relative to the symmetric-posterior-mean bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

199 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [64]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)

    1983

  2. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weed- brook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  4. [3]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum metrology, A VS Quantum Science2, 024703 (2020)

    2020

  5. [4]

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

    2017

  6. [5]

    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

  7. [6]

    Heisenberg, Physikalischen Prinzipien der Quanten- theorie (S

    W. Heisenberg, Physikalischen Prinzipien der Quanten- theorie (S. Hirzel Verlag, 1930)

    1930

  8. [7]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

Show all 199 references
  1. [8]

    Brida, I

    G. Brida, I. P. Degiovanni, A. Florio, M. Genovese, P. Giorda, A. Meda, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Shurupov, Experimental estimation of entanglement at the quan- tum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 100501 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Virz ` ı, E

    S. Virz ` ı, E. Rebufello, A. Avella, F. Piacentini, M. Gramegna, I. Ruo Berchera, I. P. Degiovanni, and M. Genovese, Optimal estimation of entanglement and discord in two-qubit states, Scientific Reports 9, 3030 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Schottky, ¨ uber spontane stromschwankungen in ver- schiedenen elektrizit¨ atsleitern, Annalen der Physik362, 541 (1918)

    W. Schottky, ¨ uber spontane stromschwankungen in ver- schiedenen elektrizit¨ atsleitern, Annalen der Physik362, 541 (1918)

    1918

  4. [11]

    Bachor and T

    H. Bachor and T. Ralph, A guide to experiments in quantum optics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamentals of pho- tonics; 2nd ed. , Wiley series in pure and applied optics 18 (Wiley, New York, NY, 2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Photon-number resolution using time- multiplexed single-photon detectors, Phys. Rev. A 68, 043814 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Achilles, C

    D. Achilles, C. Silberhorn, C. Sliwa, K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley, M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Photon-number-resolving detection using time-multiplexing, Journal of Modern Optics 51, 1499 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Sperling, W

    J. Sperling, W. Vogel, and G. S. Agarwal, Sub-binomial light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 093601 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Holzman and Y

    I. Holzman and Y. Ivry, Superconducting nanowires for single-photon detection: Progress, challenges, and opportunities, Advanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1800058 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Divochiy, F

    A. Divochiy, F. Marsili, D. Bitauld, A. Gaggero, R. Leoni, F. Mattioli, A. Korneev, V. Seleznev, N. Kau- rova, O. Minaeva, G. Gol’tsman, K. G. Lagoudakis, M. Benkhaoul, F. L´ evy, and A. Fiore, Supercon- ducting nanowire photon-number-resolving detector at telecommunication wa...

    2008

  11. [19]

    D. Zhu, M. Colangelo, C. Chen, B. A. Korzh, F. N. C. Wong, M. D. Shaw, and K. K. Berggren, Resolving pho- ton numbers using a superconducting nanowire with impedance-matching taper, Nano Letters, Nano Letters 20, 3858 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    C. M. Natarajan, L. Zhang, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, G. Donati, S. N. Dorenbos, V. Zwiller, I. A. Walms- ley, and R. H. Hadfield, Quantum detector tomography of a time-multiplexed superconducting nanowire single- photon detector at telecom wavelengths, Opt. Express 21, 893 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Marsili, V

    F. Marsili, V. B. Verma, J. A. Stern, S. Harrington, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, I. Vayshenker, B. Baek, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Detecting single in- frared photons with 93% system efficiency, Nature Pho- tonics 7, 210 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    D. V. Reddy, R. R. Nerem, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and V. B. Verma, Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system detection efficiency at 1550 nm, Optica 7, 1649 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Counting near-infrared single-photons with 95% efficiency, Opt. Express 16, 3032 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, T. Gerrits, T. Hiem- stra, A. E. Lita, J. Nunn, S. W. Nam, A. Datta, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Tomography of photon-number resolving continuous-output detectors, New Journal of Physics 17, 103044 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2000)

    R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Serafini, Quantum continous variables: a primer of theoretical methods (Taylor & Francis, 2017)

    A. Serafini, Quantum continous variables: a primer of theoretical methods (Taylor & Francis, 2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. Milburn, Quantum Optics , Springer Study Edition (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Effective quantum effi- ciency in the pulsed homodyne detection of a n-photon state, Eur. Phys. J. D 14, 119 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    R. A. Fisher, On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 222, 309 (1922)

    1922

  22. [30]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-

  23. [31]

    (Princeton University Press, 1946)

    1946

  24. [32]

    Rao, Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters, Bulletin of the Cal- cutta Mathematical Society

    C. Rao, Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters, Bulletin of the Cal- cutta Mathematical Society. 37, 81 (1945)

    1945

  25. [33]

    Hradil, R

    Z. Hradil, R. Myˇ ska, J. Peˇ rina, M. Zawisky, Y. Hasegawa, and H. Rauch, Quantum phase in inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4295 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, D. Brivio, S. Cialdi, D. Cipri- ani, A. Santamato, S. Vezzoli, and M. G. A. Paris, Op- tical interferometry in the presence of large phase diffu- sion, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043817 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient bayesian phase es- timation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Lumino, E

    A. Lumino, E. Polino, A. S. Rab, G. Milani, N. Spag- nolo, N. Wiebe, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental phase estimation enhanced by machine learning, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 044033 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Rubio, P

    J. Rubio, P. Knott, and J. Dunningham, Non- asymptotic analysis of quantum metrology protocols be- yond the cram´ er–rao bound, Journal of Physics Commu- nications 2, 015027 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    H. V. Trees, Detection Estimation and Modulation The- ory (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1968)

    1968

  31. [39]

    N. F. Ramsey, A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields, Phys. Rev. 78, 695 (1950)

    1950

  32. [40]

    Hradil, J

    Z. Hradil, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. Bouchal, R. ˇCelechovsk´ y, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Minimum uncertainty measure- ments of angle and angular momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 243601 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  35. [43]

    Helstrom, The minimum variance of estimates in quantum signal detection, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 14, 234 (1968)

    C. Helstrom, The minimum variance of estimates in quantum signal detection, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 14, 234 (1968)

    1968

  36. [44]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, Vol. 123 (Elsevier, 1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (Noth Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  38. [46]

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

    1994

  39. [47]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, Fisher informa- tion in quantum statistics, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 33, 4481 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Fujiwara and H

    A. Fujiwara and H. Nagaoka, Quantum fisher metric and estimation for pure state models, Physics Letters A 201, 119 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2006

  42. [50]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, Gen- eralized uncertainty relations: Theory, examples, and lorentz invariance, Annals of Physics 247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    Monras and M

    A. Monras and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal quantum esti- mation of loss in bosonic channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160401 (2007). 19

    2007

  44. [52]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Su(2) and su(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  45. [53]

    Z. Y. Ou, Fundamental quantum limit in precision phase measurement, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2598 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-free heisenberg- limited phase estimation, Nature 450, 393 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Demon- strating heisenberg-limited unambiguous phase estima- tion without adaptive measurements, New Journal of Physics 11, 073023 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Daryanoosh, S

    S. Daryanoosh, S. Slussarenko, D. W. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental optical phase measurement approaching the exact heisenberg limit, Nature Communications 9, 4606 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Boixo, A

    S. Boixo, A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, E. Bagan, and C. M. Caves, Quantum-limited metrology with product states, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012317 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    Napolitano, M

    M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Be- hbood, R. J. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Interaction- based quantum metrology showing scaling beyond the heisenberg limit, Nature 471, 486 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, R. Adhikari, A. Ageev, B. Allen, R. Amin, S. Anderson, W. Anderson, M. Araya, H. Armandula, F. Asiri, P. Aufmuth, C. Aulbert, S. Babak, R. Balasubramanian, S. Ballmer, B. Bar- ish, D. Barker, C. Barker-Patton, M. Barnes, B. Barr, M. Barton, K. Bayer, R. B...

    2004

  52. [60]

    Abramovici, W

    A. Abramovici, W. E. Althouse, R. W. P. Drever, Y. G¨ ursel, S. Kawamura, F. J. Raab, D. Shoemaker, L. Sievers, R. E. Spero, K. S. Thorne, R. E. Vogt, R. Weiss, S. E. Whitcomb, and M. E. Zucker, Ligo: The laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory, Sci- ence 256, 325 (1992)

    1992

  53. [61]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical radiation-pressure fluctuations in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 75 (1980)

    1980

  54. [62]

    Robinson, The ground state of the bose gas, Com- munications in mathematical physics 1, 159 (1965)

    D. Robinson, The ground state of the bose gas, Com- munications in mathematical physics 1, 159 (1965)

    1965

  55. [63]

    H. P. Yuen, Two-photon coherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev. A 13, 2226 (1976). 20

    1976

  56. [65]

    Pezz´ e and A

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

    2008

  57. [66]

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

    1985

  58. [67]

    R. M. Shelby, M. D. Levenson, S. H. Perlmutter, R. G. DeVoe, and D. F. Walls, Broad-band parametric deam- plification of quantum noise in an optical fiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 691 (1986)

    1986

  59. [68]

    L.-A. Wu, H. J. Kimble, J. L. Hall, and H. Wu, Genera- tion of squeezed states by parametric down conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2520 (1986)

    1986

  60. [69]

    Xiao, L.-A

    M. Xiao, L.-A. Wu, and H. J. Kimble, Precision mea- surement beyond the shot-noise limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 278 (1987)

    1987

  61. [70]

    Grangier, R

    P. Grangier, R. E. Slusher, B. Yurke, and A. La- Porta, Squeezed-light–enhanced polarization interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2153 (1987)

    1987

  62. [71]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, S. Goßler, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Observation of squeezed light with 10-db quantum-noise reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 033602 (2008)

    2008

  63. [72]

    Senior, G

    R. Senior, G. Milford, J. Janousek, A. Dunlop, K. Wag- ner, H.-A. Bachor, T. Ralph, E. Huntington, and C. Harb, Observation of a comb of optical squeezing over many gigahertz of bandwidth, Opt. Express 15, 5310 (2007)

    2007

  64. [73]

    S. Ast, M. Mehmet, and R. Schnabel, High-bandwidth squeezed light at 1550 nm from a compact monolithic ppktp cavity, Opt. Express 21, 13572 (2013)

    2013

  65. [74]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astron- omy, Nature Communications 1, 121 (2010)

    2010

  66. [75]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Ab- bott, M. R. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Ad- desso, R. X. Adhikari, C. Affeldt, O. D. Aguiar, P. Ajith, B. Allen, E. Amador Ceron, D. Amariutei, S. B. Ander- son, W. G. Anderson, K. Arai, M. C. Araya, C. Arce- neaux, ...

    2013

  67. [76]

    R. E. Slusher, P. Grangier, A. LaPorta, B. Yurke, and M. J. Potasek, Pulsed squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2566 (1987)

    1987

  68. [77]

    Wenger, R

    J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Pulsed homodyne measurements of femtosecond squeezed pulses generated by single-pass parametric deamplifica- tion, Opt. Lett. 29, 1267 (2004)

    2004

  69. [78]

    Y. Eto, T. Tajima, Y. Zhang, and T. Hirano, Observa- tion of squeezed light at 1.535 µm using a pulsed homo- dyne detector, Opt. Lett. 32, 1698 (2007)

    2007

  70. [79]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, R. M. de Ara´ ujo, J. Feng, B. Chalopin, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, Generation and characterization of multimode quantum frequency combs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 083601 (2012)

    2012

  71. [80]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, K. Banaszek, and R. Schn- abel, Fundamental quantum interferometry bound for 21 the squeezed-light-enhanced gravitational wave detector geo 600, Phys. Rev. A 88, 041802 (2013)

    2013

  72. [81]

    M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H.-A. Bachor, and W. P. Bowen, Biological measure- ment beyond the quantum limit, Nature Photonics 7, 229 (2013)

    2013

  73. [82]

    Yonezawa, D

    H. Yonezawa, D. Nakane, T. A. Wheatley, K. Iwasawa, S. Takeda, H. Arao, K. Ohki, K. Tsumura, D. W. Berry, T. C. Ralph, H. M. Wiseman, E. H. Huntington, and A. Furusawa, Quantum-enhanced optical-phase track- ing, Science 337, 1514 (2012)

    2012

  74. [83]

    Wolfgramm, A

    F. Wolfgramm, A. Cer` e, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojevi´ c, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, Squeezed-light optical magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 053601 (2010)

    2010

  75. [84]

    B.-B. Li, J. B ´ ılek, U. B. Hoff, L. S. Madsen, S. Forstner, V. Prakash, C. Sch¨ afermeier, T. Gehring, W. P. Bowen, and U. L. Andersen, Quantum enhanced optomechani- cal magnetometry, Optica 5, 850 (2018)

    2018

  76. [85]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating optical schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing, Science 312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  77. [86]

    Heidmann, R

    A. Heidmann, R. J. Horowicz, S. Reynaud, E. Gia- cobino, C. Fabre, and G. Camy, Observation of quantum noise reduction on twin laser beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2555 (1987)

    1987

  78. [87]

    Treps, U

    N. Treps, U. Andersen, B. Buchler, P. K. Lam, A. Ma ˆ ıtre, H.-A. Bachor, and C. Fabre, Surpassing the standard quantum limit for optical imaging using non- classical multimode light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 203601 (2002)

    2002

  79. [88]

    Brida, M

    G. Brida, M. Genovese, and I. Ruo Berchera, Experi- mental realization of sub-shot-noise quantum imaging, Nature Photonics 4, 227 (2010)

    2010

  80. [89]

    Boyer, A

    V. Boyer, A. M. Marino, R. C. Pooser, and P. D. Lett, Entangled images from four-wave mixing, Science 321, 544 (2008)

    2008

  81. [90]

    Dowran, A

    M. Dowran, A. Kumar, B. J. Lawrie, R. C. Pooser, and A. M. Marino, Quantum-enhanced plasmonic sensing, Optica 5, 628 (2018)

    2018

  82. [91]

    S. T. Pradyumna, E. Losero, I. Ruo-Berchera, P. Traina, M. Zucco, C. S. Jacobsen, U. L. Andersen, I. P. De- giovanni, M. Genovese, and T. Gehring, Twin beam quantum-enhanced correlated interferometry for testing fundamental physics, Communications Physics 3, 104 (2020)

    2020

  83. [92]

    Yurke, Input states for enhancement of fermion inter- ferometer sensitivity, Phys

    B. Yurke, Input states for enhancement of fermion inter- ferometer sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1515 (1986)

    1986

  84. [93]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone for interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002)

    2002

  85. [94]

    J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, E. Jakeman, T. Larchuk, R. A. Campos, M. C. Teich, and B. E. A. Saleh, Two- photon interference in a mach-zehnder interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1348 (1990)

    1990

  86. [95]

    D’Angelo, M

    M. D’Angelo, M. V. Chekhova, and Y. Shih, Two- photon diffraction and quantum lithography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 013602 (2001)

    2001

  87. [96]

    Edamatsu, R

    K. Edamatsu, R. Shimizu, and T. Itoh, Measurement of the photonic de broglie wavelength of entangled pho- ton pairs generated by spontaneous parametric down- conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 213601 (2002)

    2002

  88. [97]

    Crespi, M

    A. Crespi, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, A. Politi, C. R. Neal, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, and J. L. O’Brien, Measuring protein concentration with entangled pho- tons, Applied Physics Letters 100, 233704 (2012)

    2012

  89. [98]

    D’Ambrosio, N

    V. D’Ambrosio, N. Spagnolo, L. Del Re, S. Slussarenko, Y. Li, L. C. Kwek, L. Marrucci, S. P. Walborn, L. Aolita, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic polarization gears for ultra- sensitive angular measurements, Nature Communica- tions 4, 2432 (2013)

    2013

  90. [99]

    Wolfgramm, C

    F. Wolfgramm, C. Vitelli, F. A. Beduini, N. Godbout, and M. W. Mitchell, Entanglement-enhanced probing of a delicate material system, Nature Photonics 7, 28 (2013)

    2013

  91. [100]

    T. Ono, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, An entanglement-enhanced microscope, Nature Com- munications 4, 2426 (2013)

    2013

  92. [101]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  93. [102]

    A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Hong-ou-mandel interference (2017), arXiv:1711.00080 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Bouchard, A

    F. Bouchard, A. Sit, Y. Zhang, R. Fickler, F. M. Mi- atto, Y. Yao, F. Sciarrino, and E. Karimi, Two-photon interference: the hong–ou–mandel effect, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 012402 (2021)

    2021

  95. [104]

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

    1993

  96. [105]

    M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov, Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detec- tors, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 071101 (2011)

    2011

  97. [106]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, High- performance semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources, Nature Nanotechnology 12, 1026 (2017)

    2017

  98. [107]

    P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Creation of large- photon-number path entanglement conditioned on pho- todetection, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052104 (2002)

    2002

  99. [108]

    G. J. Pryde and A. G. White, Creation of maximally entangled photon-number states using optical fiber mul- tiports, Phys. Rev. A 68, 052315 (2003)

    2003

  100. [109]

    Cable and J

    H. Cable and J. P. Dowling, Efficient generation of large number-path entanglement using only linear optics and feed-forward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 163604 (2007)

    2007

  101. [110]

    H. F. Hofmann and T. Ono, High-photon-number path entanglement in the interference of spontaneously down- converted photon pairs with coherent laser light, Phys. Rev. A 76, 031806 (2007)

    2007

  102. [111]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multipho- ton entangled state, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

    2004

  103. [112]

    J. C. F. Matthews, A. Politi, D. Bonneau, and J. L. O’Brien, Heralding two-photon and four-photon path entanglement on a chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 163602 (2011)

    2011

  104. [113]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, High-noon states by mixing quantum and classical light, Science 328, 879 (2010)

    2010

  105. [114]

    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, Nature 429, 158 (2004)

    2004

  106. [115]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four-entangled photons, Science 316, 726 (2007). 22

    2007

  107. [116]

    Wang, L.-K

    X.-L. Wang, L.-K. Chen, W. Li, H.-L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, Y.-H. Luo, Z.-E. Su, D. Wu, Z.-D. Li, H. Lu, Y. Hu, X. Jiang, C.-Z. Peng, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y.- A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental ten- photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210502 (2016)

    2016

  108. [117]

    Wang, Y.-H

    X.-L. Wang, Y.-H. Luo, H.-L. Huang, M.-C. Chen, Z.- E. Su, C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Li, Y.-Q. Fang, X. Jiang, J. Zhang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, 18-qubit entanglement with six photons’ three degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260502 (2018)

    2018

  109. [118]

    G. S. Thekkadath, M. E. Mycroft, B. A. Bell, C. G. Wade, A. Eckstein, D. S. Phillips, R. B. Patel, A. Buraczewski, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, M. Stobi´ nska, A. I. Lvovsky, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum-enhanced interferometry with large heralded photon-number states, np...

    2020

  110. [119]

    K. J. Resch, K. L. Pregnell, R. Prevedel, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, and A. G. White, Time- reversal and super-resolving phase measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 223601 (2007)

    2007

  111. [120]

    Kothe, G

    C. Kothe, G. Bj¨ ork, and M. Bourennane, Arbitrarily high super-resolving phase measurements at telecommu- nication wavelengths, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063836 (2010)

    2010

  112. [121]

    Dorner, R

    U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley, Optimal quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 040403 (2009)

    2009

  113. [122]

    Knysh, V

    S. Knysh, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and G. A. Durkin, Scaling laws for precision in quantum interferometry and the bifurcation landscape of the optimal state, Phys. Rev. A 83, 021804 (2011)

    2011

  114. [123]

    Datta, L

    A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum metrology with imperfect states and detectors, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063836 (2011)

    2011

  115. [124]

    Kacprowicz, R

    M. Kacprowicz, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Experimental quantum-enhanced estimation of a lossy phase shift, Nature Photonics 4, 357 (2010)

    2010

  116. [125]

    Spagnolo, C

    N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, V. G. Lucivero, V. Giovan- netti, L. Maccone, and F. Sciarrino, Phase estimation via quantum interferometry for noisy detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 233602 (2012)

    2012

  117. [126]

    J. C. Matthews, X.-Q. Zhou, H. Cable, P. J. Shadbolt, D. J. Saunders, G. A. Durkin, G. J. Pryde, and J. L. O’Brien, Towards practical quantum metrology with photon counting, npj Quantum Information 2, 16023 (2016)

    2016

  118. [127]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Unconditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology, Nature Photonics 11, 700 (2017)

    2017

  119. [128]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Physics 7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  120. [129]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Communications 3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  121. [130]

    M. A. C. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy quantum metrology enhanced by continu- ous nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200505 (2020)

    2020

  122. [131]

    Brivio, S

    D. Brivio, S. Cialdi, S. Vezzoli, B. T. Gebrehiwot, M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Experimental estimation of one-parameter qubit gates in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012305 (2010)

    2010

  123. [132]

    D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Optimal states and almost optimal adaptive measurements for quantum in- terferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5098 (2000)

    2000

  124. [133]

    M. A. Armen, J. K. Au, J. K. Stockton, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Adaptive homodyne measurement of optical phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 133602 (2002)

    2002

  125. [134]

    Rambhatla, S

    K. Rambhatla, S. E. D’Aurelio, M. Valeri, E. Polino, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Adaptive phase estima- tion through a genetic algorithm, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033078 (2020)

    2020

  126. [135]

    G. Y. Xiang, B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-enhanced mea- surement of a completely unknown optical phase, Na- ture Photonics 5, 43 (2011)

    2011

  127. [136]

    A. A. Berni, T. Gehring, B. M. Nielsen, V. H¨ andchen, M. G. A. Paris, and U. L. Andersen, Ab initio quantum- enhanced optical phase estimation using real-time feed- back control, Nature Photonics 9, 577 (2015)

    2015

  128. [137]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  129. [138]

    Anderson, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis (Wiley, 2003)

    T. Anderson, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis (Wiley, 2003)

    2003

  130. [139]

    Suzuki, Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quantum estimation the- ory, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21070703 (2019)

    J. Suzuki, Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quantum estimation the- ory, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21070703 (2019)

    2019 doi

  131. [140]

    Yuen and M

    H. Yuen and M. Lax, Multiple-parameter quantum es- timation and measurement of nonselfadjoint observ- ables, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 19, 740 (1973)

    1973

  132. [141]

    Nagaoka, A new approach to Cram´ er-Rao bounds for quantum state estimation (World Scientific, 2008)

    H. Nagaoka, A new approach to Cram´ er-Rao bounds for quantum state estimation (World Scientific, 2008)

    2008

  133. [142]

    Helstrom and R

    C. Helstrom and R. Kennedy, Noncommuting observ- ables in quantum detection and estimation theory, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 20, 16 (1974)

    1974

  134. [143]

    Fujiwara, Multi-parameter pure state estimation based on the right logarithmic derivative, METR 94-9 (1994)

    A. Fujiwara, Multi-parameter pure state estimation based on the right logarithmic derivative, METR 94-9 (1994)

    1994

  135. [144]

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quan- tum parameter estimation, A VS Quantum Science 2, 014701 (2020)

    2020

  136. [145]

    D-invariance is satisfied when the linear span of the SLD operators is mapped onto itself by the application D, defined by means of ρ⃗ϕX −Xρ ⃗ϕ = i(ρ⃗ϕD(X)+ D(X)ρ⃗ϕ) for any operator X in the span

  137. [146]

    Gut ¸˘ a and J

    M. Gut ¸˘ a and J. Kahn, Local asymptotic normality for qubit states, Phys. Rev. A 73, 052108 (2006)

    2006

  138. [147]

    Hayashi and K

    M. Hayashi and K. Matsumoto, Asymptotic perfor- mance of optimal state estimation in qubit system, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics 49, 102101 (2008)

    2008

  139. [148]

    Yamagata, A

    K. Yamagata, A. Fujiwara, and R. D. Gill, Quantum lo- cal asymptotic normality based on a new quantum like- lihood ratio, The Annals of Statistics 41, 2197 (2013)

    2013

  140. [149]

    Y. Yang, G. Chiribella, and M. Hayashi, Attaining the ultimate precision limit in quantum state estima- tion, Communications in Mathematical Physics 368, 223 (2019). 23

    2019

  141. [150]

    Suzuki, Explicit formula for the holevo bound for two- parameter qubit-state estimation problem, Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 042201 (2016)

    J. Suzuki, Explicit formula for the holevo bound for two- parameter qubit-state estimation problem, Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 042201 (2016)

    2016

  142. [151]

    Albarelli, J

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

    2019

  143. [152]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. S. Kim, Optimal estimation of joint parameters in phase space, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012107 (2013)

    2013

  144. [153]

    Steinlechner, J

    S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, M. Meinders, H. M¨ uller-Ebhardt, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Quantum-dense metrology, Nature Photonics 7, 626 (2013)

    2013

  145. [154]

    Bradshaw, P

    M. Bradshaw, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ultimate precision of joint quadrature parameter estimation with a gaussian probe, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012106 (2018)

    2018

  146. [155]

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

    2013

  147. [156]

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

    2016

  148. [157]

    Pezz` e, M

    L. Pezz` e, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Optimal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130504 (2017)

    2017

  149. [158]

    Spagnolo, L

    N. Spagnolo, L. Aparo, C. Vitelli, A. Crespi, R. Ram- poni, R. Osellame, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Quan- tum interferometry with three-dimensional geometry, Scientific Reports 2, 862 (2012)

    2012

  150. [159]

    M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum-enhanced multi- parameter estimation in multiarm interferometers, Sci- entific Reports 6, 28881 (2016)

    2016

  151. [160]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Riva, M. Valeri, R. Silvestri, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental multiphase estimation on a chip, Optica 6, 288 (2019)

    2019

  152. [161]

    Valeri, E

    M. Valeri, E. Polino, D. Poderini, I. Gianani, G. Cor- rielli, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciar- rino, Experimental adaptive bayesian estimation of mul- tiple phases with limited data, npj Quantum Informa- tion 6, 92 (2020)

    2020

  153. [162]

    Gessner, L

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

    2018

  154. [163]

    Adesso, F

    G. Adesso, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, F. Illuminati, and L. A. M. Souza, Optimal estimation of losses at the ultimate quantum limit with non-gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 79, 040305 (2009)

    2009

  155. [164]

    P. M. Birchall, E. J. Allen, T. M. Stace, J. L. O’Brien, J. C. F. Matthews, and H. Cable, Quantum optical metrology of correlated phase and loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 140501 (2020)

    2020

  156. [165]

    Suzuki, Nuisance parameter problem in quantum es- timation theory: tradeoff relation and qubit examples, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 264001 (2020)

    J. Suzuki, Nuisance parameter problem in quantum es- timation theory: tradeoff relation and qubit examples, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 264001 (2020)

    2020

  157. [166]

    Rayleigh, Xxxi

    L. Rayleigh, Xxxi. investigations in optics, with special reference to the spectroscope, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sci- ence 8, 261 (1879)

  158. [167]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X.-M. Lu, Quantum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031033 (2016)

    2016

  159. [168]

    Tsang, Subdiffraction incoherent optical imaging via spatial-mode demultiplexing, New Journal of Physics 19, 023054 (2017)

    M. Tsang, Subdiffraction incoherent optical imaging via spatial-mode demultiplexing, New Journal of Physics 19, 023054 (2017)

    2017

  160. [169]

    F. Yang, A. Tashchilina, E. S. Moiseev, C. Simon, and A. I. Lvovsky, Far-field linear optical superresolution via heterodyne detection in a higher-order local oscillator mode, Optica 3, 1148 (2016)

    2016

  161. [170]

    W.-K. Tham, H. Ferretti, and A. M. Steinberg, Beat- ing rayleigh’s curse by imaging using phase information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070801 (2017)

    2017

  162. [171]

    Parniak, S

    M. Parniak, S. Bor´ owka, K. Boroszko, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Beating the rayleigh limit using two-photon interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250503 (2018)

    2018

  163. [172]

    Y. Zhou, J. Yang, J. D. Hassett, S. M. H. Rafsanjani, M. Mirhosseini, A. N. Vamivakas, A. N. Jordan, Z. Shi, and R. W. Boyd, Quantum-limited estimation of the axial separation of two incoherent point sources, Optica 6, 534 (2019)

    2019

  164. [173]

    J. M. Donohue, V. Ansari, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. Hradil, B. Stoklasa, M. Pa´ ur, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and C. Sil- berhorn, Quantum-limited time-frequency estimation through mode-selective photon measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090501 (2018)

    2018

  165. [174]

    K. A. G. Bonsma-Fisher, W.-K. Tham, H. Ferretti, and A. M. Steinberg, Realistic sub-rayleigh imaging with phase-sensitive measurements, New Journal of Physics 21, 093010 (2019)

    2019

  166. [175]

    ˇRehaˇ cek, Z

    J. ˇRehaˇ cek, Z. Hradil, B. Stoklasa, M. Pa´ ur, J. Grover, A. Krzic, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Multiparameter quan- tum metrology of incoherent point sources: Towards re- alistic superresolution, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062107 (2017)

    2017

  167. [176]

    Ansari, B

    V. Ansari, B. Brecht, J. Gil-Lopez, J. M. Donohue, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. c. v. Hradil, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and C. Silberhorn, Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolution, PRX Quantum 2, 010301 (2021)

    2021

  168. [177]

    Yu and S

    Z. Yu and S. Prasad, Quantum limited superresolution of an incoherent source pair in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 180504 (2018)

    2018

  169. [178]

    Napoli, S

    C. Napoli, S. Piano, R. Leach, G. Adesso, and T. Tufarelli, Towards superresolution surface metrology: Quantum estimation of angular and axial separations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140505 (2019)

    2019

  170. [179]

    L. J. Fiderer, T. Tufarelli, S. Piano, and G. Adesso, General expressions for the quantum fisher information matrix with applications to discrete quantum imaging, PRX Quantum 2, 020308 (2021)

    2021

  171. [180]

    B. E. Anderson, P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, T. Hor- rom, C. Hermann-Avigliano, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, Phase sensing beyond the standard quantum limit with a variation on the su(1,1) interferometer, Optica 4, 752 (2017)

    2017

  172. [181]

    X. Zuo, Z. Yan, Y. Feng, J. Ma, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Quantum interferometer combining squeez- ing and parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 173602 (2020)

    2020

  173. [182]

    Manceau, G

    M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, and M. Chekhova, Detection loss tolerant supersensitive phase measure- ment with an su(1,1) interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223604 (2017). 24

    2017

  174. [183]

    Frascella, E

    G. Frascella, E. E. Mikhailov, N. Takanashi, R. V. Za- kharov, O. V. Tikhonova, and M. V. Chekhova, Wide- field su(1,1) interferometer, Optica 6, 1233 (2019)

    2019

  175. [184]

    Tsang, H

    M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Funda- mental quantum limit to waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090401 (2011)

    2011

  176. [185]

    D. W. Berry, M. Tsang, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Quantum bell-ziv-zakai bounds and heisen- berg limits for waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031018 (2015)

    2015

  177. [186]

    Jim´ enez-Mart ´ ınez, J

    R. Jim´ enez-Mart ´ ınez, J. Ko lody´ nski, C. Troullinou, V. G. Lucivero, J. Kong, and M. W. Mitchell, Signal tracking beyond the time resolution of an atomic sen- sor by kalman filtering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040503 (2018)

    2018

  178. [187]

    Kura and M

    N. Kura and M. Ueda, Standard quantum limit and heisenberg limit in function estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010507 (2020)

    2020

  179. [188]

    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

  180. [189]

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

    2018

  181. [190]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal and secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  182. [191]

    W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss-Feig, Distributed quantum metrology with lin- ear networks and separable inputs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043604 (2018)

    2018

  183. [192]

    Huang, C

    Z. Huang, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Crypto- graphic quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022314 (2019)

    2019

  184. [193]

    Shettell, D

    N. Shettell, D. Markham, and E. Kashefi, A cryp- tographic approach to quantum metrology (2021), arXiv:2101.01762 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  185. [194]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  186. [195]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology, International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  187. [196]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Chapter four - quantum limits in optical interferometry (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    2015

  188. [197]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Squeezed light, in Photonics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015) Chap. 5, pp. 121–163

    2015

  189. [198]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multi- parameter quantum metrology, Advances in Physics: X 1, 621 (2016)

    2016

  190. [199]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imag- ing, Physics Letters A 384, 126311 (2020)

    2020

  191. [200]

    Grangier, J

    P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J.-P. Poizat, Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics, Nature 396, 537 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.