Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sequential weak measurements can remove the precision-bandwidth tradeoff in Ramsey clocks, asymptotically saturating the noiseless quantum Fisher information bound with only logarithmically many atoms.

desk verdict The core asymptotic saturation result—weak-with-strong sequential measurements reaching the noiseless QFI for CSS over arbitrary bandwidth with logarithmic atom overhead—is credible and is the real contribution; the quantitative threshold analysis is sloppier than the scaling suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01474 v2 pith:PAWPLEUM submitted 2025-09-01 quant-ph

Su Direkci , Manuel Endres , Tuvia Gefen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumfrequencyestimationweakmeasurementsphaseslipsdynamicrangeBayesianmeansquarederrorFisherinformationHeisenbergscalingatomicclocks
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 aims to solve the precision-bandwidth tradeoff in quantum frequency estimation: standard Ramsey clocks lose all information once the interrogation time T exceeds the period set by the prior width, because the phase wraps around (phase slips). The authors' protocol inserts frequent weak σx measurements during the Ramsey evolution and finishes with a strong projective measurement. In the weak-backaction regime this weak-with-strong sequence has Fisher information near 4NT², the noiseless quantum limit for coherent spin states, and the analysis shows the Bayesian error can come arbitrarily close to that limit provided the atom number grows only logarithmically with the number of phase wraps, about 6 ln(2δωT/π). At N=64 the simulated overhead over the quantum bound is at most 1.18, and the protocol clearly beats the cascaded-scheme alternative. If right, atomic clocks and other sensors could tolerate large frequency offsets and laser noise without needing entangled input states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the weak-with-strong sequence: weak σx measurements with tunable strength g applied every τ, each implemented by entangling the sensing qubit with an ancilla (Kraus operators K± = (cos g I ± sin g σx)/√2), capped by a projective measurement. Two dimensionless parameters organize the argument: η = g²T/τ, which quantifies measurement backaction, and the signal-to-noise ratio Nη. In the limit η ≪ 1 the weak measurement records become approximately independent Gaussian samples of a cosine signal, mapping the quantum problem onto classical frequency estimation and its known threshold behavior; the outlier-probability calculation yields Eq. (3) for the atom-number

What would settle it

Run the protocol with N = 64 atoms, choose T so δωT ≈ 100, tune g to the weak-backaction regime, and measure the maximum-likelihood estimator's mean squared error over many runs: the paper predicts Δω ≈ 1/(2√N T) within a factor 1.18. Alternatively, simulate the exact quantum trajectories without the independence approximation and compare the outlier probability to exp(−g²NT/2τ); a substantial deviation would invalidate the logarithmic scaling in Eq. (3).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Sequential weak σx measurements during the Ramsey evolution, plus a final projective measurement, give a coherent spin state a classical Fisher information near 4NT² when backaction is weak, the noiseless quantum limit for N atoms. Saturating that bound is not automatic: as in classical single-tone estimation a threshold in the signal-to-noise ratio Nη appears. The paper derives that the Bayesian error becomes ϵ-close to the bound once Nη ≈ 2 ln(π^{3/2}/36ϵ)+6 ln(T/τ), so the required atom number grows only logarithmically with the number of phase wraps. With N=64 the simulated overhead over the quantum limit is at most 1.18.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold calculation treats successive weak-measurement records as approximately independent Gaussian samples of a classical cosine signal, so if measurement backaction correlations or non-Gaussian fluctuations change the outlier probability, the predicted atom-number threshold and the point where the protocol saturates the quantum bound would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any target bandwidth, the required number of atoms scales as about 6 ln(2δωT/π), so very large dynamic ranges remain practical with modest ensembles.
  • The protocol attains Heisenberg scaling in time, Δω ≈ 1/(2√N T), without entangled input states, in the limit of large N.
  • It outperforms the cascaded protocol, which loses a factor of about 3 log(δωT)/4 relative to the quantum bound even with unlimited atoms.
  • Imperfect weak measurements (bit-flip probability p_e) act in the weak-backaction regime as a rescaling g → g(1 − 2p_e), while the final strong measurement keeps the Fisher information near 4NT²; GHZ-encoded ancillas can suppress readout errors.
  • The analogous collective-spin implementation with weak light probing asymptotically saturates the same quantum Fisher information limit in the limit of infinitesimally weak measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same threshold formalism suggests an adaptive strategy that ramps the measurement strength g during the interrogation might reach the quantum bound with fewer atoms, since the conditions η < 1 and Nη > 1 could be met at different stages of the evolution.
  • Beyond the paper: in a real clock the frequency drifts rather than staying fixed, so this sequential-weak-measurement scheme could act as a continuous phase tracker that converts bandwidth tolerance directly into robustness against local-oscillator phase noise.
  • Beyond the paper: because the weak-backaction limit maps onto classical single-tone estimation, classical techniques such as windowing or multi-bin maximum-likelihood refinement could be imported to reduce outlier probability and push the atom-number threshold even lower.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies frequency estimation with sequential weak measurements on coherent spin states. Two protocols are analyzed: weak-only and weak-with-strong (a final projective measurement). In the weak-backaction regime the weak-with-strong CFI approaches the QFI 4NT^2, while in the strong-backaction regime it degrades to a linear-in-T scaling. The authors identify a threshold effect: the CFI is saturated only if the signal-to-noise ratio Nη = Ng^2T/τ is large enough, and they derive an analytic condition, Eq. (3), Nη ≈ 2 ln(π^{3/2}/36ϵ) + 6 ln(T/τ). They conclude that the required atom number grows only logarithmically with bandwidth, so the weak-with-strong protocol asymptotically saturates the noiseless precision limit over arbitrarily large bandwidth, and they report a numerical overhead of 1.18 in Δω for N=64 compared with the cascaded protocol.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the protocol offers a practical, entanglement-free way to extend the dynamic range of optical-clock-type frequency estimation while asymptotically saturating the 4NT^2 quantum limit. This would be a notable improvement over cascaded schemes, which lose a factor ~ log(δωT). The paper is explicit about its Kraus-operator dynamics, gives analytical CFI expressions in the weak- and strong-backaction limits, and backs the claims with Monte Carlo simulations. The threshold analysis connects the quantum problem to classical frequency-estimation theory, which is conceptually useful. However, the quantitative threshold derivation has internal-consistency issues that affect the headline scaling and the claimed minimal N; these need to be resolved before the asymptotic claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Saturability of the CRB and the threshold effect', Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) is presented as the condition for the weak-with-strong protocol, but it is exactly the weak-only threshold derived in SM Eq. (S60). The weak-with-strong threshold in SM Eq. (S69) contains an additional 2 ln N term. This discrepancy changes the predicted minimal N: for example, for T/τ=100, the extra term is significant. The paper does not justify using the weak-only formula for the weak-with-strong claim. Please correct Eq. (3) or explicitly state why the weak-only expression applies in the weak-with-strong setting.
  2. [SM, 'Threshold Derivation', Eqs. (S38)-(S40), (S54)] The derivation replaces the quantum measurement record by i.i.d. Gaussian samples of a constant-amplitude classical cosine. This requires η = g^2T/τ ≪ 1. However, solving Eq. (3) at the minimal N gives η ≈ 6 ln(T/τ)/N ≈ 1, precisely where the amplitude decay e^{-η} and the phase-noise correlations are not negligible. The paper states that η<1 is sufficient, but the approximations leading to Eq. (S54) need η≪1. At η≈1 the outlier probability q can differ substantially from Eq. (S54). The authors should either restrict the claim to η→0 with N→∞ and state the resulting scaling explicitly, or provide numerical evidence that Eq. (S54) remains accurate at the operating point.
  3. [SM, Eqs. (S44)-(S46) and (S47)] The statistics of the DFT coefficients B_k are derived assuming white measurement noise, and the only correlations considered are B_k = B_{T/τ-k}. In the actual process, the measurement backaction induces a common-mode phase random walk that correlates different frequency bins. These correlations can change the distribution of spurious-bin excursions and therefore the outlier probability q. The paper does not quantify this effect. Given that the asymptotic claim depends on the logarithmic scaling of N through q, this is a load-bearing gap. Please bound or simulate the effect of phase-noise correlations on q in the regime η=O(1).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and notation inconsistencies: 'acknoweldges' in the acknowledgments; in Eq. (S29) the summation index and the variable n are mixed (sin(2ωnτ) with n vs. k); the use of T/τ vs. T /τ is inconsistent. These do not affect the results but should be cleaned up.
  2. [Main text, 'Saturability...'] The statement that Eq. (3) gives 'the minimal number of probes N' is ambiguous because ϵ enters the logarithm and the threshold depends on whether one optimizes over η. Clarify the order of limits: for fixed η and ϵ, N grows as 6 ln(T/τ); the minimal N over η may be different.
  3. [SM, 'Numerical Fits for the Fisher Information'] The interpolation formulas Eqs. (S35) and (S37) contain fitted coefficients (0.77 and 0.13). The optimal measurement strength derived from Eq. (S35) therefore rests on a numerical fit. This is acceptable, but the sensitivity of the conclusions to these coefficients should be commented on, especially because the extracted optimum g^2T/τ = sqrt(3/2) is used in the main text.
  4. [Fig. 3b] The claim of 'maximal overhead of 1.18' is made for N=64 over the plotted range of δωT. State explicitly the maximum δωT over which this overhead holds; the asymptotic claim for arbitrary bandwidth requires N to grow with δωT, which is not shown in the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central saturation claim is derived from explicit stochastic trajectory equations and a separate classical threshold model; approximations and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than assumed. Sequential weak measurements are defined by Kraus operators (SM Eq. S5); the stochastic phase update (SM Eq. S19) and measurement probabilities (SM Eq. S17) are used to compute the CFI in analytic limits and via Monte Carlo (SM Eq. S33). The weak-with-strong saturation I_ws_C ≈ 4NT^2 + O(g^2) follows from explicit probability expressions (SM Eqs. S29–S30), not from the QFI benchmark itself. The threshold scaling in main-text Eq. (3) is obtained from a separate classical frequency-estimation outlier model (SM 'Threshold Derivation', Eqs. S38–S55), which is an acknowledged approximation (back action negligible, measurements treated as 'approximately independent events'), not a restatement of the target result. Numerical fits (SM Eqs. S35, S37) are labeled as fits and are used for the secondary optimization of the weak-only protocol, not fitted to the saturation claim. Self-citations (e.g., [4]) appear for context or for results that are independently re-derived in the Supplemental Material (e.g., cascaded QFI, SM Eq. S71). A potential inconsistency between main-text Eq. (3) and the weak-with-strong threshold SM Eq. (S69) is a correctness concern, not circularity. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. Ancilla qubits are standard resources used to realize weak measurements and are not claimed as new entities. The quantitative claims rest on tunable protocol parameters, two numerical fit coefficients, and several domain and modeling assumptions listed above.

free parameters (3)
  • Numerical interpolation coefficient c1 in Eq. (S35) = 0.77
    Fitted to Monte Carlo CFI of the weak-only protocol; controls the weak-to-strong backaction crossover and therefore the claimed optimal g and I_wC ~ 1.11 N T^2.
  • Numerical interpolation coefficient c2 in Eq. (S37) = 0.13
    Fitted to Monte Carlo CFI of the weak-with-strong protocol; sets the small-g correction to the claimed QFI saturation.
  • Weak measurement strength g = g_opt = (tau/T)^(1/2) (3/2)^(1/4)
    Tunable protocol parameter; the claimed optimal value is derived from the fitted CFI expression Eq. (S35) rather than from a fully closed-form optimization.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The classical and quantum Cramer-Rao bounds and the van Trees inequality bound the BMSE and are saturable in the asymptotic regime considered.
    Invoked in the main text after Eq. (2) and in the Supplemental Material 'Cramer-Rao bounds'.
  • domain assumption The sensing qubit initialized in |+> remains in the sigma_x-sigma_y plane and pure under weak measurement evolution, with no decoherence other than measurement backaction.
    Used in the Supplemental Material 'Ramsey interferometry with weak measurements', where the update rule preserves rz = 0; amplitude damping and other decoherence are explicitly ignored.
  • domain assumption For a uniform prior [0, delta-omega], choosing tau = pi/(2 delta-omega) prevents phase slips between consecutive weak measurements.
    Stated in the main text and in the Supplemental Material 'Discussion on other types of prior distributions'.
  • ad hoc to paper In the weak-backaction regime, weak measurement records can be treated as approximately independent Gaussian samples of a classical cosine signal.
    Central assumption of the threshold derivation in the Supplemental Material, Eqs. (S38)-(S40), leading to the outlier-probability expression and Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical fits in Eqs. (S35) and (S37) interpolate the true CFI accurately enough that the extracted optimum is the true optimum.
    The claimed optimal g and the 3.60 factor for the weak-only protocol are read off from these unfitted free coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending the dynamic range in quantum frequency estimation with sequential weak measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAWPLEUM

@misc{pith2026250901474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending the dynamic range in quantum frequency estimation with sequential weak measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAWPLEUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01474}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology explores optimal quantum protocols for parameter estimation. In the context of optical atomic clocks, conventional protocols focus on optimal input states and measurements to achieve enhanced sensitivities. However, such protocols are typically limited by phase slip errors inflicted due to the decoherence of the local oscillator. Here, we study schemes to extend the dynamic range and overcome phase slip noise through weak measurements with ancilla qubits. Using coherent spin states, we find optimal weak measurements protocols: we identify optimal measurement strength for any given interrogation time and number of atoms. Then, we combine weak and projective measurements to construct a protocol that asymptotically saturates the noiseless precision limits, and outperforms previously proposed methods for phase slip noise suppression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Dynamic range problem in frequency estimation: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Classical Fisher information (CFI) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Performance of the proposed protocol with respect to the interrogation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rosenband and D

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

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    an Rx(g) rotation of the ancilla conditioned on the state of the probe in the σx basis

    The ancilla is then entangled with the probe (the sensing qubit) using a controlled rotation unitary U = e−ig σx⊗σx = cos (g)I − i sin (g) σx ⊗ σx, (S7) i.e. an Rx(g) rotation of the ancilla conditioned on the state of the probe in the σx basis. The joint state of the probe and the ancilla is then given by U ρ⊗ |↑y⟩ ⟨↑y| U † after the entangling interacti...

    work page

  3. [3]

    However, for pe ̸= 1, the sensing qubit becomes a mixed state due to imperfect measurements, and r undergoes a stochastic process (in addition to ϕ)

    For a perfect measurement, pe = 0, r is unchanged throughout the interrogation, as the sensing qubit remains in a pure state. However, for pe ̸= 1, the sensing qubit becomes a mixed state due to imperfect measurements, and r undergoes a stochastic process (in addition to ϕ). In what follows we derive the noisy CFI in the weak back action regime. An analyt...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Furthermore, one can engineer the following unitary interaction between the sensing qubit and the ancilla state: U = exp −ig σx ⊗ P i σi x , where the summation of the Pauli x operators is over the ancilla qubits. After the free evolution and this unitary, the joint state of the sensing qubit and the ancillae ρs ⊗ ρa will be the following: Λ(ρs ⊗ ρa) = K+...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Kaubruegger, D

    R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, Quantum Variational Optimization of Ramsey Interferometry and Atomic Clocks, Physical Review X 11, 041045 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    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)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    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)

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Q. Liu, M. Xue, M. Radzihovsky, X. Li, D. V. Vasilyev, L.-N. Wu, and V. Vuleti´ c, Enhancing dynamic range of sub- quantum-limit measurements via quantum deamplification (2025), arXiv:2412.15061 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2011

  2. [10]

    Bloom, T

    B. Bloom, T. Nicholson, J. Williams, S. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, S. Bromley, and J. Ye, An optical lattice clock with accuracy and stability at the 10- 18 level, Nature 506, 71 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

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

    2015

  4. [12]

    Oelker, R

    E. Oelker, R. Hutson, C. Kennedy, L. Sonderhouse, T. Bothwell, A. Goban, D. Kedar, C. Sanner, J. Robinson, G. Marti, et al., Demonstration of 4.8 × 10- 17 stability at 1 s for two independent optical clocks, Nature Photonics 13, 714 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Seconds-scale coherence on an optical clock transition in a tweezer array, Science 366, 93 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, A. L. Shaw, J. P. Covey, V. Schkolnik, T. H. Yoon, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, An atomic-array optical clock with single-atom readout, Physical Review X 9, 041052 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, 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

  8. [16]

    I. D. Leroux, N. Scharnhorst, S. Hannig, J. Kramer, L. Pelzer, M. Stepanova, and P. O. Schmidt, On-line estimation of local oscillator noise and optimisation of servo parameters in atomic clocks, Metrologia 54, 307 (2017). 21

    2017

  9. [17]

    D. W. Berry, B. L. Higgins, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, How to perform the most accurate possible phase measurements, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052114 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Macieszczak, M

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

    2014

  11. [19]

    Jarzyna and R

    M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, True precision limits in quantum metrology, New Journal of Physics17, 013010 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    E. M. Kessler, P. K´ om´ ar, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Heisenberg-limited atom clocks based on entangled qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190403 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Shiga and M

    N. Shiga and M. Takeuchi, Locking the local oscillator phase to the atomic phase via weak measurement, New Journal of Physics 14, 023034 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Borregaard and A

    J. Borregaard and A. S. Sørensen, Near-Heisenberg-Limited Atomic Clocks in the Presence of Decoherence, Physical Review Letters 111, 090801 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

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

    2024

  17. [25]

    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 quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Extension to other forms of prior distributions is discussed in [25]

  20. [28]

    See the Supplemental Material

  21. [29]

    Gefen, M

    T. Gefen, M. Khodas, L. P. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, and A. Retzker, Quantum spectroscopy of single spins assisted by a classical clock, Physical Review A 98, 013844 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    K. S. Cujia, J. M. Boss, K. Herb, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Tracking the precession of single nuclear spins by weak measurements, Nature 571, 230 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Pfender, P

    M. Pfender, P. Wang, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, W. Yang, D. B. R. Dasari, P. Neumann, X.-Y. Pan, J. Isoya, R.-B. Liu, and J. Wrachtrup, High-resolution spectroscopy of single nuclear spins via sequential weak measurements, Nature Communi- cations 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-08544-z (2019...

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Cohen, T

    D. Cohen, T. Gefen, L. Ortiz, and A. Retzker, Achieving the ultimate precision limit with a weakly interacting quantum probe, npj Quantum Information 6, 83 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Tratzmiller, Q

    B. Tratzmiller, Q. Chen, I. Schwartz, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Limited-control metrology approaching the heisenberg limit without entanglement preparation, Physical Review A 101, 032347 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Ilias, Biasing quantum trajectories for enhanced sensing, Physical Review A 111, 042432 (2025)

    T. Ilias, Biasing quantum trajectories for enhanced sensing, Physical Review A 111, 042432 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Note that if we set τ = T , g = π/2, this protocol reduces to the standard Ramsey experiment

  28. [36]

    See [25] for a derivation

    We ignore decoherence effects, such as amplitude damping. See [25] for a derivation

  29. [37]

    Cramer, Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9), volume 9, Princeton Mathematical Series (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

    H. Cramer, Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9), volume 9, Princeton Mathematical Series (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

    1946

  30. [38]

    Radhakrishna Rao, Selected papers of C

    C. Radhakrishna Rao, Selected papers of C. r. rao, edited by S. Gupta, J. K. Ghosh, S. K. Mitra, P S V, J. K. Grosh, A. C. Mukhopadhyay, and Y. R. Sarma, Selected Papers of C. R. Rao (John Wiley & Sons, Nashville, TN, 1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    H. L. Van Trees, Detection, estimation, and modulation theory, part I(Wiley-Interscience, Newy York, 2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

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

    1994

  33. [41]

    Rife and R

    D. Rife and R. Boorstyn, Single tone parameter estimation from discrete-time observations, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 20, 591 (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    Steinhardt and C

    A. Steinhardt and C. Bretherton, Thresholds in frequency estimation, in ICASSP ’85. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. 10 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Tampa, FL, USA,

  35. [43]

    Knockaert, The Barankin bound and threshold behavior in frequency estimation, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 45, 2398 (1997)

    L. Knockaert, The Barankin bound and threshold behavior in frequency estimation, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 45, 2398 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Schmitt, T

    S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, F. M. St¨ urner, T. Unden, G. Wolff, C. M¨ uller, J. Scheuer, B. Naydenov, M. Markham, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, I. Schwarz, M. Plenio, A. Retzker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Submillihertz magnetic spectroscopy performed with a nanoscale quantum sens...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Schmitt, T

    S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, D. Louzon, C. Osterkamp, N. Staudenmaier, J. Lang, M. Markham, A. Retzker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Optimal frequency measurements with quantum probes, npj Quantum Information 7, 55 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, E. Payne, S. Direkci, S. M. Vermeulen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, L. McCuller, and Y. Chen, Bayesian frequency estimation at the fundamental quantum limit (2025), arXiv:2507.02811 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Fisher Information and the Quantum Cram´ er-Rao Sensitivity Limit of Continuous Measurements, Physical Review Letters 112, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Y. Yang, V. Montenegro, and A. Bayat, Extractable information capacity in sequential measurements metrology, Physical Review Research 5, 043273 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    We use the optimal Bayesian estimator [2, 4] for δωT < π, since the prior information is significant in this regime

  42. [50]

    D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient information retrieval for sensing via continuous measurement, Physical Review X 13, 031012 (2023). 22

    2023

  43. [51]

    R. R. Allen, F. Machado, I. L. Chuang, H.-Y. Huang, and S. Choi, Quantum computing enhanced sensing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07625 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. L. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum metrology with imperfect measurements, Nature Commu- nications 13, 6971 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    S. Zhou, S. Michalakis, and T. Gefen, Optimal protocols for quantum metrology with noisy measurements, PRX Quantum 4, 040305 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Carmel and N

    N. Carmel and N. Katz, Hybrid logical-physical qubit interaction as a post selection oracle, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05027 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ouyang, Robust projective measurements through measuring code-inspired observables, npj Quantum Information 10, 104 (2024)

    Y. Ouyang, Robust projective measurements through measuring code-inspired observables, npj Quantum Information 10, 104 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

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

    1993

  49. [57]

    Pang and A

    S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nature Communications 8, 10.1038/ncomms14695 (2017), publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Channel Estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.2.010343 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society (APS)

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Bowden, A

    W. Bowden, A. Vianello, I. R. Hill, M. Schioppo, and R. Hobson, Improving the Q Factor of an Optical Atomic Clock Using Quantum Nondemolition Measurement, Physical Review X 10, 041052 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    M. A. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy Quantum Metrology Enhanced by Continuous Nondemo- lition Measurement, Physical Review Letters 125, 10.1103/physrevlett.125.200505 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society (APS)

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.