Analysis of Superradiance-Based Quantum Metrology under Independent Markovian Pure Dephasing

Hoi-Kwan Lau; Junko Ishi-Hayase; Yasunari Sakuma; Yuichiro Matsuzaki

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 35 references

Analysis of Superradiance-Based Quantum Metrology under Independent Markovian Pure Dephasing

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

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

Pith's one-line read Under independent Markovian pure dephasing, superradiance-based DC magnetometry degrades only by a constant factor in the large-N limit, unlike GHZ-state sensing.

desk verdict Superradiance magnetometry likely keeps a constant-factor dephasing penalty, but the proof leans on a mean-field approximation that needs a direct numerical check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03262 v1 pith:QLW6SGAW submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Yasunari Sakuma , Yuichiro Matsuzaki , Hoi-Kwan Lau , Junko Ishi-Hayase This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords superradianceDCmagnetometrypuredephasingquantummetrologymean-fieldapproximationestimationerrorscalingGHZstatesMarkoviannoise

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a recently proposed DC magnetometer that amplifies its signal by superradiance keeps its precision advantage when each spin independently loses phase coherence at rate $\gamma$ during the sensing step. The authors claim that in the large-$N$ limit this noise raises the estimation error by only a constant factor relative to the ideal case, not by $\sqrt{N}$ as in GHZ-state-based magnetometry. The mechanism is that superradiance does not require entanglement during the magnetic-field interaction: spins that survive dephasing, about $N e^{-\gamma \tau}$, still emit collectively and amplify the signal almost as if the dephased spins were absent. As a corollary, the protocol keeps its $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ error scaling when measurement noise dominates and its $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{N})$ baseline in the quantum-fluctuation limit, with a constant prefactor penalty. A sympathetic reader would care because this says a practical, entanglement-free amplifier scheme can tolerate a ubiquitous and unavoidable noise source without losing its scaling advantage.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a mean-field treatment of the collective-spin superradiance equations for $\langle S_z\rangle$, $\langle S_y\rangle$, and $C_{yy}=\langle S_y^2\rangle-\langle S_y\rangle^2$, with the total angular-momentum constant $C$ modified by dephasing. Its load-bearing output is the closed-form gain $G(t)=\cosh(\Gamma\sqrt{C+1/4}\,t_0)/\cosh(\Gamma\sqrt{C+1/4}(t-t_0))$, whose maximum, in the limit $N e^{-\gamma\tau}\gg1$, reduces to $G_{\rm max}\approx \sqrt{N e^{-\gamma\tau}/[(3-e^{-\gamma\tau})(e^{\gamma\tau}+1)]}$. This formula is what turns 'spins that escaped dephasing' into a quantitative statement about amplification and error scaling.

What would settle it

Simulate the full Lindblad dynamics for $N=200,400,800$ with fixed $\gamma\tau=1/2$ and strong measurement noise, and check whether the maximum gain tracks $\sqrt{N e^{-\gamma\tau}}$ and whether $\delta\omega_{\rm SR}/\delta\omega_{\rm sep}$ keeps falling with $N$. If the gain saturates or the ratio flattens, the constant-factor claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the maximum superradiant gain under independent Markovian pure dephasing becomes $G_{\rm max}\approx \sqrt{N e^{-\gamma \tau}/[(3-e^{-\gamma\tau})(e^{\gamma\tau}+1)]}$, so the effective number of coherent spins $N e^{-\gamma\tau}$ replaces the bare spin number $N$ in both the gain and the estimation-error formula. Consequently the measurement-noise contribution to $\delta\omega_{\rm SR}$ differs from the ideal case by the $N$- and $p$-independent factor $c_0^2(3e^{\gamma\tau}-1)(e^{\gamma\tau}+1)$, bounding the degradation to a constant. When $N e^{-\gamma\tau}\gg 1$, the favorable scaling survives; when $N e^{-\gamma\tau}\lesssim 1$, amplification no longer grows w

Load-bearing premise

The constant-factor result assumes that the collective spread of the spins can be neglected during superradiance and that dephasing during the $\pi/2$ rotation and the fast superradiant emission is negligible; if either assumption changes the number of effectively coherent spins in the $N\to\infty$ limit, the bound could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the measurement-noise-dominated regime, superradiance-based DC magnetometry keeps $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ precision scaling even with independent Markovian pure dephasing, paying only a constant factor.
The condition for retaining the scaling advantage is $N e^{-\gamma\tau}\gg 1$; a sufficiently large ensemble and a controlled interaction time can meet this even with finite dephasing.
Because the sensing state is unentangled, dephased spins do not drag down the survivors: the coherent fraction $e^{-\gamma\tau}$ acts almost like a reduced effective $N$.
For very strong dephasing where $N e^{-\gamma\tau}\lesssim 1$, the $\sqrt{N}$ amplification is lost and the scaling advantage disappears.
Numerical simulations with realistic spin-cavity parameters confirm that the ratio $\delta \omega_{\rm SR}/\delta \omega_{\rm sep}$ keeps decreasing with $N$, indicating the scaling advantage is not an artifact of the mean-field approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the authors do not pursue is optimizing $\tau$ jointly for the superradiant protocol rather than fixing $\gamma\tau=1/2$; since their constant factor depends on $\gamma\tau$ through $(3e^{\gamma\tau}-1)(e^{\gamma\tau}+1)$, a different operating point may lower the penalty further.
The effective-coherence picture suggests a testable generalization: preparing the ensemble with a modest amount of spin squeezing before the sensing interval should increase the fraction of coherent spins that enter the superradiant amplification, potentially improving the constant factor.
The comparison with GHZ states suggests that the robustness is tied to the absence of entanglement during sensing; probing the protocol under spatially correlated dephasing, where the noise couples spins together, would test whether the constant-factor conclusion depends on noise independence.
A direct experimental check is to measure $G_{\rm max}$ versus $N$ under controlled dephasing and compare with $\sqrt{N e^{-\gamma\tau}}$; a systematic deviation at large $N$ would expose corrections beyond the mean-field approximation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this paper gives the first quantitative analysis of pure dephasing in superradiance-based DC magnetometry, and its main claim—that the estimation error penalty is a constant factor in the large-N limit, not the √N penalty seen for GHZ states—is plausible and worth taking seriously.

What's genuinely new: the identification of N e^{-γτ} as the effective number of coherent spins governing both the superradiant gain and the measurement-noise suppression. That is a clean, useful conceptual step. The analytic derivation is a direct extension of the mean-field approach from Ref. [18], but the application is nontrivial. The numerical simulations for N up to 180 using realistic erbium parameters are a good sanity check, and the authors are transparent about the discrepancy between the mean-field approximation and the numerics.

Soft spots, in order of seriousness. The constant-factor conclusion is derived from the mean-field equations, which set Var(S_z)≈0. But the dephased initial state has Var(S_z)=O(N), so the factorization is only justified if the error from this neglect vanishes as N→∞. The paper's own Fig. 4 shows relative errors of 33% at N=60 and 21.5% at N=180. The text says accuracy improves with N, but there is no scaling analysis showing the error goes to zero; it could plausibly saturate at a finite percentage. That alone doesn't kill the qualitative story, but it leaves the quantitative constant-factor claim under-supported. Second, Eq. (24) compares only the measurement-noise term inside the square root and drops the outer prefactor e^{γτ/2}; the ideal baseline Eq. (12) contains an undefined σ²_add. These are fixable presentational issues, but they make the central comparison incomplete. Third, the numerics plot δω_SR/δω_sep rather than δω(dephased)/δω(ideal), so the constant-factor ratio is never directly tested numerically. A direct test at larger N would close the gap.

None of this makes me think the conclusion is wrong; the physical mechanism—that unentangled sensing makes the number of coherent spins decay exponentially with γτ while keeping the superradiant gain at O(√N) as long as N e^{-γτ}≫1—is sound. But the paper currently promises more than it proves. It deserves a serious referee; the question matters and the numerical work is honest. Send it to review with a request for a direct numerical check of the ratio and a cleaned-up comparison in Eq. (24).

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the impact of independent Markovian pure dephasing on the superradiance-based DC magnetometry protocol of Ref. [18]. It models dephasing during the field-interaction time, uses mean-field equations (7)-(9) to derive the superradiant gain G_max and the estimation error delta-omega under dephasing (Eqs. (17)-(22)), and supports these with PIQS numerical simulations for N up to 180. The central claim is that, in the large-N limit, the estimation error is degraded only by an N-independent constant factor relative to the noiseless protocol, in contrast to GHZ-based sensing where degradation scales as sqrt(N).

Significance. If the result holds, it is a valuable contribution to quantum metrology, showing that superradiance-based sensing retains its O(1/N) scaling in the measurement-noise-dominated regime and its O(1/sqrt(N)) baseline in the quantum limit under local dephasing. The physical mechanism, that only undephased spins N exp(-gamma tau) contribute to amplification, is clearly articulated and provides insight into why unentangled sensing states are robust. The paper includes first-principles analytical expressions, realistic numerical simulations based on published experimental parameters, and a clear comparison with Ramsey and GHZ protocols. However, the analytical derivation has gaps and the numerics do not directly test the central ratio, so the result is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)

[Section IV.A, Eq. (24)] The comparison leading to the constant-factor claim is incomplete. Eq. (24) compares only the measurement-noise term inside the square root of Eq. (22) with that of Eq. (12). The full estimation-error ratio also includes the outer denominator factors, which introduce e^{gamma tau/2}, and the first (quantum noise) terms (1+e^{-gamma tau}) and (1+sigma^2_add). As written, Eq. (24) does not by itself imply the stated constant-factor degradation. The authors should present the full ratio delta-omega_deph/delta-omega_ideal and show that it is bounded by N-independent constants in both the measurement-noise-dominated and quantum-noise-dominated regimes.
[Section IV.A, Eqs. (7)-(9) and Section IV.C] The mean-field approximation sets Var(S_z) approximately zero, but the dephased initial state has Var(S_z)=O(N) (from Eq. (13)). The paper's own comparison, quantified by Eq. (27), shows 33% and 21.5% relative error in G_max at N=60 and N=180, respectively. Since the central claim is an asymptotic large-N statement, the paper must justify that this mean-field error vanishes as N grows, either analytically or with a scaling analysis of epsilon_rel. The current statement that the approximation improves with N is based on only two points and is insufficient to support the large-N conclusion.
[Section IV.B, Fig. 3] The numerical simulations do not directly test the constant-factor claim. Fig. 3 plots delta-omega_SR/delta-omega_sep for the dephased and ideal superradiance cases, but the quantity central to the abstract and conclusions is delta-omega_SR(dephased)/delta-omega_SR(ideal). This ratio can be extracted from the two curves in Fig. 3(a) and 3(b), but it is not computed or discussed. The authors should explicitly evaluate and report this ratio as a function of N to verify that it approaches an N-independent constant.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (12)] The parameter sigma^2_add is introduced without definition. Please define it or refer explicitly to its definition in Ref. [18].
[Section IV.A, text after Eq. (24)] The phrase 'constant independent of N and p' is imprecise: the constant depends on gamma tau. It should say 'independent of N and p for fixed gamma tau'.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors (e.g., 'interacton', 'magnetic filed') and inconsistent notation for G_max (GMax vs G_max). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: dephasing analysis is a first-principles extension of an independently published ideal protocol; no fitted quantities are relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The central claim (constant-factor degradation of the estimation error under independent Markovian pure dephasing) is derived by substituting the dephased initial moments — C, ⟨Sz(0)⟩, ⟨Sy(0)⟩, and ⟨Sy²(0)⟩ from Eqs. (13)–(16) — into the previously published mean-field equations (7)–(9). All parameters (γ, τ, Γ, p) are physical parameters or are fixed by stated assumptions; none are fitted to the target result. The only self-citation is Ref. [18], coauthored by H.-K. Lau, which supplies the ideal superradiance protocol and the noiseless gain formula. This is independent, peer-reviewed groundwork, and the present paper re-derives the dephased gain in Appendix A rather than merely invoking the cited result; it is used as a comparator, not as an unexamined premise. The acknowledged mean-field overestimation (Sec. IV.C: ε_rel ≈ 0.329 at N=60 and ε_rel ≈ 0.215 at N=180) and the fact that Eq. (24) compares only the measurement-noise term inside the square root are accuracy/validity concerns, not circularity: the omitted outer prefactor e^{γτ/2} is itself N-independent, so excluding it does not manufacture the central conclusion. No prediction is used to set constants, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated model, and the auxiliary numerical simulations serve as an independent consistency check rather than as inputs to the analytic claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new physical entities or fitted parameters; it inherits the model of Ref. [18] and introduces only the dephasing rate γ and readout noise p as environmental parameters. The load-bearing assumptions are the mean-field factorization and the timescale separation for dephasing.

free parameters (2)

sigma_add_squared
Phenomenological coefficient in Eq. (12) representing amplified y-axis spin fluctuations; its value is never specified, making the ideal-case baseline ambiguous.
p = 0.9 to 0.999 for NV centers
Depolarizing noise probability at readout, chosen to model realistic measurement noise, not fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Superradiant dynamics are governed by the collective Lindblad master equation (6) with decay rate Γ.
Adopted from Ref. [18]; the paper does not re-derive it.
domain assumption Mean-field factorization: covariances such as ⟨S_z²⟩−⟨S_z⟩² vanish during superradiance (Eqs. (7)-(9)).
Required for the analytic solution of G(t); the paper acknowledges this overestimates the gain.
domain assumption Pure dephasing during the π/2 rotation and superradiance is negligible because their timescales ~1/(NΓ) are much shorter than 1/γ.
Stated in Section IV.A; used to restrict dephasing to the interaction period.
domain assumption Small phase accumulation N(ω0τ)^2 << 1.
Used throughout to linearize the field signal and simplify initial conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Superradiance-Based Quantum Metrology under Independent Markovian Pure Dephasing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QLW6SGAW

@misc{pith2026260803262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Superradiance-Based Quantum Metrology under Independent Markovian Pure Dephasing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QLW6SGAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03262}
}

abstract

Recently, a DC magnetometry protocol utilizing $N$-spin-ensemble superradiance was proposed. This method physically amplifies the acquired signal, suppressing estimation errors from measurement noise and achieving $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ precision scaling when measurement noise dominates quantum fluctuations. However, quantum metrology is generally vulnerable to independent Markovian pure dephasing. For instance, the scaling of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state-based magnetometry deteriorates from $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ to $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{N})$. Although pure dephasing likely degrades superradiant sensing, its quantitative impact remains unclear. Here, we investigate the effect of independent Markovian pure dephasing on this protocol using numerical simulations and mean-field analysis. We demonstrate that, in the large-$N$ limit, the estimation error increase is limited to a constant factor. This sharply contrasts with GHZ-state-based sensing, where the error increases by a factor of $\sqrt{N}$. Our analytical solutions elucidate the physical origin of this robustness qualitatively. These findings establish the high robustness of superradiance-based DC magnetometry against independent Markovian pure dephasing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03262 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Schematic diagram of the protocol for DC magnetometry using superradiance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Dependence of the estimation error ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison the amplification factor between the numerical simulation (orange) and the approximate solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[18]

Koppenhoefer, P

M. Koppenhoefer, P. Groszkowski, H. K. Lau, and A. A. Clerk, Dissipative superradiant spin amplifier for enhanced quantum sensing, PRX Quantum3, 030330 (2022)

work page 2022
[1]

Budker and M

D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Na- ture Physics3, 227 (2007)

2007
[2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

2011
[3]

Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose-einstein condensates, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

C. Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose-einstein condensates, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[5]

J. A. Jones, S. D. Karlen, J. Fitzsimons, A. Ardavan, S. C. Benjamin, G. A. D. Briggs, and J. J. L. Mor- ton, Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quan- tum limit using 10-spin noon states, Science324, 1166 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

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 Physics7, 406 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

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 Communications3, 1063 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 35 references

[8]

J. B. Brask, R. Chaves, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Improved quantum magnetometry beyond the standard quantum limit, Physical Review X5, 031010 (2015)

2015
[9]

Chaves, J

R. Chaves, J. B. Brask, M. Markiewicz, J. Ko lody´ nski, and A. Ac ´ ın, Noisy metrology beyond the standard quan- tum limit, Physical Review Letter111, 120401 (2013)

2013
[10]

E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum error correction for metrology, Physical Review Letter.112, 150802 (2014)

2014
[11]

D¨ ur, M

W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fr¨ owis, and B. Kraus, Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion, Physical Review Letter.112, 080801 (2014)

2014
[12]

Arrad, Y

G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction, Physical Review Letter.112, 150801 (2014). 11

2014
[13]

Isogawa, Y

T. Isogawa, Y. Matsuzaki, and J. Ishi-Hayase, Vector dc magnetic-field sensing with a reference microwave field using perfectly aligned nitrogen-vacancy centers in dia- mond, Physical Review A107, 062423 (2023)

2023
[14]

Huelga, C

S. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. Ekert, M. Plenio, and J. Cirac, Improvement of frequency stan- dards with quantum entanglement, Physical Review Let- ters79, 3865 (1997)

1997
[15]

Jeske, J

J. Jeske, J. H. Cole, and S. F. Huelga, Quantum metrol- ogy subject to spatially correlated markovian noise: restoring the heisenberg limit, New Journal of Physics 16, 073039 (2014)

2014
[16]

Matsuzaki, S

Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, Mag- netic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence, Physical Review A84, 012103 (2011)

2011
[17]

A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments, Physical Re- view Letter109, 233601 (2012)

2012
[19]

Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

R. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

1954
[20]

MS, Obser- vation of dicke superradiance in optically pumped HF gas, Physical Review Letters30, 309 (1973)

Skribano.N, Herman.IP, Macgilli.JC, and F. MS, Obser- vation of dicke superradiance in optically pumped HF gas, Physical Review Letters30, 309 (1973)

1973
[21]

L. Hao, Z. Bai, J. Bai, S. Bai, Y. Jiao, G. Huang, J. Zhao, W. Li, and S. Jia, Observation of blackbody radiation enhanced superradiance in ultracold rydberg gases, New Journal of Physics23, 083017 (2021)

2021
[22]

Gross, C

M. Gross, C. Fabre, P. Pillet, and S. Haroche, Obser- vation of near-infrared dicke superradiance on cascading transitions in atomic sodium, Physical Review Letter.36, 1035 (1976)

1976
[23]

J. A. Mlynek, A. A. Abdumalikov, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Observation of Dicke superradiance for two artificial atoms in a cavity with high decay rate, Nature Communications5, 5186 (2014)

2014
[24]

Scheibner, T

M. Scheibner, T. Schmidt, L. Worschech, A. Forchel, G. Bacher, T. Passow, and D. Hommel, Superradiance of quantum dots, Nature Physics3, 106 (2007)

2007
[25]

Angerer, K

A. Angerer, K. Streltsov, T. Astner, S. Putz, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, J. Schmieder, and J. Majer, Superradiant emission from colour centres in diamond, Nature Physics14, 1168 (2018)

2018
[26]

J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics4, 810 (2008)

2008
[27]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Super-radiance - an essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports Review Section of Physics Letters93, 301 (1982)

1982
[28]

Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Jour- nal of The Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Jour- nal of The Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

1962
[29]

Koshino and A

K. Koshino and A. Shimizu, Quantum zeno effect by gen- eral measurements, Physics Reports Review Section of Physics Letters412, 191 (2005)

2005
[30]

Z. Wang, L. Balembois, M. Rancic, E. Billaud, M. Le Dantec, A. Ferrier, P. Goldner, S. Bertaina, T. Chaneliere, D. Esteve, D. Vion, P. Bertet, and E. Flurin, Single-electron spin resonance detection by mi- crowave photon counting, Nature619, 276 (2023)

2023
[31]

J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 015004 (2020)

2020
[32]

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

2012
[33]

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013)

2013
[34]

Shammah, S

N. Shammah, S. Ahmed, N. Lambert, S. De Liberato, and F. Nori, Open quantum systems with local and col- lective incoherent processes: Efficient numerical simula- tions using permutational invariance, Physical Review A 98, 063815 (2018)

2018
[35]

Kirton and J

P. Kirton and J. Keeling, Suppressing and restoring the dicke superradiance transition by dephasing and decay, Physical Review Letter118, 123602 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

Koppenhoefer, P

M. Koppenhoefer, P. Groszkowski, H. K. Lau, and A. A. Clerk, Dissipative superradiant spin amplifier for enhanced quantum sensing, PRX Quantum3, 030330 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [1]

Budker and M

D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Na- ture Physics3, 227 (2007)

2007

[3] [2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

2011

[4] [3]

Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose-einstein condensates, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

C. Gross, Spin squeezing, entanglement and quantum metrology with bose-einstein condensates, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics45, 103001 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

2004

[6] [5]

J. A. Jones, S. D. Karlen, J. Fitzsimons, A. Ardavan, S. C. Benjamin, G. A. D. Briggs, and J. J. L. Mor- ton, Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quan- tum limit using 10-spin noon states, Science324, 1166 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [6]

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 Physics7, 406 (2011)

work page 2011

[8] [7]

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 Communications3, 1063 (2012)

work page 2012