Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Control incompatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a qubit sensor with an ancilla, the paper shows that the control incompatibility in estimating two Hamiltonian parameters is minimized by a joint control whose only time-dependent ingredient is a closed-form z-rotation angle, and it…

desk verdict A useful new figure of merit and a plausible control recipe, but the proof that the recipe is optimal has a gap that needs real repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18896 v1 pith:QUHPTSXJ submitted 2024-11-28 quant-ph

Zhiyao Hu , Shilin Wang , Linmu Qiao , Takuya Isogawa , Changhao Li , Yu Yang , Guoqing Wang , Haidong Yuan
show 1 more author
Paola Cappellaro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581P5081P73
keywords quantummetrologymultiparameterestimationcontrolincompatibilityFisherinformationoptimalqubitsensorancilla-assistedsensingtime-dependentHamiltonian
topics The Measurement Problem
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

In quantum metrology, estimating several parameters at once forces a compromise because the control that is optimal for one parameter is not optimal for the others. This paper introduces the gap function G, the total loss in quantum Fisher information relative to each parameter's single-parameter-optimal control, and shows that for a qubit probe entangled with an ancilla, G can be explicitly minimized for two parameters by a joint control. The joint control is a time-reversal of the free evolution followed by a single time-dependent rotation around the z-axis, with the rotation angle given by a closed-form formula built from the instantaneous velocity vectors of the two parameters. The minimal G is shown to be a difference between integrated velocity lengths and a singular-value sum of a velocity correlation matrix, and the recipe reduces to known optimal controls for time-independent and rotating-field Hamiltonians. The result provides an experimentally implementable strategy for reducing control-induced trade-offs in multiparameter quantum sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gap function $G$ and its companion velocity correlation matrix $\mathbb{V}(t_1,t_2)=\sum_i V_{x_i}(t_1) V_{x_i}^T(t_2)$. The mechanism is a geometric identity: with optimal probe and measurement, $J_{x_i} = 4\langle S_{x_i}^2\rangle$ where $S_{x_i} = \int R(t) V_{x_i}(t)\,dt$, and $R(t)$ is the rotation implemented by the control. Maximizing $\sum_i J_{x_i}$ is equivalent to minimizing $G$, and the double integral $4\int\int \mathrm{Tr}[R^T(t_2)R(t_1)\mathbb{V}(t_1,t_2)]\,dt_1\,dt_2$ is the quantity to bound. The SVD of $\mathbb{V}(t_1,t_2)$ gives $\mathrm{Tr}[Q^T\mathbb{V}] \le \sum_i \sigma_i$, attained only by $Q = U V^T$, which yields a universal lower bound for $G$. The analytical construction then restricts controls to rotations in a fixed plane, reducing the Euler-angle degrees of freedom to one time-dependent angle $\alpha_t$; the stationarity condition $\partial F/\partial\alpha = 0$ produces the tangent identity for $\alpha_{t_1}-\alpha_{t_2}$, and the final minimal $G$ is Eq. (43).

What would settle it

For a concrete two-parameter Hamiltonian, test whether Eq. (36) can hold with $\alpha_t$ determined by Eq. (37) for all pairs $(t_1,t_2)$; if not, numerically optimize the joint control and compute G. A numerical G strictly smaller than Eq. (43) would falsify the claimed minimality. Experimentally, apply the proposed control on a qubit-plus-ancilla sensor, estimate the QFIM by tomography, and compare the sum of diagonal entries with Eq. (42); a significant shortfall would also refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that for two parameters encoded in a qubit Hamiltonian $H = F(x,t)\cdot\sigma$, with the probe maximally entangled with an ancilla, the joint control $U(t\to t+\delta t) = e^{-i\alpha_t \delta t \sigma_z} U_x^\dagger$ minimizes the gap $G = \sum_i (J^{\mathrm{opt}}_{x_i} - J_{x_i})$. The angle $\alpha_t$ is fixed by the stationarity condition $\tan(\alpha_{t_1}-\alpha_{t_2}) = [\sum_i (a_i(t_1)b_i(t_2)-a_i(t_2)b_i(t_1))] / [\sum_i (a_i(t_1)a_i(t_2)+b_i(t_1)b_i(t_2))]$, where $a_i$ and $b_i$ are the components of the velocity vectors $\partial_{x_i} H$; taking $t_2=0$ yields $\alpha_t$ in closed form. Under this control the sum of diagonal QFIM entries reaches Eq. (42), so the minimal $G$ is Eq. (43), which subtracts the singular-value sum of the velocity correlation matrix from the integrated speed of each velocity vector. The argument combines a geometric picture---optimal control straightens each velocity trajectory into a line---with an SVD bound that limits how much any joint control can align the two velocity fields at once. The paper also proves that with the maximally entangled probe, measurements exist making the multiparameter QCRB attainable for $SU(2)$ dynamics, so control incompatibility is the sole remaining obstacle.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single time-dependent angle $\alpha_t$ exists that satisfies the pairwise stationarity condition for all pairs of times, with the paper fixing one time at zero and only claiming an extremum rather than a minimum; if such a global $\alpha_t$ does not exist, the proposed control is not actually the minimizer of G.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For two-parameter estimation of time-dependent qubit Hamiltonians, the proposed closed-form control can be implemented directly in experiments, without numerical search over the control space, and yields a smaller G than controls optimized for a single parameter alone.
  • Because the method admits weights by rescaling the velocity amplitudes, it extends to weighted multiparameter estimation, giving a way to prioritize parameters in a controlled trade-off.
  • In the regime where the off-diagonal QFIM terms are zero or small, minimizing G directly improves the total estimation precision; Eq. (7) shows when off-diagonal correlations can undermine this.
  • The method generalizes to measuring more than two parameters whenever the instantaneous velocities remain confined to a two-dimensional plane, covering a useful class of vector-field sensing problems.
  • The special cases of time-independent Hamiltonians and AC fields with orthogonal velocities reproduce previously known optimal controls, providing consistency checks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not prove that a single $\alpha_t$ can satisfy the pairwise stationarity condition for all pairs of times; a search for Hamiltonians where this consistency fails would delimit exactly when the closed-form recipe is optimal.
  • The SVD bound in Eq. (24) is algebraic and the paper notes the maximizing orthogonal matrix need not be realizable as $R^T(t_2)R(t_1)$; a natural continuation is to characterize the velocity correlation matrices for which the bound is dynamically attainable, a problem connected to rank-one decompositions of matrix-valued functions.
  • Because G omits the off-diagonal QFIM terms, minimizing G is only equivalent to minimizing total estimation error when those terms vanish; a generalized gap based on $\mathrm{Tr}(J^{-1})$ rather than the diagonal sum would handle correlated generators and is a direct next step.
  • Experimentally, the predicted advantage could be tested on solid-state spin qubits or trapped-ion sensors by measuring the QFIM under the proposed control and comparing with single-parameter-optimal and numerically optimal controls; a deviation from Eq. (43) would show where the analytic solution breaks down.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses multiparameter estimation of a qubit Hamiltonian H = F·σ using a maximally entangled probe-ancilla state. It introduces a control-incompatibility gap G = Σ_i(J_opt_xi − J_xi), argues that joint controls should keep all instantaneous velocity vectors in a fixed plane, and proposes a decomposition U_c = U_a2 U_a1 U_x^†. For two-parameter estimation restricted to a plane, the paper derives an explicit control U(t → t+δt) = e^{−iα_t δt σ_z} U_x^† with α_t defined by Eq. (37), and claims this achieves the minimal G given by Eq. (43). The paper illustrates the scheme on time-dependent frequency estimation and claims generalization to more than two parameters in a two-dimensional vector field. The main result is an analytic prescription for reducing control incompatibility rather than a full precision-optimality theorem.

Significance. If correct, the proposed control would be a concrete, experimentally implementable recipe for easing control incompatibility in two-parameter SU(2) estimation, with a transparent geometric interpretation and a natural extension to weighted cost functions. The problem is timely, and the explicit two-frequency example is a useful demonstration that applying controls optimized for one parameter can be suboptimal for the pair. The paper also correctly acknowledges that minimizing G is not equivalent to maximizing joint precision when off-diagonal QFIM terms are significant. However, the central optimality claim is not backed by a proof: the stationarity condition is only necessary and is solved at a single reference time, and the included supplementary material contains no global-minimality argument. The significance of the paper is therefore prospective; it establishes a plausible heuristic and numerical evidence, but not the claimed minimal incompatibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Material, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The stationarity condition Eq. (36) is required for every pair (t1,t2), but Eq. (37) defines α_t by setting t2=0. No consistency proof is given that the resulting single function α_t satisfies tan(α_t1−α_t2)=B(t1,t2)/A(t1,t2) for all t1,t2. Since Eq. (42) is obtained by substituting this all-pairs relation into the integrand, the claimed minimum G in Eq. (43) is not established.
  2. [Main text two-frequency example, Eq. (37)] For H=(cos xn t + cos xm t)σx + (sin xn t − sin xm t)σz, both instantaneous velocities vanish at t=0, e.g. ∂_{xm}F_x=−t sin(xm t) and ∂_{xm}F_z=−t cos(xm t), making the numerator and denominator in Eq. (37) an indeterminate 0/0. The paper does not provide a limiting prescription, so the control U(t→t+δt)=e^{−iα_t δt σ_z}U_x^† in Eq. (38) is undefined at the initial time for the paper's own flagship example.
  3. [Supplementary Material, Eqs. (24)-(25)] The universal lower bound on G is derived from a closest-orthogonal-matrix problem, but the text immediately notes that the optimal Q cannot always be written as R^T(t2)R(t1). The subsequent Euler-angle derivation works within the ansatz U_c=U_a2 U_a1 U_x^†, and no argument shows that this ansatz is lossless for the original problem. Thus Eq. (43) is at best a minimum within the restricted family, not the global minimum stated in the main text.
  4. [Main text and Supplementary Material, Eq. (30)] The main text states that the fixed-plane intuition and the global minimality of G are 'formally proved' in the Supplementary Material, but the supplement only derives the necessary stationarity conditions (30) and does not contain a second-order or global comparison. The paper's own caveat that α_t only guarantees an extremum and that an additional π-pulse may be required [23,30] is not reconciled with the claim of a proven minimum in Eq. (43).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (40)] The term 'cos(αt1 − α2)' should read 'cos(α_{t1}−α_{t2})'; the subscript 'α2' is an obvious typo and is inconsistent with the sine term in the same equation.
  2. [Eqs. (41)-(43)] The summation index 'N' with lower limit i=0 is confusing; the parameters are x_i with i=1,...,m elsewhere, and the indices in the double integrals should be made consistent.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The displayed definition of the quantum Fisher information matrix is garbled; the bra-ket and partial-derivative notation needs to be reformatted to be readable.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption refers to panels (a) and (c), whereas the figure in the text appears to contain only two panels labeled (a) and (b); the panel labels and the axis labels '1e6 1e7' should be fixed.
  5. [References [9] and [25]] References [9] and [25] are the same Hou et al. paper; please consolidate the duplicate.
  6. [Text after Eq. (6)] The sentence saying U_a2 forces V_xi to rotate in the fixed plane and 'reach the minimal incompatibility' presupposes the result that the paper is trying to prove; this phrasing should be reworded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the control law is derived from the QFI functional; self-citations are auxiliary consistency checks.

full rationale

The central derivation defines G in Eq.(5) as an independent figure of merit (a sum of QFI gaps) and then minimizes G by maximizing Σ_i J_xi, which is equivalent because the single-parameter-optimal terms J_opt_xi are control-independent constants. The control angle α_t in Eq.(37) is derived from the stationarity conditions (Eqs.(30) and (36)) on the trace functional (Eq.(29)) for the Hamiltonian functions f,g, not by fitting to G or to the target precision. The claimed minimal-G expression (Eq.(43)) is obtained algebraically by applying the Cauchy-Schwarz bound cosθ A + sinθ B ≤ sqrt(A^2+B^2) to the stationarity relation, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no output quantity is identified with an input by construction. Self-citations involving the authors (Refs [3,8,26-28]) support background statements, the optimal probe claim, and the 'consistent with the previous result' checks for the DC and AC examples; they are not load-bearing for the two-frequency control recipe. Two correctness gaps should be noted but they are not circularity: (i) the main text states 'This intuition can be formally proved by showing that such control does minimize G (see Supplementary Material)', but the supplement derives only the necessary conditions (Eq.(30)) and concedes that the solution 'only guarantees that G reaches its extremum value, rather than its minimum value'; (ii) Eq.(37) fixes t2=0 to define α_t, so the all-pairs stationarity relation (Eq.(36)) is not proved for arbitrary f,g, and in the paper's example H=(cos xn t + cos xm t)σx + (sin xn t − sin xm t)σz the velocity components can both vanish at t=0, making Eq.(37) formally 0/0. These are mathematical-optimality concerns, not instances where the derivation reduces to its own inputs; the core control law has independent content from G.

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

Everything the central claim rests on beyond standard estimation theory: the single-qubit-plus-ancilla setup, the SU(2) Hamiltonian restriction, the planar-velocity restriction, and the factorized control ansatz. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Validity of quantum Cramer-Rao bound and the QFI formula J_xi = 4 < S_xi^2 > for pure states.
    Invoked in the main text and Supplementary 'Ultimate precision in single-parameter estimation' to define precision limits and the generator S_xi.
  • domain assumption The maximally entangled probe state and Bell measurement are simultaneously optimal for all parameters encoded in SU(2) dynamics.
    Proved in Supplementary 'Optimal probe and optimal measurement' under the single-qubit-plus-ancilla setting and Hamiltonian of the form H = F dot sigma.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal joint control can be decomposed as U_c = U_a2 U_a1 U_dagger_x, with U_a1 keeping velocities in a fixed plane and U_a2 rotating within the plane.
    Introduced in 'Control scheme and applications' and used for the 2D analytical solution; no proof is supplied that every optimal control has this structure.
  • domain assumption For two-parameter estimation, the instantaneous velocity vectors of the two parameters can be confined to a single fixed plane.
    Stated as an intuition that can be formally proved in the Supplementary, but the proof is not explicitly shown; this assumption restricts the method to planar velocity subspaces.
  • domain assumption Minimizing the gap G is an appropriate proxy for improving multiparameter estimation precision.
    The paper explicitly notes in the Discussions that minimizing G is equivalent to minimizing trade-offs only when the off-diagonal QFIM element J_mn is zero or small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control incompatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUHPTSXJ

@misc{pith2026241118896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control incompatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUHPTSXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18896}
}
read the original abstract

In practical applications like quantum sensing and quantum imaging, there is often a necessity to estimate multiple parameters simultaneously. Although the ultimate precision limits for single-parameter estimation are well established, the precision limit of multi-parameter estimation is much less understood. This is primarily due to the inherent incompatibility of the optimal strategies for the estimation of different parameters, particularly those pertaining to optimal control.In this study, we tackle the critical issue of control incompatibility in multi-parameter estimation by presenting explicit cases that expose this challenge. Our research not only pioneers the exploration of control incompatibility but also highlights its pivotal role in the field. Furthermore, our work offers valuable insights into how to minimize trade-offs induced by control incompatibility and enhance precision. This paves the way for future investigations into control strategies that enable optimal estimation of multiple parameters that are incompatible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A demonstration of the control-enhanced sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A geometry perspective of QFI and control. Pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The parameters to be estimated are encoded as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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.

  2. Optimal Strategies for Multi-parameter Quantum Metrology

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conic and semidefinite-programming framework computes exact Holevo, Nagaoka-Hayashi, and SLD precision bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology across parallel, sequential, and indefinite-causal-order strategies,...

  3. Analytical Series Expansion for Efficient Gradient Evaluation in Multi-Qubit Optimal Control

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Heisenberg-picture series of time-independent commutators and nested pulse integrals yields propagator gradients for arbitrary pulse shapes, giving >10× speedup over GOAT on local multi-qubit GHZ tasks.

  4. Entanglement-assisted multiparameter estimation with a solid-state quantum sensor

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A room-temperature NV-center experiment simultaneously estimates amplitude, detuning, and phase of a microwave drive from one sequence, with sensitivity improving linearly in interrogation time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Pang and T

    S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Quantum metrology for a general hamiltonian parameter, Physical Review A 90, 022117 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Liu and H

    J. Liu and H. Yuan, Quantum parameter estimation with optimal control, Physical Review A 96, 012117 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Optimal strategies of quantum metrology with a strict hierarchy, Physical Review Letters 130, 070803 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Poggiali, P

    F. Poggiali, P. Cappellaro, and N. Fabbri, Optimal con- trol for one-qubit quantum sensing, Physical Review X 8, 021059 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Belliardo and V

    F. Belliardo and V. Giovannetti, Incompatibility in quan- tum parameter estimation, New Journal of Physics 23, 063055 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, An invita- tion to quantum incompatibility, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 123001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    G¨ uhne, E

    O. G¨ uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and R. Uola, Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quantum information science, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 011003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    C. Li, M. Chen, and P. Cappellaro, A geometric perspec- tive: experimental evaluation of the quantum cramer-rao bound, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13777 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [10]

    J. S. Sidhu, Y. Ouyang, E. T. Campbell, and P. Kok, Tight bounds on the simultaneous estimation of in- compatible parameters, Physical Review X 11, 011028 (2021)

    2021

  2. [11]

    Lu and X

    X.-M. Lu and X. Wang, Incorporating heisenberg’s un- certainty principle into quantum multiparameter estima- tion, Physical Review Letters 126, 120503 (2021)

    2021

  3. [12]

    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

  4. [13]

    B. Xia, J. Huang, H. Li, H. Wang, and G. Zeng, Toward incompatible quantum limits on multiparameter estima- tion, Nature Communications 14, 1021 (2023)

    2023

  5. [14]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Yuan, Information geometry under hierarchical quantum measurement, Physical Re- view Letters 128, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  6. [15]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Yuan, Incompatibility mea- sures in multiparameter quantum estimation under hier- archical quantum measurements, Physical Review A105, 062442 (2022)

    2022

  7. [16]

    R. D. Gill and S. Massar, State estimation for large en- sembles, Physical Review A 61, 042312 (2000)

    2000

  8. [17]

    R. A. Fisher, Theory of statistical estimation, in Mathe- matical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical soci- ety, Vol. 22 (Cambridge University Press, 1925) pp. 700– 725

    1925

  9. [18]

    C. R. Rao et al., Information and the accuracy attain- able in the estimation of statistical parameters, Break- throughs in statistics , 235 (1992)

    1992

  10. [19]

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

    2009

  11. [20]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of Statistical Physics 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  12. [21]

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

    1994

  13. [22]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  14. [23]

    Pang and A

    S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nature Communications 8, 14695 (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, W. G´ orecki, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher in- formation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 53, 363001 (2020)

    2020

  16. [25]

    Z. Hou, Z. Zhang, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, H. Chen, L. Liu, and H. Yuan, Minimal tradeoff and ul- timate precision limit of multiparameter quantum mag- netometry under the parallel scheme, Physical Review Letters 125, 020501 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    Yuan, Sequential Feedback Scheme Outperforms the Parallel Scheme for Hamiltonian Parameter Estimation, Physical Review Letters 117, 160801 (2016)

    H. Yuan, Sequential Feedback Scheme Outperforms the Parallel Scheme for Hamiltonian Parameter Estimation, Physical Review Letters 117, 160801 (2016)

    2016

  18. [27]

    Hou, J.-F

    Z. Hou, J.-F. Tang, H. Chen, H. Yuan, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Zero trade-off multiparameter quantum estimation via simultaneously saturating mul- tiple heisenberg uncertainty relations, Science Advances 7, eabd2986 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    Z. Hou, Y. Jin, H. Chen, J.-F. Tang, C.-J. Huang, H. Yuan, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Super- heisenberg and heisenberg scalings achieved simultane- ously in the estimation of a rotating field, Physical Re- view Letters 126, 070503 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, 5 ser, Mathematics in Science and Engineering

    C. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, 5 ser, Mathematics in Science and Engineering. New York: Academic Press 123 (1976)

    1976

  21. [30]

    Naghiloo, A

    M. Naghiloo, A. N. Jordan, and K. W. Murch, Achieving Optimal Quantum Acceleration of Frequency Estimation Using Adaptive Coherent Control, Physical Review Let- ters 119, 180801 (2017). UL TIMA TE PRECISION IN SINGLE-P ARAMETER ESTIMA TION The precision for estimating xi is qu...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.