Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 118 references

Near-optimal quantum metrology with few-qubit measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Few-qubit measurements can nearly reach the quantum metrology limits set by the quantum Cramér–Rao bound.

desk verdict A novel certification-to-metrology reduction that mostly holds, but the estimators require an unacknowledged exponential classical computation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01617 v1 pith:URCKWUCV submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph

Liang Mao , Senrui Chen , Hsin-Yuan Huang , John Preskill , Sisi Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P50
keywords quantummetrologymultiparameterestimationCramér–Raoboundfew-qubitmeasurementsstatecertificationconditionalfidelityrandomizedHaar-randomstates
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 claims that the hard part of multiparameter quantum metrology—designing measurements that extract near-optimal information—can be delegated to quantum state certification. It proves a universal conversion: any certification protocol built on conditional fidelity estimation, with certification gap Δ, becomes a metrology protocol whose sample overhead over the quantum Cramér–Rao bound is at most 4Δ. Applying the conversion to recent few-qubit certification protocols yields measurement strategies that use only single-qubit or few-qubit measurements. For any pure state, the adaptive decision-tree variant achieves overhead 4n in the number of qubits; for typical Haar-random states, randomized Pauli measurements reach constant overhead. The authors numerically demonstrate the approach by estimating disorder strengths in a transverse-field Ising Hamiltonian from ground-state copies.

What carries the argument

The engine is the certification gap Δ: the factor by which a protocol's soundness probability is weaker than ideal fidelity measurement. The argument runs through the geometry of Eq. (4): the quantum Fisher information is the fidelity metric on parameter space, so the CFE guarantee that averaged conditional infidelity bounds global infidelity translates into an averaged-QFI bound J_M ⪰ J/Δ. A random Clifford measurement on the r-qubit post-selected state—interpreted as a classical shadow estimate of the conditional fidelity—then gives $I^{{-1}}$ ⪯ 4 $J_M^{{-1}}$, and the estimators are constructed explicitly using weighted symmetric-logarithmic-derivative operators. Concrete overheads come from Markov-chain mixing times (non-adaptive case), decision-tree bases that make two states phase states (adaptive case), and concentration bounds for Haar-random states (randomized Pauli and two-bases cases).

What would settle it

Compute the classical Fisher information matrix of the adaptive decision-tree protocol for a concrete n-qubit pure state family and compare it with the quantum Fisher information; finding a state with $I^{{-1}}$(M,|ψ(θ)⟩) not bounded by 4n $J^{{-1}}$(|ψ(θ)⟩) would refute Theorem 3. Similarly, for a state whose amplitudes concentrate on disconnected parts of the Boolean hypercube, the non-adaptive protocol's inverse CFI should grow with the Markov-chain mixing time; measuring that ratio for such states would settle whether the non-adaptive bound is sharp.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantitative bridge between certification and metrology. Lemma S3 shows: given a CFE-based certification protocol with gap Δ, the same measurement—first n−r qubits in product bases, then a random Clifford on the remaining r qubits—supports locally unbiased estimators whose inverse classical Fisher information is bounded by 4Δ $J^{{-1}}$, where J is the quantum Fisher information matrix. Since certification protocols are designed to run with very simple measurements, this converts them into near-optimal metrology protocols for pure states. The geometric mechanism is that the certification gap controls the averaged quantum Fisher information of the post-selected states through the fidelity expansion of the QFI. The paper then instantiates the conversion with three concrete protocols and shows, for example, that computational-basis measurements on all but one qubit give overhead equal to the mixing time of a Markov chain defined by the state's amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion assumes classical query access to the post-selected states |ψ_{x|α}(θ0)⟩ and their derivatives ∂_θ |ψ_{x|α}(θ)⟩ at the prior estimate θ0; for a generic state family this is as hard as classically simulating the state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every existing few-qubit pure-state certification protocol yields a few-qubit metrology protocol with an explicit sample overhead, so improved certification directly improves metrology without redesigning the measurement.
  • The non-adaptive protocol—computational basis on n−1 qubits plus a random Pauli on one qubit—approaches the quantum Cramér–Rao bound within O(n^2) for typical Haar-random states, O(n) for phase states, and O(n^{κ+1}) for gapped κ-local stoquastic Hamiltonians.
  • The adaptive decision-tree protocol achieves overhead 4n for every pure state using only single-qubit measurements, independent of the number of parameters being estimated.
  • For typical Haar-random states, randomized Pauli measurements give constant overhead, so the sample complexity is within a constant factor of the ultimate quantum limit.
  • Hamiltonian parameter estimation from ground states can be performed with single-qubit measurements at near-optimal precision, and the numerical results indicate the actual performance can be considerably better than the proven bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the conversion suggests that certification gaps are a universal currency: any future protocol with a smaller gap automatically improves metrology, and conversely, metrology lower bounds may constrain how small certification gaps can be under locality constraints.
  • The query-access requirement implies a classical-simulation bottleneck: for generic state families, constructing the locally unbiased estimators is as hard as computing amplitudes and derivatives of the state, so practical deployment will likely concentrate on states with efficient classical descriptions such as matrix product states or shallow circuits.
  • The adaptive decision-tree overhead 4n for all pure states may be optimal for single-qubit adaptive measurements; proving a matching lower bound would connect this work to resource-theoretic limits on local quantum estimation.
  • The numerical observation that actual overhead is much smaller than the proven bound for the Ising example suggests that the stated polynomial factors are loose for structured states, and systematically computing CFI/QFI ratios for other Hamiltonian families could reveal where the gap between bound and practice widens.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a general reduction from conditional fidelity estimation (CFE) in quantum state certification to multi-parameter quantum metrology. It proves that any CFE protocol with certification gap Δ, combined with a random Clifford measurement on the r unmeasured qubits, yields a POVM whose classical Fisher information satisfies I^{-1}(M,|ψ⟩) ⪯ 4Δ J^{-1}(|ψ⟩). Specializing this to three recent certification protocols, the paper obtains: (i) a non-adaptive protocol using computational-basis and random single-qubit Pauli measurements with overhead 4τ, where τ is a Markov-chain mixing time; (ii) an adaptive decision-tree protocol with overhead 4n for all pure states; and (iii) a randomized-Pauli protocol with constant overhead for typical Haar-random states. A numerical demonstration on disordered transverse-field Ising ground states shows near-saturation of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound with single-qubit measurements.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial advance: it shows that the prohibitively complex collective measurements normally associated with multi-parameter pure-state metrology can be replaced by few-qubit (even single-qubit) measurements at only polynomial sample-complexity overhead, and it makes a previously hidden connection between certification and metrology explicit and quantitative. The paper is also unusually concrete: Lemma S3 constructs locally unbiased estimators explicitly, the overhead factors are analytical (mixing times, certification gaps) rather than fitted, and the numerical experiment on a physical Hamiltonian model is a genuine test of the framework. These strengths make the manuscript potentially valuable for both quantum metrology and quantum certification communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.2, Eq. (B.17)] The proof of Lemma S3 contains an incorrect equality. Eq. (B.17) asserts E[Tr(X_i^{(x|α)} X_j^{(x|α)})] = E[⟨ψ_{x|α}| X_i^{(x|α)} X_j^{(x|α)} |ψ_{x|α}⟩], but for a pure state the identity is Re⟨ψ|L_i L_j|ψ⟩ = (1/2) Tr(L_i L_j), so the trace and the expectation value are not equal in general (e.g., for a single-qubit phase state with parameter φ, Tr(L^2)=2J while ⟨ψ|L^2|ψ⟩=J). The correct relation for the bracketed sum in Eq. (B.16) is Tr(X_i X_j) + ⟨ψ|X_i X_j|ψ⟩ + ⟨ψ|X_j X_i|ψ⟩ = 2 Tr(X_i X_j), which does lead to the stated factor of 4 when combined with Tr(X_i X_j) = 2(J_M^{-1})_{ij}. As written, the intermediate derivation is not valid, although the final bound appears recoverable after this correction. Please revise the proof accordingly.
  2. [Appendix B.1 and Lemma S3] The construction of the locally unbiased estimators requires classically computing the averaged QFI matrix J_M = E_{α,x} J(|ψ_{x|α}(θ0)⟩) and the branch SLD operators L_j^{(x|α)} for every measurement branch. For the non-adaptive protocol of Theorem S5 with r=1, this is a sum over 3n·2^{n-1} branches. For a generic pure-state family, evaluating J_M and inverting it is exponentially expensive in n, even granting query access to the individual amplitudes and derivatives, because query access to a branch amplitude does not provide an efficient way to evaluate the expectation over the exponentially many branches. The paper assumes this query-access model (paragraph after Algorithm 2) but does not discuss the classical computational cost of the estimator construction. Since the central resource claim is that few-qubit measurements suffice for near-optimal metrology, the authors should clarify whether the theorems are statements about sample complexity and measurement complexity only, with classical preprocessing excluded, or should restrict the applicability to state families (such as MPS, as in the numerical example) where J_M can be computed efficiently.
  3. [Theorems S12, S13, S14, S15, Corollary S16] The constant-overhead results for Haar-random states depend entirely on external certification bounds: Lemma S13 is cited as Theorem 5 of the arXiv preprint [68] (and Theorem 1 of [69]), and Lemma S15 is cited as Theorem 5 of the arXiv preprint [67]. These lemmas are load-bearing because they supply the constant certification gap used in Theorem S12 and Theorem S14. The present manuscript does not reproduce their proofs or even detailed statements. For a self-contained journal publication, the authors should either include the proof of these certification-gap lemmas in the appendix or provide a precise statement (including the constant and the failure probability) and a proof sketch sufficient for the reader to verify the adaptation to metrology.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, after Theorem 2] The sentence 'Here τ(θ) = Δ is the mixing time of a Markov chain...' is confusing because Δ is not defined in the main theorem; it should read 'Here τ(θ) is the mixing time, i.e., the certification gap is Δ = τ(θ)'.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The displayed Hamiltonian uses an awkward brace with a semicolon, 'H = ... + (Σ θ_z σ_z ; Σ θ_x σ_x)', which is not standard notation. Please rewrite to indicate that either longitudinal or transverse disorder is considered in each simulation, or use separate display lines for the two cases.
  3. [Appendix C, Theorem S5] In the definition of the POVM M_{i,α}, the notation '|z_i^α⟩⟨z_i^α|' should clarify that this is the eigenstate of the Pauli operator α with eigenvalue label z_i ∈ {0,1}; a footnote or explicit sentence would prevent confusion about the relation between α and the basis.
  4. [Eq. (13)] The expansion of the log-likelihood contains a term O(N_s |θ_j - θ_0^j|^2) that is not written with proper norm notation; this is a minor typesetting issue.
  5. [Appendix D, Lemma S10 proof] In the counterexample for qudits with d≥3, after Eq. (D.10), the line 'So e^{i(θ_{k1 0}-θ_{k2 0})} = ± e^{i(θ_{k1 1}-θ_{k2 1})}' should be justified by the preceding display; the argument is sound but a one-sentence explanation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the metrological overhead is derived from the certification-gap soundness condition by a parameter-free information-theoretic conversion.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Lemma S3 takes the CFE Definition S1 (completeness and soundness) as a hypothesis and, via the fidelity–QFI relation Eq. (B.18), obtains E_x J(|ψ_x⟩) ⪰ J/Δ (Eq. B.22). The random-Clifford step invokes the independent pure-state bound from Ref. [43] (I^{-1} ≤ 4J^{-1}), which is a published result with stated assumptions that do not include the target metrology overhead. Combining these yields Eq. (B.23). No parameter is fitted to measurement data; Δ is an input property of the certification protocol, not inferred from metrology outcomes. Theorems 2–4 are direct instantiations with certification gaps imported from Refs. [65,66,68,69]. The self-citations [43,79] are used as ordinary external theorems and are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the DT basis construction is proved in Lemma S10, and the Clifford 3-design bound is standard and not derived from this paper's conclusion. The explicit query-access assumption for post-selected amplitudes and derivatives (Appendix B) is a computational-model limitation, not a circular step: it does not rename a certification output as a metrology prediction. The numerical Hamiltonian example is a simulation against the CRB, not a fitted prediction. Overall, the central claim does not reduce by construction to its inputs.

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

No numbers are fitted to data. The overheads τ, Δ, and the constant C are analytical functions (mixing times, certification gaps) or existentially quantified. The numerical example fixes g=1.5 and the disorder variance to 0.1, but these are simulation inputs, not fitted parameters of the metrology claim. No new physical entities are introduced; the protocols use existing measurement primitives such as computational basis, Pauli, and Clifford rotations.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Target states are pure: ρ(θ)=|ψ(θ)⟩⟨ψ(θ)| throughout
    The QFI formula (Eq. 3) and all proofs are for pure states; the paper explicitly notes mixed states are left open.
  • domain assumption Local estimation regime with a prior close estimate θ0
    Estimators are required to be locally unbiased at θ0 (Eqs. A.2-A.3); the protocol does not address global estimation.
  • domain assumption Query access to post-selected amplitudes and their θ-derivatives
    Lemma S3 constructs estimators from |ψ_{x|α}(θ0)⟩ and ∂_θ|ψ_{x|α}(θ)⟩ (Eqs. B.9-B.12); the paper states this access model in Appendix B.
  • standard math Random Clifford unitaries form a 3-design and classical shadow estimators have the stated variance
    Used in Lemma S2 and the covariance calculation (Eqs. B.2, B.15), citing Refs. [43,101].
  • domain assumption Certification gap bounds for concrete state families from Refs. [65-69] are correct
    The metrological overheads in Theorems 2-4 inherit Δ from these cited results; for example, Lemma S13 from arXiv:2509.17580 is imported without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-optimal quantum metrology with few-qubit measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URCKWUCV

@misc{pith2026260801617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-optimal quantum metrology with few-qubit measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URCKWUCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01617}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology, which addresses parameter estimation in quantum systems, has broad applications across science and technology. Conventional metrology protocols for multi-qubit states in the multi-parameter regime typically require highly complex quantum measurements, leading to substantial quantum-resource costs. In this work, we introduce a family of metrology protocols that use only few-qubit measurements, thereby significantly reducing the required resources. For arbitrary pure states, one of our protocols approaches the quantum Cram\'{e}r-Rao bound up to an overhead in sample complexity that scales linearly with the number of qubits, irrespective of the number of parameters to be estimated. For typical Haar-random states, this overhead can be reduced to a constant. Our results build on recent advances in quantum state certification protocols with few-qubit measurements: we establish a universal connection between certification and metrology in which the precision of the certification protocol determines the metrological overhead. We also illustrate our approach through an example of Hamiltonian estimation from ground states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of quantum metrology and our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Parameter estimation for disordered transverse-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [68]

    Certifying localizable quan- tum properties with constant sample complexity

    Zhenyu Du, Jinchang Liu, Elias X Huber, Zi-Wen Liu, and Xiongfeng Ma. Certifying localizable quan- tum properties with constant sample complexity. arXiv:2509.17580, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [69]

    Robust quantum state certification and uncertainty principles for total influence

    Andrea Coladangelo, Jerry Li, and Joseph Slote. Robust quantum state certification and uncertainty principles for total influence.arXiv:2607.27184, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [67]

    The power of two bases: Robust and copy-optimal certification of nearly all quantum states with few-qubit measurements.arXiv:2602.11616, 2026

    Andrea Coladangelo, Jerry Li, Joseph Slote, and Ellen Wu. The power of two bases: Robust and copy-optimal certification of nearly all quantum states with few-qubit measurements.arXiv:2602.11616, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  4. [1]

    Carlton M. Caves. Quantum-mechanical noise in an in- terferometer.Phys. Rev. D, 23(8):1693–1708, Apr 1981

    1981

  5. [2]

    McCall, and John R

    Bernard Yurke, Samuel L. McCall, and John R. Klauder. Su(2) and su(1,1) interferometers.Phys. Rev. A, 33:4033–4054, Jun 1986

    1986

  6. [3]

    A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit.Nat

    LIGO Collaboration. A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit.Nat. Phys., 7(12):962–965, 2011

    2011

  7. [4]

    Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light.Nat

    LIGO Collaboration. Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light.Nat. Photonics., 7(8):613–619, 2013

    2013

  8. [5]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen. Spin squeezing and re- duced quantum noise in spectroscopy.Phys. Rev. A, 46(11):R6797–R6800, Dec 1992

    1992

Show all 118 references
  1. [6]

    J. J. Bollinger, Wayne M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen. Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states.Phys. Rev. A, 54:R4649– R4652, Dec 1996

    1996

  2. [7]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland. Toward Heisenberg-limited spec- troscopy with multiparticle entangled states.Science, 304(5676):1476–1478, 2004

    2004

  3. [8]

    High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution.Nat

    JM Taylor, Paola Cappellaro, L Childress, Liang Jiang, Dmitry Budker, PR Hemmer, Amir Yacoby, R Walsworth, and MD Lukin. High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution.Nat. Phys., 4(10):810–816, 2008

    2008

  4. [9]

    Frequency ratio of Al+ and Hg+ single-ion opti- cal clocks; metrology at the 17th decimal place.Science, 319(5871):1808–1812, 2008

    Till Rosenband, DB Hume, PO Schmidt, Chin- Wen Chou, Anders Brusch, Luca Lorini, WH Oskay, Robert E Drullinger, Tara M Fortier, Jason E Stalnaker, et al. Frequency ratio of Al+ and Hg+ single-ion opti- cal clocks; metrology at the 17th decimal place.Science, 319(5871):1808–1812, 2008

    2008

  5. [10]

    Mesoscopic atomic entanglement for preci- sion measurements beyond the standard quantum limit

    J¨ urgen Appel, Patrick Joachim Windpassinger, Daniel Oblak, U Busk Hoff, Niels Kjærgaard, and Eugene Si- mon Polzik. Mesoscopic atomic entanglement for preci- sion measurements beyond the standard quantum limit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106(27):10960–10965, 2009

    2009

  6. [11]

    Optical atomic clocks.Rev

    Andrew D Ludlow, Martin M Boyd, Jun Ye, Ekkehard Peik, and Piet O Schmidt. Optical atomic clocks.Rev. Mod. Phys., 87(2):637, 2015

    2015

  7. [12]

    Quantum metrology with strongly inter- acting spin systems.Phys

    Hengyun Zhou, Joonhee Choi, Soonwon Choi, Renate Landig, Alexander M Douglas, Junichi Isoya, Fedor Jelezko, Shinobu Onoda, Hitoshi Sumiya, Paola Cap- pellaro, et al. Quantum metrology with strongly inter- acting spin systems.Phys. Rev. X, 10(3):031003, 2020

    2020

  8. [13]

    Quan- tum variational optimization of Ramsey interferometry and atomic clocks.Phys

    Raphael Kaubruegger, Denis V Vasilyev, Marius Schulte, Klemens Hammerer, and Peter Zoller. Quan- tum variational optimization of Ramsey interferometry and atomic clocks.Phys. Rev. X, 11(4):041045, 2021

    2021

  9. [14]

    Optimal metrol- ogy with programmable quantum sensors.Nature, 603(7902):604–609, 2022

    Christian D Marciniak, Thomas Feldker, Ivan Pogorelov, Raphael Kaubruegger, Denis V Vasi- lyev, Rick van Bijnen, Philipp Schindler, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Thomas Monz. Optimal metrol- ogy with programmable quantum sensors.Nature, 603(7902):604–609, 2022

    2022

  10. [15]

    Optical magnetic imaging of living cells

    David Le Sage, Koji Arai, David R Glenn, Stephen J DeVience, Linh M Pham, Lilah Rahn-Lee, Mikhail D Lukin, Amir Yacoby, Arash Komeili, and Ronald L Walsworth. Optical magnetic imaging of living cells. Nature, 496(7446):486–489, 2013

    2013

  11. [16]

    Quantum imaging with undetected photons

    Gabriela Barreto Lemos, Victoria Borish, Garrett D Cole, Sven Ramelow, Radek Lapkiewicz, and Anton Zeilinger. Quantum imaging with undetected photons. Nature, 512(7515):409–412, 2014

    2014

  12. [17]

    Quan- tum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources.Phys

    Mankei Tsang, Ranjith Nair, and Xiao-Ming Lu. Quan- tum theory of superresolution for two incoherent optical point sources.Phys. Rev. X, 6(3):031033, 2016

    2016

  13. [18]

    Atomic-scale imaging of a 27- nuclear-spin cluster using a quantum sensor.Nature, 576(7787):411–415, 2019

    MH Abobeih, J Randall, CE Bradley, HP Bartling, MA Bakker, MJ Degen, M Markham, DJ Twitchen, and TH Taminiau. Atomic-scale imaging of a 27- nuclear-spin cluster using a quantum sensor.Nature, 576(7787):411–415, 2019

    2019

  14. [19]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit.Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit.Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    2004

  15. [20]

    Quantum metrology.Phys

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum metrology.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96(1):010401, Jan 2006

    2006

  16. [21]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nat

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nat. Photonics., 5(4):222, 2011

    2011

  17. [22]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro. Quantum sensing.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89(3):035002, Jul 2017

    2017

  18. [23]

    Oberthaler, Roman Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein

    Luca Pezz` e, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K. Oberthaler, Roman Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles. 7 Rev. Mod. Phys., 90(3):035005, Sep 2018

    2018

  19. [24]

    Ad- vances in photonic quantum sensing.Nat

    Stefano Pirandola, Bhaskar Roy Bardhan, Tobias Gehring, Christian Weedbrook, and Seth Lloyd. Ad- vances in photonic quantum sensing.Nat. Photonics., 12(12):724, 2018

    2018

  20. [25]

    Information and the accu- racy attainable in the estimation of statistical parame- ters.Bull

    C Radhakrishna Rao et al. Information and the accu- racy attainable in the estimation of statistical parame- ters.Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc, 37(3):81–91, 1945

    1945

  21. [26]

    Princeton university press, 1999

    Harald Cram´ er.Mathematical methods of statistics, vol- ume 9. Princeton university press, 1999

    1999

  22. [27]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    Erich L Lehmann and George Casella.Theory of point estimation. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  23. [28]

    Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011

    Alexander S Holevo.Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory, volume 1. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011

    2011

  24. [29]

    Minimum mean-squared error of es- timates in quantum statistics.Phys

    Carl W Helstrom. Minimum mean-squared error of es- timates in quantum statistics.Phys. Lett. A, 25(2):101– 102, 1967

    1967

  25. [30]

    The minimum variance of es- timates in quantum signal detection.IEEE Trans

    Carl Wilhelm Helstrom. The minimum variance of es- timates in quantum signal detection.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 14(2):234–242, 1968

    1968

  26. [31]

    Academic press, 1976

    Carl Wilhelm Helstrom.Quantum detection and esti- mation theory. Academic press, 1976

    1976

  27. [32]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 72(22):3439–3443, May 1994

    1994

  28. [33]

    Fisher informa- tion in quantum statistics.J

    O E Barndorff-Nielsen and R D Gill. Fisher informa- tion in quantum statistics.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 33(24):4481–4490, jun 2000

    2000

  29. [34]

    Quantum estimation for quantum technology.Int

    Matteo GA Paris. Quantum estimation for quantum technology.Int. J. Quantum Inf., 7(supp01):125–137, 2009

    2009

  30. [35]

    Local asymptotic nor- mality for finite dimensional quantum systems.Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, 289(2):597–652, 2009

    Jonas Kahn and M˘ ad˘ alin Gut ¸˘ a. Local asymptotic nor- mality for finite dimensional quantum systems.Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, 289(2):597–652, 2009

    2009

  31. [36]

    Koichi Yamagata, Akio Fujiwara, and Richard D. Gill. Quantum local asymptotic normality based on a new quantum likelihood ratio.The Annals of Statistics, 41(4):2197 – 2217, 2013

    2013

  32. [37]

    Attaining the ultimate precision limit in quantum state estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 368(1):223–293, 2019

    Yuxiang Yang, Giulio Chiribella, and Masahito Hayashi. Attaining the ultimate precision limit in quantum state estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 368(1):223–293, 2019

    2019

  33. [38]

    Asymptotic estimation theory for a finite-dimensional pure state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 31(20):4633, 1998

    Masahito Hayashi. Asymptotic estimation theory for a finite-dimensional pure state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 31(20):4633, 1998

    1998

  34. [39]

    Quantum state estimation with infor- mationally overcomplete measurements.Physical Re- view A, 90(1):012115, 2014

    Huangjun Zhu. Quantum state estimation with infor- mationally overcomplete measurements.Physical Re- view A, 90(1):012115, 2014

    2014

  35. [40]

    Universally fisher-symmetric informationally complete measure- ments.Physical Review Letters, 120(3):030404, 2018

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Universally fisher-symmetric informationally complete measure- ments.Physical Review Letters, 120(3):030404, 2018

    2018

  36. [41]

    Determinis- tic realization of collective measurements via photonic quantum walks.Nature communications, 9(1):1414, 2018

    Zhibo Hou, Jun-Feng Tang, Jiangwei Shang, Huangjun Zhu, Jian Li, Yuan Yuan, Kang-Da Wu, Guo-Yong Xi- ang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo. Determinis- tic realization of collective measurements via photonic quantum walks.Nature communications, 9(1):1414, 2018

    2018

  37. [42]

    Quantum fisher informa- tion matrix via its classical counterpart from random measurements.arXiv:2509.08196, 2025

    Jianfeng Lu and Kecen Sha. Quantum fisher informa- tion matrix via its classical counterpart from random measurements.arXiv:2509.08196, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Randomized measurements for multiparameter quantum metrology.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010314, 2026

    Sisi Zhou and Senrui Chen. Randomized measurements for multiparameter quantum metrology.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010314, 2026

    2026

  39. [44]

    Complexity-driven transi- tions in quantum observation.arXiv:2606.09765, 2026

    Zhenyu Du, Siyuan Cheng, Han Ye, Junjie Chen, Xiao Yuan, and Xiongfeng Ma. Complexity-driven transi- tions in quantum observation.arXiv:2606.09765, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  40. [45]

    Arrad, Y

    G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker. In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(15):150801, Apr 2014

    2014

  41. [46]

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin. Quantum error correction for metrology.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(15):150802, Apr 2014

    2014

  42. [47]

    Heisenberg limited metrology using quan- tum error-correction codes.arXiv:1310.3432, 2013

    Roee Ozeri. Heisenberg limited metrology using quan- tum error-correction codes.arXiv:1310.3432, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  43. [48]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fr¨ owis, and B. Kraus. Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(8):080801, Feb 2014

    2014

  44. [49]

    Adaptive quantum metrology under general Markovian noise.Phys

    Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Jan Czajkowski, and Pavel Sekatski. Adaptive quantum metrology under general Markovian noise.Phys. Rev. X, 7(4):041009, Oct 2017

    2017

  45. [50]

    Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction.Nat

    Sisi Zhou, Mengzhen Zhang, John Preskill, and Liang Jiang. Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction.Nat. Com- mun., 9(1):78, 2018

    2018

  46. [51]

    Spatial noise fil- tering through error correction for quantum sensing.npj Quantum Inf., 4(1):30, 2018

    David Layden and Paola Cappellaro. Spatial noise fil- tering through error correction for quantum sensing.npj Quantum Inf., 4(1):30, 2018

    2018

  47. [52]

    Ancilla-free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrology.Phys

    David Layden, Sisi Zhou, Paola Cappellaro, and Liang Jiang. Ancilla-free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrology.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(4):040502, Jan 2019

    2019

  48. [53]

    Quantum metrology enhanced by lever- aging informative noise with error correction.Physical Review Letters, 133(19):190801, 2024

    Hongzhen Chen, Yu Chen, Jing Liu, Zibo Miao, and Haidong Yuan. Quantum metrology enhanced by lever- aging informative noise with error correction.Physical Review Letters, 133(19):190801, 2024

    2024

  49. [54]

    Quantum error-corrected non-markovian metrology.PRX Quantum, 6(3):030321, 2025

    Zachary Mann, Ningping Cao, Raymond Laflamme, and Sisi Zhou. Quantum error-corrected non-markovian metrology.PRX Quantum, 6(3):030321, 2025

    2025

  50. [55]

    Stabilizer codes for heisenberg-limited many-body hamiltonian estimation

    Santanu Bosu Antu and Sisi Zhou. Stabilizer codes for heisenberg-limited many-body hamiltonian estimation. Quantum, 9:1766, 2025

    2025

  51. [56]

    Subsystem quantum error cor- rection for noisy quantum metrology.arXiv:2606.19628, 2026

    Qiushi Liu and Sisi Zhou. Subsystem quantum error cor- rection for noisy quantum metrology.arXiv:2606.19628, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  52. [57]

    Re- strictions on non-clifford fault tolerance and ruling out beyond-sql quantum metrology.arXiv:2607.27342, 2026

    Constantin Cedillo Vayson de Pradenne, Ishaan Kan- nan, Harald Putterman, and Jordan Cotler. Re- strictions on non-clifford fault tolerance and ruling out beyond-sql quantum metrology.arXiv:2607.27342, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  53. [58]

    Direct fidelity esti- mation from few pauli measurements.Physical review letters, 106(23):230501, 2011

    Steven T Flammia and Yi-Kai Liu. Direct fidelity esti- mation from few pauli measurements.Physical review letters, 106(23):230501, 2011

    2011

  54. [59]

    A survey of quantum property testing.arXiv:1310.2035, 2013

    Ashley Montanaro and Ronald De Wolf. A survey of quantum property testing.arXiv:1310.2035, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  55. [60]

    Optimal verification of entangled states with local mea- surements.Physical review letters, 120(17):170502, 2018

    Sam Pallister, Noah Linden, and Ashley Montanaro. Optimal verification of entangled states with local mea- surements.Physical review letters, 120(17):170502, 2018

    2018

  56. [61]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin B˘ adescu, Ryan O’Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, pages 503–514, 2019

    2019

  57. [62]

    Optimal verifi- cation and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states.Physical Review A, 99(5):052346, 2019

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Optimal verifi- cation and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states.Physical Review A, 99(5):052346, 2019. 8

    2019

  58. [63]

    Theory of quantum sys- tem certification.PRX quantum, 2(1):010201, 2021

    Martin Kliesch and Ingo Roth. Theory of quantum sys- tem certification.PRX quantum, 2(1):010201, 2021

    2021

  59. [64]

    Universal and efficient quantum state verification via schmidt decomposition and mutually unbiased bases.arXiv:2506.19809, 2025

    Yunting Li and Huangjun Zhu. Universal and efficient quantum state verification via schmidt decomposition and mutually unbiased bases.arXiv:2506.19809, 2025

    2025

  60. [65]

    Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements.Nature Physics, 21(11):1834–1841, 2025

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, John Preskill, and Mehdi Soleiman- ifar. Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements.Nature Physics, 21(11):1834–1841, 2025

    2025

  61. [66]

    Few single-qubit measurements suffice to certify any quan- tum state

    Meghal Gupta, William He, and Ryan O’Donnell. Few single-qubit measurements suffice to certify any quan- tum state. InProceedings of the 58th Annual ACM Sym- posium on Theory of Computing, pages 54–60, 2026

    2026

  62. [70]

    See Ap- pendix

    For generic pure states, unlike for pure states, it is im- possible to attain the quantum CRB using only mea- surements on single copies of states, and the gap can scale polynomially with the system dimension. See Ap- pendix. A for a detailed review

  63. [71]

    Unlike Ref. [43] which defines the near-optimal metrol- ogy protocols to be protocols that attain the quantum CRB up to a constant factor, we slightly generalize the definition to include a polynomial factor (in the number of qubit), which is still exponentially small compared...

  64. [72]

    On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London

    Ronald 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(594-604):309– 368, 1922

    1922

  65. [73]

    Cambridge university press, 2000

    Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  66. [74]

    Wiley New York, 1973

    Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao, Calyampudi Rad- hakrishna Rao, Mathematischer Statistiker, Calyam- pudi Radhakrishna Rao, and Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao.Linear statistical inference and its applications, volume 2. Wiley New York, 1973

    1973

  67. [75]

    Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    Steven M Kay.Fundamentals of statistical signal pro- cessing: Volume I Estimation theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    1993

  68. [76]

    Rout- ledge, 2017

    David Roxbee Cox.Inference and asymptotics. Rout- ledge, 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA, 2002

    George Casella and Roger L Berger.Statistical infer- ence, volume 2. Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA, 2002

    2002

  70. [78]

    State estimation for large ensembles.Physical Review A, 61(4):042312, 2000

    Richard D Gill and Serge Massar. State estimation for large ensembles.Physical Review A, 61(4):042312, 2000

    2000

  71. [79]

    Saturating the quantum Cram´ er–Rao bound using locc.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(2):025005, 2020

    Sisi Zhou, Chang-Ling Zou, and Liang Jiang. Saturating the quantum Cram´ er–Rao bound using locc.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(2):025005, 2020

    2020

  72. [80]

    Fisher-symmetric in- formationally complete measurements for pure states

    Nan Li, Christopher Ferrie, Jonathan A Gross, Amir Kalev, and Carlton M Caves. Fisher-symmetric in- formationally complete measurements for pure states. Physical Review Letters, 116(18):180402, 2016

    2016

  73. [81]

    Quantum limits on postselected, probabilistic quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 89(5):052117, 2014

    Joshua Combes, Christopher Ferrie, Zhang Jiang, and Carlton M Caves. Quantum limits on postselected, probabilistic quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 89(5):052117, 2014

    2014

  74. [82]

    How to simulate quantum measurement without computing marginals.Physical Review Letters, 128(22):220503, 2022

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, and Yinchen Liu. How to simulate quantum measurement without computing marginals.Physical Review Letters, 128(22):220503, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 85(23):4972, 2000

    Jonathan Walgate, Anthony J Short, Lucien Hardy, and Vlatko Vedral. Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 85(23):4972, 2000

    2000

  76. [84]

    Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups.Physical review letters, 69(19):2863, 1992

    Steven R White. Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups.Physical review letters, 69(19):2863, 1992

    1992

  77. [85]

    Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups.Physical review b, 48(14):10345, 1993

    Steven R White. Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups.Physical review b, 48(14):10345, 1993

    1993

  78. [86]

    Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization.Physical review letters, 75(19):3537, 1995

    Stellan ¨Ostlund and Stefan Rommer. Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization.Physical review letters, 75(19):3537, 1995

    1995

  79. [87]

    The density-matrix renormalization group.Reviews of modern physics, 77(1):259–315, 2005

    Ulrich Schollw¨ ock. The density-matrix renormalization group.Reviews of modern physics, 77(1):259–315, 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    Matrix product state representa- tions.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0608197, 2006

    David Perez-Garcia, Frank Verstraete, Michael M Wolf, and J Ignacio Cirac. Matrix product state representa- tions.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0608197, 2006

    2006 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems.Advances in physics, 57(2):143– 224, 2008

    Frank Verstraete, Valentin Murg, and J Ignacio Cirac. Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems.Advances in physics, 57(2):143– 224, 2008

    2008

  82. [90]

    Determining a local hamiltonian from a single eigenstate.Quantum, 3:159, 2019

    Xiao-Liang Qi and Daniel Ranard. Determining a local hamiltonian from a single eigenstate.Quantum, 3:159, 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    Learn- ing a local hamiltonian from local measurements.Phys- ical review letters, 122(2):020504, 2019

    Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H Lindner. Learn- ing a local hamiltonian from local measurements.Phys- ical review letters, 122(2):020504, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Local test for unitarily invariant properties of bipartite quan- tum states.arXiv:2404.04599, 2024

    Kean Chen, Qisheng Wang, and Zhicheng Zhang. Local test for unitarily invariant properties of bipartite quan- tum states.arXiv:2404.04599, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Conjugate queries can help.arXiv:2510.07622, 2025

    Ewin Tang, John Wright, and Mark Zhandry. Conjugate queries can help.arXiv:2510.07622, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Random purification channel made simple

    Filippo Girardi, Francesco Anna Mele, and Ludovico Lami. Random purification channel made simple. arXiv:2511.23451, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    A random purifi- cation channel for arbitrary symmetries with applica- tions to fermions and bosons.arXiv:2512.15690, 2025

    Michael Walter and Freek Witteveen. A random purifi- cation channel for arbitrary symmetries with applica- tions to fermions and bosons.arXiv:2512.15690, 2025

    2025

  88. [96]

    Mixed state tomography reduces to pure state tomography.arXiv:2511.15806, 2025

    Angelos Pelecanos, Jack Spilecki, Ewin Tang, and John Wright. Mixed state tomography reduces to pure state tomography.arXiv:2511.15806, 2025

    2025

  89. [97]

    Quantum metrology of mixed states via pu- rification.arXiv:2605.03975, 2026

    Sisi Zhou. Quantum metrology of mixed states via pu- rification.arXiv:2605.03975, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Uni- versal sample complexity bounds in quantum learning theory via fisher information matrix.arXiv:2602.21510, 2026

    Hyukgun Kwon, Seok Hyung Lie, and Liang Jiang. Uni- versal sample complexity bounds in quantum learning theory via fisher information matrix.arXiv:2602.21510, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Instance- optimal high-precision shadow tomography with few- copy measurements: A metrological approach

    Senrui Chen, Weiyuan Gong, and Sisi Zhou. Instance- optimal high-precision shadow tomography with few- copy measurements: A metrological approach. InPro- ceedings of Thirty Ninth Conference on Learning The- ory, pages 1115–1185, 2026

    2026

  92. [100]

    Near-optimal pure state estimation with adaptive fisher-symmetric mea- 9 surements.arXiv:2412.04555, 2024

    C Vargas, L Pereira, and A Delgado. Near-optimal pure state estimation with adaptive fisher-symmetric mea- 9 surements.arXiv:2412.04555, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050– 1057, 2020

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050– 1057, 2020. 10 CONTENTS References 6 A. Preliminaries on quantum metrology 10 B. The conditional fidelity estimation protocols 12

    2020

  94. [102]

    The conditional fidelity estimation protocols for certification 12

  95. [103]

    Non-adaptive protocol 17

    Transforming certification protocols to metrology protocols 15 C. Non-adaptive protocol 17

  96. [104]

    Results and remarks 17

  97. [105]

    Adaptive decision-tree protocol 20

    Performance guarantee 18 D. Adaptive decision-tree protocol 20

  98. [106]

    Results and remarks 20

  99. [107]

    Protocols for Haar random states 23

    Performance guarantee 21 E. Protocols for Haar random states 23

  100. [108]

    The randomized Pauli measurement protocol 23

  101. [109]

    An estimator ˆθ(x) and the corresponding positive operator-valued measurement (POVM)M={M x}x is a function that maps the measurement outcomesxto Θ

    The two-bases protocol 24 Appendix A: Preliminaries on quantum metrology Consider ad-dimensional parameterized quantum stateρ(θ) in Hilbert spaceH, where parameters are denoted by θ= (θ 1,θ 2,...,θ m).mis the number of parameters and Θ⊆R m is the domain ofθ. An estimator ˆθ(x)...

  102. [110]

    Such a fundamental task has applications from quantum device benchmarking to verification of quantum algorithms

    The conditional fidelity estimation protocols for certification Another central task in quantum information science isquantum state certification, where the goal is to test whether a physical stateρprepared in the lab is close to a specific target state|ψ⟩. Such a fundamental ...

  103. [111]

    We show that every CFE-based certification protocol can be transformed into a metrology protocol with a provable CFI guarantee

    Transforming certification protocols to metrology protocols Here we prove the key technical lemma. We show that every CFE-based certification protocol can be transformed into a metrology protocol with a provable CFI guarantee. Moreover, we will prove this result be proving a s...

  104. [112]

    The performance of this protocol is bounded by the mixing time of a Markov chain defined with the base state, which we define as below

    Results and remarks We first introduce the simplest protocol, where the measurement is performed on the computational basis for all but one (orO(1), which will be clear later) randomly chosen qubit. The performance of this protocol is bounded by the mixing time of a Markov cha...

  105. [113]

    Performance guarantee To analyze the performance, we need to prove the performance of the CFE certification protcol using the reduced version ofMthat discarding the single-qubit random rotation. 19 Lemma S6.Let M= Mi, 1 n i∈[n] ,M i = n |z1⟩⟨z1|⊗···⊗|z i−1⟩⟨zi−1|⊗I i⊗|zi+1⟩⟨zi...

  106. [114]

    Here we extract a matrix L= 1 n X i∈[n] X z∈{0,1}n−1 z(i) ED z(i) ⊗ ψz|i ψz|i ,(C.9) satisfying ⟨z|L|z⟩= 1 n X i∈[n] p(z) p(z) +p(zi),(C.10) where zi is the bitstring obtained by flipping thei-th bit ofz. Moreover, whenz 1 andz 2 differ only byi-th bit, ⟨z1|L|z 2⟩= 1 n⟨(z1)i|·...

  107. [115]

    By leveraging the adaptive measurements, we can construct a metrology protocol with ∆ =nforallpure states while still using single-qubit measurements

    Results and remarks While the computational basis randomized measurements is conceptually simple to implement, its performance depends on target states. By leveraging the adaptive measurements, we can construct a metrology protocol with ∆ =nforallpure states while still using ...

  108. [116]

    Lemma S10(Phase state in DT basis, cf

    Performance guarantee We first justify that the decision-tree basis needed in Theorem S9 exists. Lemma S10(Phase state in DT basis, cf. Corollary. 7 in [66] or Lemma 1 in [79]).For everyn-qubit statesρ 1 and ρ2, there is an associated DT basisT={|ℓ x⟩}, such that the diagonal ...

  109. [117]

    We can use the same measurement protocol to perform metrology on Haar-random states

    The randomized Pauli measurement protocol Recent progress [67, 68] prove that with randomized Pauli measurement, a CFE-based protocol can certify typical Haar-random states. We can use the same measurement protocol to perform metrology on Haar-random states. Note that, perform...

  110. [118]

    The protocol works by measuring the firstn−⌈γlogn⌉qubits in eitherxorzbasis, and measure the classical shadow on the remaining⌈γlogn⌉qubits, for anyγ >1

    The two-bases protocol Built from another recent result [67], using slightly simpler single-qubit measurement onn−rqubits withr≥logn, one can perform metrology on Haar-random states with ∆≈2 lognby using single-qubit measurements, and ∆≈2 by usingO(logn)-qubit measurements. Th...

Pith tools

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