Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A nonlinear term G P^M in a time-independent Hamiltonian makes the estimation uncertainty for the driving amplitude λ scale as T^{-M}, which beats the Heisenberg T^{-1} bound for every M > 1.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:10 UTC pith:XMKNBHOJ

load-bearing objection A plausible and mostly correct super-Heisenberg metrology paper with real open-system results; the friction model's temperature dependence is sloppy but not fatal. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.26448 v1 pith:XMKNBHOJ submitted 2025-10-30 quant-ph

Super-Heisenberg Scaling Using Nonlinear Quantum Scrambling

Dong Xie , Chunling Xu This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologysuper-Heisenberg scalingquantum Fisher informationnonlinear quantum scramblingcontinuous-variable systemssqueezed vacuum reservoiropen quantum systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that a single nonlinear term in a time-independent Hamiltonian can make the best achievable precision of estimating a driving-field amplitude improve as the inverse M-th power of the evolution time, T^{-M}, beating the usual Heisenberg T^{-1} limit whenever M > 1. It identifies the Hamiltonian H = λX + G P^M, written in quadrature operators, as the generator that produces this super-Heisenberg scaling through nonlinear quantum scrambling. The same mechanism is then carried into two dissipative settings: a friction-damped oscillator still gives T^{-(M-1)} scaling, and an optical cavity with injected plus intracavity squeezing can give an exponential precision gain in time. The paper also shows a subtle failure mode: if the nonlinear coefficient G is exactly proportional to the unknown λ, the super-Heisenberg gain disappears and precision only improves as T. Readers should care because this is a route to ultra-sensitive detection of weak driving fields in continuously monitored or open quantum systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that the pure-state quantum Fisher information for λ in H = λX + G P^M (M ≥ 2) is F ≈ 4(G λ^{M-2} T^M)^2 Δ²P for long times, where Δ²P is the initial momentum variance. Consequently the estimation uncertainty is δλ ≈ 1/(2 G λ^{M-2} T^M ΔP) up to constants, which scales as T^{-M}. This is super-Heisenberg in time even though the generator is time-independent. The supplementary derivation shows the mechanism: the unitary evolution splits into factors exp(-iG P^M T)exp(-iλ X T) plus commutator corrections, and the coupling of λ into the nonlinear P^M factor creates the T^M growth. The paper further claims that if G = ξλ exactly, the leading terms cancel and F ∝ T^2, so the

What carries the argument

The machinery is the single-mode continuous-variable Hamiltonian H = λX + G P^M with M ≥ 2, where X and P are the quadrature operators of a bosonic mode. The nonlinear monomial P^M is the scrambling element: it spreads the local parameter information carried by X into higher moments of P. The unitary evolution is decomposed with a Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff expansion, exp(-iHT) ≈ exp(-iG P^M T) exp(-iλ X T) times ordered correction terms, which produces a term with M-th power time growth. The optimal measurement operator M_e = X + (G/λ_c)(P^M - (P + λ_c T)^M) is constructed so that its expectation value depends on λ through the P-shift, and error propagation on M_e saturates the quantum Cramér

Load-bearing premise

In the friction model the derivation treats the momentum variance as approximately 1/2, implicitly neglecting the temperature-dependent reservoir noise γ coth(ω/T_e) in the correlator; if that term is significant at finite temperature, the predicted absolute sensitivity is optimistic, even though the T^{-(M-1)} scaling exponent may survive.

What would settle it

A decisive check on the friction model: measure the momentum variance ⟨δ²P⟩ of the damped oscillator after long evolution under H = λP + G X^M as a function of reservoir temperature T_e. If it is not the constant ≈ 1/2 but grows with coth(ω/T_e), then the absolute uncertainty formula δλ_f = γ/[√2 M(M-1)G λ^{M-2} T^{M-1}] is falsified for finite temperature.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For a closed system with H = λX + G P^M and G independent of λ, the optimal uncertainty after time T scales as T^{-M}; for M = 2 this is T^{-2}, and for M = 3 it is T^{-3}, outpacing the Heisenberg T^{-1} bound.
  • If the nonlinear coupling G is proportional to λ, precision only improves as T, so any experiment exploiting this mechanism must ensure the nonlinear coefficient does not share the estimated parameter's dependence.
  • A detuning Ω between the system and drive frequencies makes the Fisher information oscillate and stops the accumulation; a compensating two-photon squeezing term with χ = -Ω/2 restores the T^{-M} scaling.
  • In a friction-damped system with H = λP + G X^M, the uncertainty scales as T^{-(M-1)}, which remains super-Heisenberg for M > 2, and only the momentum quadrature needs to be measured.
  • In a cavity with two-photon driving (μ > γ) and a squeezed reservoir, the measurement uncertainty decreases exponentially with time, and for M > 2 the precision improves when the initial position expectation ⟨X0⟩ is larger.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • In our reading, the temporal super-Heisenberg effect is achieved with a single mode rather than entangled many-body resources, which may make it more directly testable in existing microwave superconducting circuits.
  • We infer a design rule: avoid any physical mechanism that makes G depend on λ; if G = ξλ, the T^{-M} enhancement cancels completely.
  • The exponential cavity result assumes the squeezing parameter r is tuned with time; a natural extension is to quantify the loss of precision when r is held fixed rather than ramped.
  • At finite reservoir temperature, the friction-model momentum variance acquires a coth(ω/T_e) term, so the absolute uncertainty in Eq. (31) is optimistic; only the T-exponent should be regarded as robust.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum estimation of the amplitude λ of a driving term λX in the presence of a nonlinear term G P^M, with all parameters time-independent. In a closed system it derives an approximate quantum Fisher information F ≈ 4(G λ^{M-2} T^M)^2 Δ²P, implying measurement uncertainty δλ ∼ T^{-M}, i.e. super-Heisenberg scaling for M>1. It constructs an explicit optimal estimator, shows that detuning can be compensated by squeezing, and then analyzes two dissipative settings: a friction model, where it claims δλ ∼ T^{-(M-1)}, and a cavity with external and intracavity squeezing, where it claims improved polynomial and then exponential scaling. The central conceptual claim is that time-independent generators can still yield super-Heisenberg T scaling when the nonlinearity is not proportional to λ.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would be a useful contribution to nonlinear quantum metrology: it shows a simple, parameter-free mechanism for super-Heisenberg time scaling without time-dependent Hamiltonians, gives an explicit optimal measurement operator, and identifies the condition G∝λ as the point where super-Heisenberg scaling disappears. The closed-system derivation is analytic and the optimal-measurement construction is a nontrivial consistency check. However, the dissipative sections contain algebraic and modeling gaps that currently prevent the claimed scaling exponents from being accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [S7 / Eq. (43), Eqs. (S67)-(S71)] The minimization of the momentum variance in the μ=γ cavity case is algebraically inconsistent. With A = (M−1)²M²G²λ^{2(M−2)}T^{2M−3}/(4γ) and B = γ/4 as in Eq. (S68), the minimum of A e^{-2r}+B e^{2r} occurs at e^{2r}=√(A/B)=M(M−1)Gλ^{M−2}T^{M−3/2}/γ, and the minimum is 2√(AB)=M(M−1)Gλ^{M−2}T^{M−3/2}/2, not the expressions with 1/√γ in Eqs. (S69)-(S70). Substituting the correct minimum into δλ = √⟨δ²P⟩/|∂λ⟨P⟩| with ∂λ⟨P⟩ ≈ M(M−1)Gλ^{M−2}T^{M−1}/(2γ) gives δλ ∝ T^{-(2M−1)/4}. The printed exponent −(M−2)/4 would imply, for example, β=0.25 for M=3 and β=0.5 for M=4, which is not super-Heisenberg and contradicts the stated conclusion. This is a load-bearing error and must be corrected before the cavity claims can be assessed.
  2. [Friction model / S6, Eqs. (22)-(25), (S52)-(S53), Eq. (31)] The variance calculation in the friction model is incomplete. In the expression for P, Eq. (S49), the nonlinear term contains X(t')=X0+λt'+∫_0^{t'}η_x(t'')dt'', but Eq. (S52) replaces X by its deterministic part and only adds +1/2 from the η_p noise. No autocorrelator ⟨η_xη_x⟩ is given, and Eq. (25) uses an undefined operator η_y. If η_x has a finite autocorrelation (as in a standard thermal or squeezed bath), the position quadrature diffuses and the resulting contribution to ⟨δ²P⟩ grows with T; this changes the noise floor and therefore Eq. (31). The zero-temperature assumption coth(ω/Te)=1 is also unstated. The authors need to specify a complete noise model and show that the η_x contribution is negligible, or else revise the claimed T^{-(M−1)} scaling in the friction model.
  3. [S1, Eqs. (S9)-(S11) and Eq. (6)] The central closed-system formula Eq. (6) is obtained through several uncontrolled '≈' steps. The exact integrated Heisenberg generator contains a c-number T^{M+1} term and lower-order operator terms in addition to the retained P T^M term. The c-number term drops out of the variance, so the leading result is plausible, but the manuscript does not state the approximation regime or prove that the retained term dominates the variance. Because Eq. (6) underpins all subsequent scaling claims, the derivation should present explicit bounds or an exact expression for the leading variance contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (25)] The noise correlator uses η_y, which is never defined. It should probably be η_x or η_p; please fix and consistently define all noise operators and their autocorrelators.
  2. [Eqs. (17)-(18)] The detuning solution contains inconsistent angular frequencies: cos[√(Ω(2G+ω))T] and cos[√(ω(2G+Ω))T] should both involve Ω only. There is also a typo 'euqations'.
  3. [Fig. 1] The caption states α=0.1 but α is not defined in the main text or figure. Please define all dimensionless parameters used in the figure.
  4. [S4 / Eq. (S31)] In the optimal measurement derivation, the variance of Me is asserted to reduce to δX after the cancellations. This is not self-evident from the displayed equations, especially for M>2; a short derivation would help the reader.
  5. [Eqs. (41), (45), (46)] The expressions for the optimal squeezing parameter and the final uncertainty contain multiple typographical/rendering issues (e.g. subscript/superscript placement in Eq. (46): 'µ1/4+ µ3/4−'). Please check the typeset formulas and ensure all exponents are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: scaling results follow from the stated nonlinear Hamiltonian; the two self-citations are to standard identities and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is an explicit quantum-mechanical calculation, not an inverse fit. For H=λX+GP^M, the QFI is computed via a BCH/commutator expansion (Supplement S1, leading to Eqs. (S10)-(S11) and Eq. (6)); the T^M factor comes from summing commutators [X,P^M] and the free evolution P(t)=P-λt, and the initial-state variance Δ²P remains an unevaluated prefactor rather than a parameter adjusted to produce the claimed scaling. The optimal measurement M_e in Eq. (11) is derived from the same Hamiltonian and is shown by error propagation to saturate the QFI (Eqs. (S27)-(S32)); this is an attainability proof, not a fitted prediction. In the dissipative sections, the Langevin equations are solved explicitly; the squeezing parameter r is optimized to minimize the propagated variance (Eqs. (41)-(42), (45)-(46)), which is a legitimate optimization over input squeezing, not a fit of a constant to the target uncertainty. The self-citations are to the BCH identity for C_n (Supplement Ref. [1], Xie-Xu-Wang) and to squeezed-reservoir correlation functions (Ref. [36], Xie-Xu); both are standard, parameter-free, and do not encode the target super-Heisenberg scaling, so under the stated criteria they are independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. The finite-temperature issue raised by a skeptic—the coth(ω/Te) in Eq. (25) is dropped when Eq. (30)/(S52) sets ⟨δ²P⟩≈1/2—is a real internal-consistency/correctness problem for nonzero reservoir temperature, but it is not circularity: no fitted value or previously claimed result is being reused as an input; it changes the absolute prefactor, not the T-scaling exponent. Overall, no derived 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input, so circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: M, G, and λ are model inputs, and the squeezing parameter r(T) is an optimized control variable. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main load-bearing axioms are the BCH factorization, the Markovian noise model, physical realizability of the nonlinear Hamiltonian, and the initial-state condition.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff / Zassenhaus factorization of exp(−i(λX+GP^M)T) as in Eq. (S2)
    Used to derive the QFI approximation Eq. (6); standard identity but applied here without a proof of convergence for arbitrary M.
  • domain assumption Markovian white-noise Langevin equations with the commutator ⟨[ηx(t),ηp(t′)]⟩=iγδ(t−t′)
    The friction and cavity models assume this specific noise structure; the temperature enters only through coth(ω/T_e) and is then dropped in the variance.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear Hamiltonian Hn=G[(a e^{i(ωd t+ϑ)}+h.c.)/√2]^M is physically realizable in microwave superconducting circuits
    The paper relies on Refs. [27,28] for realizability; this is essential for the proposed mechanism to be more than a mathematical construction.
  • domain assumption Initial state has nonzero momentum variance Δ²P, and all needed moments are finite
    If Δ²P=0, the QFI in Eq. (6) vanishes; the super-Heisenberg scaling depends on this unstated condition on the probe state.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12158 in / 22037 out tokens · 200508 ms · 2026-08-04T07:10:46.109026+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Super-Heisenberg scaling, which scales as $N^{-\beta}$ with $\beta>1$ in terms of the number of particles $N$ or $T^{-\beta}$ in terms of the evolution time $T$, is better than Heisenberg scaling in quantum metrology. It has been proven that super-Heisenberg scaling can be achieved when the Hamiltonian of the system involves many-body interactions or the time-dependent terms. We demonstrate that nonlinear quantum scrambling facilitates the achievement of super-Heisenberg scaling $T^{-\beta}$ when the generator of the parameter is time-independent. More importantly, in dissipative systems, we can still obtain super-Heisenberg scaling in the friction model. In the optical cavity system, an exponential improvement in measurement precision over time can be achieved by combining injected external squeezing and intracavity squeezing. Our work provides an optimal method for leveraging nonlinear resources to enhance the measurement precision of the driving field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26448 by Chunling Xu, Dong Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The time-evolution diagram of the quantum Fisher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  2. [2]

    (31) This result recovers the super-Heisenberg scaling when M > 2

    (30) According to the error propagation formula, the measure- ment uncertaintyδλf of the parameter λ in the frictional model is given by δλf = γ √ 2M (M − 1)GλM−2T M−1. (31) This result recovers the super-Heisenberg scaling when M > 2. Compared with the dissipation-free case in Eq. ( 6), the measurement precision merely loses a multi- ple of the measureme...

  3. [3]

    Pezze, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and, P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2011

  5. [5]

    Tse et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced Ligo detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys

    M. Tse et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced Ligo detec- tors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Dissipation in the friction model .- When the system suffers from dissipation due to interaction with noise, the dynamics can be described by Langevin equations

    is recovered, which indicates that the squeezing process can effectively eliminate the impact induced by the detuning. Dissipation in the friction model .- When the system suffers from dissipation due to interaction with noise, the dynamics can be described by Langevin equations. In the friction model, the evolution of the position and momentum operators ar...

  7. [7]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Ad hikari, et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitatio nal wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics 7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  9. [9]

    E. S. Polzik, J. Carri, and H. J. Kimble, Spectroscopy wit h squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3020 (1992)

    1992

  10. [10]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maxi- mally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  11. [11]

    C. F. Roos, M.Chwalla, K. Kim, M.Riebe, and R.Blatt, ’Designer atoms’ for quantum metrology, Nature 443, 316- 319 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    Schmitt, T

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

    2021

  13. [13]

    Lamperti, R

    M. Lamperti, R. Gotti, D. Gatti, M. K. Shakfa, E. Can´ e, F. Tamassia, P. Schunemann, P. Laporta, A. Farooq, and M. Marangoni, Optical frequency metrology in the bend- ing modes region, Communications Physics 3, 175 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kimball, A. Derevianko, and Charles W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafiel, S

    E. Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafiel, S. Colombo, C. Shu, A. F. Adiy- atullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, D. Akamatsu, Y. Xiao, and V. Vuleti´ c, Entanglement on an optical atomic-clock transition, Nature 588,414-418 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Kruse, K

    I. Kruse, K. Lange1, J. Peise1, B. L¨ ucke1, L. Pezz` e, J. Arlt, W. Ertmer1, C. Lisdat, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Improvement of an atomic clock using squeezed vacuum. Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 143004 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Ludlow, Martin M

    Andrew D. Ludlow, Martin M. Boyd, Jun Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637-701 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    S. M. Roy and S. L. Braunstein, Exponentially enhanced quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 220501 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, J. M. Geremia, Generalized Limits for Single-Parameter Quantum Esti- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 090401 (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    Boixo, A

    S. Boixo, A. Datta, M. J. Davis, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Quantum metrology: Dynamics versus entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 040403 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    Luis and A

    A. Luis and A. Rivas, Nonlinear michelson interferome ter for improved quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022104 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    M. A. C. Rossi, F. Albarelli, and M. G. A. Paris, En hanced estimation of loss in the presence of kerr nonlin earity, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053805 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Beau and A

    M. Beau and A. del Campo, Nonlinear quantum metrol ogy of many-body open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010403 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, At the limits of criticality-based quantum metrology: Apparent super-heisenberg scaling revisited, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021022 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    X. Nie, J. Huang, Z. Li, W. Zheng, C. Lee, X. Peng, and J. Du, Experimental demonstration of nonlinear quan tum metrology with optimal quantum state, Science Bul letin 63, 469 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Huang, B

    J. Huang, B. Xia, Y. Yang, and G. Zeng, Nonlinear Heisenberg Limit via Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Metrology, arXiv:2510.09216 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Lordi, J

    N. Lordi, J. D. Wilson, M. J. Holland, and J. Combes, Noise constraints on sensitivity scaling in super- Heisenberg quantum metrology, arXiv:2504.03638 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Montenegro, S

    V. Montenegro, S. Dornetti, A. Ferraro, and M. G. A. Paris, Enhanced quantum frequency estimation by non- linear scrambling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 030802 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Hillmann, F

    T. Hillmann, F. Quijandr ´ ıa, G. Johansson, A. Fer- raro, S. Gasparinetti, and G. Ferrini, Universal gate set for continuous-variable quantum compu- tation with mi- crowave circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 160501 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    A. M. Eriksson, T. S´ epulcre, M. Kervinen, T. Hillmann, M. Kudra, S. Dupouy, Y. Lu, M. Khanahmadi, J. Yang, C. C.-Moreno, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Nat. Com- mun. 15, 2512 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Cram´ er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princ e- ton University, Princeton, 1946)

    H. Cram´ er, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princ e- ton University, Princeton, 1946)

    1946

  32. [32]

    C. R. Rao, Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applica - tions (Wiley, NewYork, 1973)

    1973

  33. [33]

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

    1994

  34. [34]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. We- infurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Ex- perimental One-Way Quantum Computing, Nature 434, 169 (2005)

    2005

  35. [35]

    Didier, A

    N. Didier, A. Kamal, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-Limited Qubit Read-Out with Two-Mode Squeezed Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 093604 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Coppola, Z

    M. Coppola, Z. Daouma, and M. Henkel, From Lind- blad master equations to Langevin dynamics and back, arXiv:2305.06312 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Exponentially im- proved dispersive qubit readout with squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233605 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Xie, and C

    D. Xie, and C. Xu, Dispersive qubit readout of tempera- ture, Phys. Rev. A 111, 062412 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Super-Heisenberg Scaling Using Nonlinear Quantum Scrambling

    P. Groszkowski, H.-K. Lau1, C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-Limited Spin Squeezing via Bosonic Parametric Driving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 203601 (2020). 6 Supplemental Material: “Super-Heisenberg Scaling Using Nonlinear Quantum Scrambling” In this Supplementary Material, we first give details about the derivation. In Sec. S1-S3, we pr...

    2020

  40. [40]

    Dissipation in the cavity model In the dissipative cavity model, the quantum-Langevin equations are ˙X = −γX +λ +Ax, (S54) ˙P = −MGX M−1 +Ap −γP

    (S53) S7. Dissipation in the cavity model In the dissipative cavity model, the quantum-Langevin equations are ˙X = −γX +λ +Ax, (S54) ˙P = −MGX M−1 +Ap −γP. (S55) 9 The solutions is given by X = λ γ (1 − exp(−γT )) + ∫ T 0 dt′ exp[−γ(T −t′)]Ax(t′) + exp(−γT )X0, (S56) P = exp(−γT )P0 + ∫ T 0 dt′ exp(−γt′)Ap(t′) − ∫ T 0 dt′ exp[−γ(T −t′)]MGX (t′)M−1. (S57) ...

  41. [41]

    D. Xie, C. Xu, and A. Wang, Quantum metrology with co- herent superposition of two different coded channels, Chin. Phys. B, 30, 090304 (2021)

    2021