2017
DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/aa9212
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Entangling measurements for multiparameter estimation with two qubits

Abstract: Careful tailoring the quantum state of probes offers the capability of investigating matter at unprecedented precisions. Rarely, however, the interaction with the sample is fully encompassed by a single parameter, and the information contained in the probe needs to be partitioned on multiple parameters. There exist then practical bounds on the ultimate joint-estimation precision set by the unavailability of a single optimal measurement for all parameters. Here we discuss how these considerations are modified f… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, this inequality proves how the dimension of the Hilbert space imposes a trade-off on the ultimately achievable estimation precision for the whole set of parameters; for example if one restricts to qubits one obtains that 0 ≤ Υ( λ , Π) ≤ 1. This problem has been extensively studied both in the context of estimation of unitary operations [60,61] and of estimation of phase and phase-diffusion [62][63][64]. It is important to remark that in cases where the econding of the parameters E λ is fixed and one can optimize over the possible input probe states 0 , such that λ = E λ ( 0 ), the results of the optimization for different figures of merit such as Υ( λ , Π) or Tr[W V] will in general give different results: different probe states will in fact yield different SLD-QFI matrices Q(λ), and while Υ( λ , Π) maximizes the joint optimal estimability at fixed Q(λ), the quantity Tr[W V] maximizes the overall (weighted) precision for the parameters λ.…”
Section: Scalar Quantum Cramér-rao Boundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, this inequality proves how the dimension of the Hilbert space imposes a trade-off on the ultimately achievable estimation precision for the whole set of parameters; for example if one restricts to qubits one obtains that 0 ≤ Υ( λ , Π) ≤ 1. This problem has been extensively studied both in the context of estimation of unitary operations [60,61] and of estimation of phase and phase-diffusion [62][63][64]. It is important to remark that in cases where the econding of the parameters E λ is fixed and one can optimize over the possible input probe states 0 , such that λ = E λ ( 0 ), the results of the optimization for different figures of merit such as Υ( λ , Π) or Tr[W V] will in general give different results: different probe states will in fact yield different SLD-QFI matrices Q(λ), and while Υ( λ , Π) maximizes the joint optimal estimability at fixed Q(λ), the quantity Tr[W V] maximizes the overall (weighted) precision for the parameters λ.…”
Section: Scalar Quantum Cramér-rao Boundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under certain regularity assumptions, the QFI matrix encodes the ultimate precision bounds on the estimation of unknown parameters encoded in a density matrix (know as quantum Cramer-Rao bounds), while the SLDs and their commutators determine whether such bounds may be saturated with physically realizable measurements [5,6]. The associated applications are plenty, including phase and frequency estimation [4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], estimation of noise parameters [18][19][20][21][22][23], joint estimation of unitary and/or noisy parameters [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], sub-wavelength resolution of optical sources [32][33][34][35][36][37][38], nano-scale thermometry [39][40][41][42][43][44][45], and estimation of Hamiltonian parameters in the presence of phase-transitions [46][47][48]. The most common approach for ...…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to better study the trade-o in simultaneous estimation of quantum parameters, the following gure of merit has been introduced and studied in detail [9,13,34,35]:…”
Section: Multi-parameter Quantum Estimation Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to violate this inequality one is then left with two possible options: either consider non-separable (entangling) measurements, as suggested above and investigated in [34], or to consider states de ned in a larger Hilbert space [7], as, for instance, correlated two-qubit probes that we will consider in the following.…”
Section: Multi-parameter Quantum Estimation Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%