CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 928Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Mechanics and Applications

General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology

Open access
Escher, B. M., de Matos Filho, R. L., Davidovich, L.·2011·Nature Physics
DOI 10.1038/nphys1958
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nphys1958

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With eq. (8) and the fact that the Fisher information obeys F ≤ N^2, the limit on the speed of evolution imposes the persistence of the standard scaling Δφ ∼ 1/√N no matter how weak the dephasing rate.

    “Then with eq. (8) and the fact that the Fisher information obeys F ≤ N 2 [34, 35], the limit on the speed of evolution imposes the persistence of the standard scaling D f ∼ 1 / √ N no matter how weak the dephasing rate.”

    From Quantum Speed Limits in Open System Dynamics (2013) · cites this paper as [35]

  • For dephasing, the CS method yields a bound that is exactly the same as the one derived by Escher et al. or by the CE method.

    “Most importantly, the above bound, is exactly the same as the one derived by Escher et al.40 or by the CE method, where the minimum in equation (19) corresponds to .”

    From The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology (2012) · cites this paper as [40]

  • For particular decoherence models, prior work rigorously showed that asymptotically with respect to N, even infinitesimally small noise turns Heisenberg scaling into standard scaling, so the quantum gain amounts to a constant factor improvement.

    “Unfortunately, both the theory29303132333435 and experiments3637 confirmed the fragility of the above schemes when noise sources such as decoherence are considered, and it has been rigorously shown for particular models that asymptotically with respect to N, even infinitesimally small noise turns HS into SS, so that the quantum gain amounts to a constant factor improvement383940.”

    From The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology (2012) · cites this paper as [40]

  • The CE method yields an optimal bound for the lossy interferometer, listed in Table 1, which is asymptotically equally tight to the best bounds known in the literature.

    “The optimal bound (see Table 1) corresponds to h with non-zero elements . This bound is asymptotically equally tight to the best bounds known in the literature383940, proving again that CE method despite its simplicity is able to provide powerful results in a straightforward manner.”

    From The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology (2012) · cites this paper as [40]

  • The minimization over purification method yields in principle a tight bound.

    “Even though the minimization over purification method40 yields in principle a tight bound, in practice there is no effective algorithm to find a global minimum, and the only way to convince oneself that one has achieved the global minimum is again to show that the theoretical lower bound on estimation uncertainty coincides with the performance of a particular estimation strategy.”

    From The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology (2012) · cites this paper as [40]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Escher, B. M., de Matos Filho, R. L., & Davidovich, L.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Escher, B. M.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Physics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-03-27
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
406-411
ISSN
  • 1745-2473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-2481
DOI
10.1038/nphys1958
OpenAlex
W2007948277
Cited by
928
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 30
FWCI
42.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature Physics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
quantum-enhanced sensing, noisy quantum systems, quantum Fisher information, dephasing, atomic spectroscopy, adaptive feedback, parameter estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review