- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

First-principles construction of symmetry-informed quantum metrologies

Jesús Rubio*

  • *Contact author: j.rubiojimenez@surrey.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 110, L030401 – Published 3 September, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.L030401

Abstract

Combining quantum and Bayesian principles leads to optimality in metrology, but the optimization equations involved are often hard to solve. This Letter mitigates this problem with a class of measurement strategies for quantities isomorphic to location parameters, which are shown to admit a closed-form optimization. The resulting framework admits any parameter range, prior information, or state, and the associated estimators apply to finite samples. As an example, the metrology of relative weights is formulated from first principles and shown to require hyperbolic errors. The primary advantage of this approach lies in its simplifying power: it reduces the search for good strategies to identifying which symmetry leaves a state of maximum ignorance invariant. This will facilitate the application of quantum metrology to fundamental physics, where symmetries play a key role.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (71)

  1. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński, Quantum limits in optical interferometry, Prog. Opt. 60, 345 (2015).
  2. W. Górecki, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, H. M. Wiseman, and D. W. Berry, π-corrected Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 030501 (2020).
  3. J. Sahota and N. Quesada, Quantum correlations in optical metrology: Heisenberg-limited phase estimation without mode entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013808 (2015).
  4. T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 080501 (2018).
  5. D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum-enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018).
  6. J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Niroula, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Protocols for estimating multiple functions with quantum sensor networks: Geometry and performance, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033011 (2021).
  7. A. Luis and J. Peřina, Optimum phase-shift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4564 (1996).
  8. C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  9. J. Lough, E. Schreiber, F. Bergamin, H. Grote, M. Mehmet, H. Vahlbruch, C. Affeldt, M. Brinkmann, A. Bisht, V. Kringel, H. Lück, N. Mukund, S. Nadji, B. Sorazu, K. Strain, M. Weinert, and K. Danzmann, First demonstration of 6 dB quantum noise reduction in a kilometer scale gravitational wave observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041102 (2021).
  10. J. Heinze, K. Danzmann, B. Willke, and H. Vahlbruch, 10 dB quantum-enhanced michelson interferometer with balanced homodyne detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 031101 (2022).
  11. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  12. S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016).
  13. A. Belenchia, M. Carlesso, O. Bayraktar, D. Dequal, I. Derkach, G. Gasbarri, W. Herr, Y. L. Li, M. Rademacher, J. Sidhu, D. K. Oi, S. T. Seidel, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Marquardt, H. Ulbricht, V. C. Usenko, L. Wörner, A. Xuereb, M. Paternostro, and A. Bassi, Quantum physics in space, Phys. Rep. 951, 1 (2022).
  14. T. M. Stace, Quantum limits of thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 82, 011611(R) (2010).
  15. M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermometry in the quantum regime: Recent theoretical progress, J. Phys. A 52, 303001 (2019).
  16. J. Rubio, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Global quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 190402 (2021).
  17. M. Mehboudi, M. R. Jørgensen, S. Seah, J. B. Brask, J. Kołodyński, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Fundamental limits in Bayesian thermometry and attainability via adaptive strategies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 130502 (2022).
  18. M. D. Vidrighin, G. Donati, M. G. Genoni, X.-M. Jin, W. S. Kolthammer, M. S. Kim, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion for quantum metrology, Nat. Commun. 5, 3532 (2014).
  19. D. Branford, C. N. Gagatsos, J. Grover, A. J. Hickey, and A. Datta, Quantum enhanced estimation of diffusion, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022129 (2019).
  20. E. T. Jaynes, Prior probabilities, IEEE Trans. Cybern. 4, 227 (1968).
  21. H. B. Prosper, Temperature fluctuations in a heat bath., Am. J. Phys. 61, 54 (1993).
  22. J. Rubio, Quantum scale estimation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 015009 (2023).
  23. A. Lumino, E. Polino, A. S. Rab, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, N. Wiebe, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental phase estimation enhanced by machine learning, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 044033 (2018).
  24. J. Rubio and J. A. Dunningham, Quantum metrology in the presence of limited data, New J. Phys. 21, 043037 (2019).
  25. S. Morelli, A. Usui, E. Agudelo, and N. Friis, Bayesian parameter estimation using Gaussian states and measurements, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025018 (2021).
  26. J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. S. França, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, Quantum metrology in the finite-sample regime, arXiv:2307.06370.
  27. J. Glatthard, J. Rubio, R. Sawant, T. Hewitt, G. Barontini, and L. A. Correa, Optimal cold atom thermometry using adaptive Bayesian strategies, PRX Quantum 3, 040330 (2022).
  28. E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge University, New York, 2003).
  29. W. v. d. Linden, V. Dose, and U. v. Toussaint, Bayesian Probability Theory: Applications in the Physical Sciences (Cambridge University, New York, 2014).
  30. A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (Springer, New York, 2011).
  31. G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi, Optimal estimation of group transformations using entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042338 (2005).
  32. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Optimal phase estimation with arbitrary a priori knowledge, Phys. Rev. A 83, 061802(R) (2011).
  33. G. Chesi, A. Riccardi, R. Rubboli, L. Maccone, and C. Macchiavello, Protocol for global multiphase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012613 (2023).
  34. S. Personick, Application of quantum estimation theory to analog communication over quantum channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 17, 240 (1971).
  35. B.-G. Englert, On quantum theory, Eur. Phys. J. D 67, 238 (2013).
  36. P. J. D. Crowley, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Tradeoff in simultaneous quantum-limited phase and loss estimation in interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023845 (2014).
  37. M. G. Genoni, P. Giorda, and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal estimation of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032303 (2008).
  38. M. Tsang, Ziv-Zakai error bounds for quantum parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230401 (2012).
  39. X.-M. Lu and M. Tsang, Quantum Weiss-Weinstein bounds for quantum metrology, Quantum Sci. Technol. 1, 015002 (2016).
  40. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, W. Górecki, and M. Guţă, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher information, J. Phys. A 53, 363001 (2020).
  41. J. Suzuki, Bayesian Nagaoka-Hayashi bound for multiparameter quantum-state estimation problem, IEICE Trans. Fundamentals 107, 510 (2024).
  42. S. Chang, W. Ye, X. Rao, H. Zhang, L. Huang, M. Luo, Y. Chen, Q. Ma, and S. Gao, Global quantum thermometry based on the optimal biased bound, arXiv:2305.08397.
  43. Despite the extensive use of Cramér-Rao bounds in metrology [1, 44], their saturation requires either exponential family distributions or locally unbiased estimators in narrow parameter ranges. Even if we only approach these bounds, an asymptotically large number of measurements is generally needed. This contrasts with the universal applicability of Bayesian techniques, which are particularly useful in experimental configurations with broad prior ranges, finite samples, and distributions that do not belong to the exponential family [23, 24, 25, 26]. While Bayesian estimators are often “biased” as per the notion of unbiasedness of frequentist estimation [67, 71], this bears no relevance for Bayesian frameworks where estimator optimality is established by the direct minimization of a suitable uncertainty quantifier. Moreover, the bias of an estimator is defined with respect to the mean square error, while this Letter introduces other error types for which such a definition ceases to apply.
  44. C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic, New York, 1976).
  45. K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Bayesian quantum frequency estimation in presence of collective dephasing, New J. Phys. 16, 113002 (2014).
  46. K. Chabuda, I. D. Leroux, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, The quantum Allan variance, New J. Phys. 18, 083035 (2016).
  47. J. Rubio and J. Dunningham, Bayesian multiparameter quantum metrology with limited data, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032114 (2020).
  48. J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum parameter estimation, AVS Quantum Sci. 2, 014701 (2020).
  49. M. Sasaki, M. Ban, and S. M. Barnett, Optimal parameter estimation of a depolarizing channel, Phys. Rev. A 66, 022308 (2002).
  50. X.-B. Wang, T. Hiroshima, A. Tomita, and M. Hayashi, Quantum information with Gaussian states, Phys. Rep. 448, 1 (2007).
  51. M. Ban, Bayes cost of parameter estimation for a quantum system interacting with an environment, Quantum Info. Proc. 15, 2213 (2016).
  52. P. Mazurek, M. Horodecki, Ł. Czekaj, and P. Horodecki, Sharp transitions in low-number quantum dots Bayesian magnetometry, Sci. Rep. 6, 34327 (2016).
  53. P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, and W. Dür, Improved sensing with a single qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 170801 (2017).
  54. J. Z. Bernád, C. Sanavio, and A. Xuereb, Optimal estimation of the optomechanical coupling strength, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063821 (2018).
  55. R. Nichols, L. Mineh, J. Rubio, J. C. F. Matthews, and P. A. Knott, Designing quantum experiments with a genetic algorithm, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 045012 (2019).
  56. M. Rexiti and S. Mancini, Adversarial versus cooperative quantum estimation, Quantum Info. Proc. 18, 102 (2019).
  57. D. Branford and J. Rubio, Average number is an insufficient metric for interferometry, New J. Phys. 23, 123041 (2021).
  58. M. Fanizza, M. Rosati, M. Skotiniotis, J. Calsamiglia, and V. Giovannetti, Beyond the swap test: Optimal estimation of quantum state overlap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 060503 (2020).
  59. K. K. Lee, C. N. Gagatsos, S. Guha, and A. Ashok, Quantum-inspired multi-parameter adaptive Bayesian estimation for sensing and imaging, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 17, 491 (2023).
  60. B. Zhou, B. A. Bash, S. Guha, and C. N. Gagatsos, Bayesian minimum mean square error for transmissivity sensing, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043033 (2023).
  61. B. Zhou, S. Guha, and C. N. Gagatsos, Bayesian quantum phase estimation with fixed photon states, arXiv:2308.01293.
  62. J. Bavaresco, P. Lipka-Bartosik, P. Sekatski, and M. Mehboudi, Designing optimal protocols in Bayesian quantum parameter estimation with higher-order operations, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023305 (2024).
  63. S. Pressé, K. Ghosh, J. Lee, and K. A. Dill, Principles of maximum entropy and maximum caliber in statistical physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1115 (2013).
  64. A. J. Hayes, S. Dooley, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and J. Dunningham, Making the most of time in quantum metrology: Concurrent state preparation and sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 035007 (2018).
  65. J. B. S. Haldane, A note on inverse probability, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 28, 55 (1932).
  66. R. G. F. Tuyl and K. Mengersen, A comparison of Bayes–Laplace, Jeffreys, and other priors, Am. Stat. 62, 40 (2008).
  67. D. Brivio, S. Cialdi, S. Vezzoli, B. T. Gebrehiwot, M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Experimental estimation of one-parameter qubit gates in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012305 (2010).
  68. M. R. Jørgensen, J. Kołodyński, M. Mehboudi, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and J. B. Brask, Bayesian quantum thermometry based on thermodynamic length, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042601 (2022).
  69. A. Bassi, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello, S. DellAgnello, E. Diamanti, D. Giulini, L. Iess, P. Jetzer, S. Joshi, A. Landragin et al., A way forward for fundamental physics in space, npj Microgravity 8, 49 (2022).
  70. N. Sherrill, A. O. Parsons, C. F. A. Baynham, W. Bowden, E. A. Curtis, R. Hendricks, I. R. Hill, R. Hobson, H. S. Margolis, B. I. Robertson, M. Schioppo, K. Szymaniec, A. Tofful, J. Tunesi, R. M. Godun, and X. Calmet, Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain variations of fundamental constants, New J. Phys. 25, 093012 (2023).
  71. B. Teklu, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Bayesian estimation of one-parameter qubit gates, J. Phys. B 42, 035502 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 110, L030401– Published 3 September, 2024
  • Received 8 March 2024
  • Accepted 13 August 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation