- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Extending the dynamic range in quantum frequency estimation with sequential weak measurements

Su Direkci1,*, Manuel Endres1, and Tuvia Gefen2

  • *Contact author: sdirekci@caltech.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, L022046 – Published 10 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/2hyn-cqlq

Abstract

Quantum metrology explores optimal quantum protocols for parameter estimation. In the context of optical atomic clocks, conventional protocols focus on optimal input states and measurements to achieve enhanced sensitivities. However, such protocols are typically limited by phase slip errors inflicted due to the decoherence of the local oscillator. Here, we study schemes to extend the dynamic range and overcome phase slip noise through weak measurements with ancilla qubits. Using coherent spin states, we find optimal weak measurements protocols: we identify optimal measurement strength for any given interrogation time and number of atoms. Then, we combine weak and projective measurements to construct a protocol that asymptotically saturates the noiseless precision limits and outperforms previously proposed methods for phase slip noise suppression.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (67)

  1. T. Rosenband and D. R. Leibrandt, Exponential scaling of clock stability with atom number, arXiv:1303.6357.
  2. R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, Quantum variational optimization of Ramsey interferometry and atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041045 (2021).
  3. C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Optimal metrology with programmable quantum sensors, Nature (London) 603, 604 (2022).
  4. S. Direkci, R. Finkelstein, M. Endres, and T. Gefen, Heisenberg-limited Bayesian phase estimation with low-depth digital quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 12, 31 (2026).
  5. Q. Liu, M. Xue, M. Radzihovsky, X. Li, D. V. Vasilyev, L.-N. Wu, and V. Vuletić, Enhancing dynamic range of sub-standard-quantum-limit measurements via quantum deamplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 040801 (2025).
  6. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  7. B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-free Heisenberg-limited phase estimation, Nature (London) 450, 393 (2007).
  8. M. de Burgh and S. Bartlett, Quantum methods for clock synchronization: Beating the standard quantum limit without entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042301 (2005).
  9. C. Han, Z. Ma, Y. Qiu, R. Fang, J. Wu, C. Zhan, M. Li, J. Huang, B. Lu, and C. Lee, Atomic clock locking with Bayesian quantum parameter estimation: Scheme and experiment, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 044058 (2024).
  10. H.-Y. Huang, Y. Tong, D. Fang, and Y. Su, Learning many-body Hamiltonians with Heisenberg-limited scaling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200403 (2023).
  11. B. Bloom, T. Nicholson, J. Williams, S. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, S. Bromley, and J. Ye, An optical lattice clock with accuracy and stability at the 10−18 level, Nature (London) 506, 71 (2014).
  12. A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015).
  13. E. Oelker, R. Hutson, C. Kennedy, L. Sonderhouse, T. Bothwell, A. Goban, D. Kedar, C. Sanner, J. Robinson, G. Marti, et al., Demonstration of 4.8×10−17 stability at 1s for two independent optical clocks, Nat. Photon. 13, 714 (2019).
  14. M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Seconds-scale coherence on an optical clock transition in a tweezer array, Science 366, 93 (2019).
  15. I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, A. L. Shaw, J. P. Covey, V. Schkolnik, T. H. Yoon, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, An atomic-array optical clock with single-atom readout, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041052 (2019).
  16. J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock ensembles at the 10−17 level, Nat. Phys. 20, 208 (2024).
  17. I. D. Leroux, N. Scharnhorst, S. Hannig, J. Kramer, L. Pelzer, M. Stepanova, and P. O. Schmidt, On-line estimation of local oscillator noise and optimisation of servo parameters in atomic clocks, Metrologia 54, 307 (2017).
  18. D. W. Berry, B. L. Higgins, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, How to perform the most accurate possible phase measurements, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052114 (2009).
  19. K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Bayesian quantum frequency estimation in presence of collective dephasing, New J. Phys. 16, 113002 (2014).
  20. M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, True precision limits in quantum metrology, New J. Phys. 17, 013010 (2015).
  21. E. M. Kessler, P. Kómár, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Heisenberg-limited atom clocks based on entangled qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190403 (2014).
  22. L. Pezzè and A. Smerzi, Heisenberg-limited noisy atomic clock using a hybrid coherent and squeezed state protocol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 210503 (2020).
  23. N. Shiga and M. Takeuchi, Locking the local oscillator phase to the atomic phase via weak measurement, New J. Phys. 14, 023034 (2012).
  24. J. Borregaard and A. S. Sørensen, Near-Heisenberg-limited atomic clocks in the presence of decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090801 (2013).
  25. A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, P. Scholl, T. H. Yoon, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Multi-ensemble metrology by programming local rotations with atom movements, Nat. Phys. 20, 195 (2024).
  26. R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Direkci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature (London) 634, 321 (2024).
  27. A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Darkwah Oppong, et al., Multi-qubit gates and Schrödinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature (London) 634, 315 (2024).
  28. P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, and W. Dür, Improved sensing with a single qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 170801 (2017).
  29. Extension to other forms of prior distributions is discussed in Ref. [30].
  30. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/2hyn-cqlq for more details, which includes Refs. [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].
  31. S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, United States, 1993).
  32. S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nat. Commun. 8, 14695 (2017).
  33. S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic theory of quantum channel estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 010343 (2021).
  34. F. Albarelli, M. A. Rossi, M. G. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, Ultimate limits for quantum magnetometry via time-continuous measurements, New J. Phys. 19, 123011 (2017).
  35. M. A. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy quantum metrology enhanced by continuous nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200505 (2020).
  36. W. Bowden, A. Vianello, I. R. Hill, M. Schioppo, and R. Hobson, Improving the Q factor of an optical atomic clock using quantum nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041052 (2020).
  37. T. Gefen, M. Khodas, L. P. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, and A. Retzker, Quantum spectroscopy of single spins assisted by a classical clock, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013844 (2018).
  38. K. S. Cujia, J. M. Boss, K. Herb, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Tracking the precession of single nuclear spins by weak measurements, Nature (London) 571, 230 (2019).
  39. M. Pfender, P. Wang, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, W. Yang, D. B. R. Dasari, P. Neumann, X.-Y. Pan, J. Isoya, R.-B. Liu, and J. Wrachtrup, High-resolution spectroscopy of single nuclear spins via sequential weak measurements, Nat. Commun. 10, 594 (2019).
  40. D. Cohen, T. Gefen, L. Ortiz, and A. Retzker, Achieving the ultimate precision limit with a weakly interacting quantum probe, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 83 (2020).
  41. B. Tratzmiller, Q. Chen, I. Schwartz, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Limited-control metrology approaching the Heisenberg limit without entanglement preparation, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032347 (2020).
  42. T. Ilias, Biasing quantum trajectories for enhanced sensing, Phys. Rev. A 111, 042432 (2025).
  43. Note that if we set τ=T, g=π/4, this protocol reduces to the standard Ramsey experiment.
  44. We ignore decoherence effects, such as amplitude damping. See Ref. [30] for a derivation.
  45. H. Cramer, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-9), Princeton Mathematical Series, Vol. 9 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946).
  46. C. Radhakrishna Rao, Selected Papers of C. R. Rao, edited by S. Gupta, J. K. Ghosh, S. K. Mitra, P. S. S. N. V. P. Rao, J. K. Grosh, A. C. Mukhopadhyay, and Y. R. Sarma (John Wiley & Sons, Nashville, TN, 1995).
  47. H. L. Van Trees, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, part I (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2004).
  48. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994).
  49. We observed numerically that the CFI is ω independent in the regime of interest, ωT≫1, ωτ<π/2.
  50. D. Rife and R. Boorstyn, Single tone parameter estimation from discrete-time observations, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 20, 591 (1974).
  51. A. Steinhardt and C. Bretherton, Thresholds in frequency estimation, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP’85 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Tampa, FL, USA, 1985), Vol. 10, pp. 1273–1276.
  52. L. Knockaert, The Barankin bound and threshold behavior in frequency estimation, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 45, 2398 (1997).
  53. S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, F. M. Stürner, T. Unden, G. Wolff, C. Müller, J. Scheuer, B. Naydenov, M. Markham, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, I. Schwarz, M. Plenio, A. Retzker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Submillihertz magnetic spectroscopy performed with a nanoscale quantum sensor, Science 356, 832 (2017).
  54. S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, D. Louzon, C. Osterkamp, N. Staudenmaier, J. Lang, M. Markham, A. Retzker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Optimal frequency measurements with quantum probes, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 55 (2021).
  55. J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, E. Payne, S. Direkci, S. M. Vermeulen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, L. McCuller, and Y. Chen, Bayesian frequency estimation at the fundamental quantum limit, arXiv:2507.02811.
  56. S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Fisher information and the quantum Cramér-Rao sensitivity limit of continuous measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170401 (2014).
  57. Y. Yang, V. Montenegro, and A. Bayat, Extractable information capacity in sequential measurements metrology, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043273 (2023).
  58. In the relevant regime of ωT≫1 and ωτ<π/2.
  59. We use the optimal Bayesian estimator [2, 4] for δωT<π, since the prior information is significant in this regime.
  60. Note that if we plot Δω̃ for larger T, the optimal g will fall into the strong backation regime, causing the transition from HS to a T scaling in the obtained precision.
  61. D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient information retrieval for sensing via continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031012 (2023).
  62. R. R. Allen, F. Machado, I. L. Chuang, H.-Y. Huang, and S. Choi, Quantum computing enhanced sensing, arXiv:2501.07625.
  63. Y. L. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Kołodyński, Quantum metrology with imperfect measurements, Nat. Commun. 13, 6971 (2022).
  64. S. Zhou, S. Michalakis, and T. Gefen, Optimal protocols for quantum metrology with noisy measurements, PRX Quantum 4, 040305 (2023).
  65. N. Carmel and N. Katz, Hybrid logical-physical qubit interaction as a post selection oracle, arXiv:2306.05027.
  66. Y. Ouyang, Robust projective measurements through measuring code-inspired observables, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 104 (2024).
  67. D. Su, sudirekci/Weak-Measurements-for-metrology: v1.0.0, Zenodo, 2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20337455.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, L022046– Published 10 June, 2026
  • Received 16 September 2025
  • Accepted 21 May 2026
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