Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Metrological Sensitivity beyond Gaussian Limits with Cubic Phase States
arXiv
Authors: Jiajie Guo, Shuheng Liu, Boxuan Jing, Qiongyi He, Manuel Gessner
Year
2025
Paper ID
16258
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
97
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Cubic phase states provide the essential non-Gaussian resource for continuous-variable quantum computing. We show that they also offer significant potential for quantum metrology, surpassing the phase-sensing sensitivity of all Gaussian states at equal average photon number. Optimal sensitivity requires only moderate initial squeezing, and the non-Gaussian advantage remains robust against loss and detection noise. We identify optimal measurement strategies and show that several experimentally relevant preparation schemes surpass Gaussian limits, in some cases reaching the sensitivity of cubic phase states. Our results establish cubic phase states as a promising resource for quantum-enhanced precision measurements beyond Gaussian limits.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Cubic phase states provide the essential non-Gaussian resource for continuous-variable quantum computing.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.