Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

Ziv-Zakai Error Bounds for Quantum Parameter Estimation

arXiv
Authors: Mankei Tsang

Year

2011

Paper ID

29728

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

121

Citations

N/A

Abstract

I propose quantum versions of the Ziv-Zakai bounds as alternatives to the widely used quantum Cramér-Rao bounds for quantum parameter estimation. From a simple form of the proposed bounds, I derive both a "Heisenberg" error limit that scales with the average energy and a limit similar to the quantum Cramér-Rao bound that scales with the energy variance. These results are further illustrated by applying the bound to a few examples of optical phase estimation, which show that a quantum Ziv-Zakai bound can be much higher and thus tighter than a quantum Cramér-Rao bound for states with highly non-Gaussian photon-number statistics in certain regimes and also stay close to the latter where the latter is expected to be tight.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • I propose quantum versions of the Ziv-Zakai bounds as alternatives to the widely used quantum Cramér-Rao bounds for quantum parameter estimation.

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #29728 #69983 Spectral Leakage and Masking Ef... #69982 Dimensionality Reduction of QAO... #69981 A Hybrid Quantum-Classical Appr... #69980 Complexity Inequalities for Qua...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.