Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

Achieving the Heisenberg limit using fault-tolerant quantum error correction

arXiv
Authors: Himanshu Sahu, Qian Xu, Sisi Zhou

Year

2026

Paper ID

4047

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

174

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Quantum effect enables enhanced estimation precision in metrology, with the Heisenberg limit (HL) representing the ultimate limit allowed by quantum mechanics. Although the HL is generally unattainable in the presence of noise, quantum error correction (QEC) can recover the HL in various scenarios. A notable example is estimating a Pauli-$Z$ signal under bit-flip noise using the repetition code, which is both optimal for metrology and robust against noise. However, previous protocols often assume noise affects only the signal accumulation step, while the QEC operations - including state preparation and measurement - are noiseless. To overcome this limitation, we study fault-tolerant quantum metrology where all qubit operations are subject to noise. We focus on estimating a Pauli-$Z$ signal under bit-flip noise, together with state preparation and measurement errors in all QEC operations. We propose a fault-tolerant metrological protocol where a repetition code is prepared via repeated syndrome measurements, followed by a fault-tolerant logical measurement. We demonstrate the existence of an error threshold, below which errors are effectively suppressed and the HL is attained.

Paper Tools

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Compare Add to Reading List

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 Submit

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #4047

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.