Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Optimal Conventional Measurements for Quantum-Enhanced Interferometry

arXiv
Authors: Wei Zhong, Yixiao Huang, Xiaoguang Wang, Shi-Liang Zhu

Year

2016

Paper ID

42281

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

102

Citations

N/A

Abstract

A major obstacle to attain the fundamental precision limit of the phase estimation in an interferometry is the identification and implementation of the optimal measurement. Here we demonstrate that this can be accomplished by the use of three conventional measurements among interferometers with Bayesian estimation techniques. Conditions that hold for the precision limit to be attained with these measurements are obtained by explicitly calculating the Fisher information. Remarkably, these conditions are naturally satisfied in most interferometric experiments. We apply our results to an experiment of atomic spectroscopy and examine robustness of phase sensitivity for the two-axis counter-twisted state suffering from detection noise.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2016 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • A major obstacle to attain the fundamental precision limit of the phase estimation in an interferometry is the identification and implementation of the optimal measurement.

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 #42281

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.