Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Quantum measurement takes place at the interface between the quantum world and macroscopic reality. According to quantum mechanics, as soon as we observe a system, we actually perturb it, and such perturbation cannot be reduced to zero; instead, there is a fundamental limit given by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Quantum non-demolition (QND) is motivated to get as close as possible to this limit [1–3]. In QND measurement, a signal observable of the measured system is coupled to a readout observable of a probe system through an interaction, so that the information about the measured quantity can be obtained indirectly by the direct measurement of the readout observable. The key issue is to design the measurement scheme in which the back action noise is transferred to the other unmeasured conjugate observable without being coupled back to the quantity of interest. The QND measurement was studied in a variety of quantum systems, including mechanical oscillators [4,5], trapped ions [6,7], solid-state spin qubits [8,9], circuit quantum electrodynamics [10,11], and photons [12–14].
In the quantum optics community, Imoto
Interferometric measurements allow for highly sensitive detection of any small changes that induce an optical phase shift. Different kinds of quantum interferometers have been proposed for phase measurement [28–37]. The phase sensitivity of the SU(2) interferometer with coherent state input, such as the Michelson or Mach–Zehnder interferometer, is limited by the shot noise limit. When the unused port of the interferometer is fed with a squeezed state, the SU(2) interferometer can beat this limit [28]. In contrast to the SU(2) interferometer, the SU(1,1) nonlinear interferometer, which replaces the beam splitters in the SU(2) interferometer with nonlinear gain media, is a fundamentally different type of interferometric detector [29], in which quantum correlations are generated within the interferometer, and the phase sensitivity can, in principle, approach the Heisenberg limit.
Sign up for Photonics Research TOC. Get the latest issue of Photonics Research delivered right to you!Sign up now
Recently, using the coherent mixing of an optical wave and an atomic spin wave, the atom-light hybrid interferometer has been proposed and studied [38–44]. Similarly, there are two types of atom-light hybrid interferometers, which have also been demonstrated experimentally. One is an SU(2)-type atom-light hybrid interferometer [40], where the linear Raman processes (LRPs) replace the beam splitters in the SU(2) linear interferometer to realize linear superposition of the atomic wave and optical wave. The other is an SU(1,1)-type atom-light hybrid interferometer [41], where the nonlinear Raman processes (NRPs) realize the atomic wave and optical wave splitting and recombination. The atom-light hybrid interferometer has drawn considerable interest because it is sensitive to both optical and atomic phase shifts. Resorting to an AC-Stark effect for the atomic phase change, the atom-light hybrid interferometer can be applied to QND measurement of photon numbers [45,46]. Further developing methods to improve measurement procision is always desired for the innovation of interferometers.
In this paper, we present an SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer, which is a combination of SU(2)- and SU(1,1)-type atom-light hybrid interferometers. The AC-Stark effect encodes the photon number of the signal light onto a phase shift of the atomic spin wave, so that the problem of detecting photon numbers is translated into the problem of detecting the atomic phase shift. Thus we theoretically analyze the SNR of the interferometer for precision measurement of the phase shift to examine the performance of this scheme as a QND measurement. An ideal QND measurement can be verified by a perfect correlation between the signal light and the probe system [47]. Here we estimate the quality of QND measurement using the criteria in Ref. [47], and the condition for a perfect correlation is given. In the presence of losses, the measurement quality is reduced. However, we can adjust the gain parameter of the NRP in the readout stage to reduce the impact due to losses.
Our scheme can be thought of as inserting an SU(2)-type atom-light hybrid interferometer into one of the arms of the SU(1,1)-type atom-light hybrid interferometer. Compared to a conventional SU(1,1) interferometer, the number of phase-sensing particles is further increased due to input field . In the previous scheme [45], a strong stimulated Raman process could indeed be used to excite most of the atoms to the state to improve the number of phase-sensing particles. However, this will produce additional nonlinear effects and noise light fields [48–50]. Therefore, in the current scheme, first a spontaneous Raman process is used, and then an LRP is used to generate the Rabi-like superposition oscillation between light and the atom. By controlling the interaction time, more atoms can be prepared to the state to improve the number of phase-sensing particles and thus to enhance the QND measurement. Compared to previous works [45,46], the SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer can realize QND measurement of photon numbers with higher precision. Since the SU(2)-type and SU(1,1)-type atom-light hybrid interferometers [40,41] have been demonstrated experimentally, the SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer can be realized with current experimental conditions, and the corresponding experimental requirements are given in the Discussion section.
2. SU(1,1)-SU(2)-CONCATENATED ATOM–LIGHT HYBRID INTERFEROMETER
An SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer is shown in Fig. 1(a). The corresponding energy levels of the atom and optical frequencies for the formation of the SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer are given in Fig. 1(b), where the lower two energy states and are the hyperfine split ground states. The higher-energy state is the excited state. The strong pump field () and strong read field () couple transitions and , respectively. The process can be used to describe the linear and nonlinear splitting and recombination of the light field and spin wave, i.e., NRP and LRP.
Figure 1.(a) Schematic of QND measurement of photon number. The probe system consists of an SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom–light hybrid interferometer. In the SU(2) interferometer in the middle box, the LRP is utilized to realize the splitting and combination of the atomic spin wave and the optical wave.
In the case of undepleted read field approximation, the two-mode coupled Hamiltonian is written as [40]
Next, according to the above linear and nonlinear transforms, the output operators of the SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer are worked out as a function of the input operators with three steps: (1) state preparation; (2) SU(2) interferometer, and (3) readout. In the first step, we prepare the initial atomic spin wave and a correlated optical wave via NRP1. It can be described as
Next, the beam splitter in an SU(2) interferometer is provided by the LRP, which can split and mix the atomic spin wave and the optical wave coherently for interference. is a coherent state, and is an atomic collective excitation prepared by NRP1. The relationship between input and output in the SU(2) interferometer is given by
In the final step, the generated atomic spin wave of the SU(2) interferometer and the optical wave are combined to realize active correlation output readout via NRP2. It can be expressed as
And thus, the full input–output relation of the actively correlated atom-light hybrid interferometer is
3. QND MEASUREMENT OF PHOTON NUMBER
This new type interferometer in Section 2 can be used as a probe system for QND measurement. The schematic of QND measurement of a photon number is shown in Fig. 1(a); when the atom system of this new type interferometer is illuminated by the off-resonant signal light , the interaction between the atom and signal light will induce an atomic phase shift [51,52]:
In this QND measurement scheme, the photon number of the signal light is the QND observable, while the phase of the signal light is the conjugated observable. The quantum noise induced by the act of measurement is fed into the unmeasured conjugate observable of the signal light, where superscript denotes the signal light. The uncertainty of these two observables is limited by the Heisenberg relation [53]. That is, the QND measurement of the observable is accomplished at the expense of an uncertainty increase in its conjugate observable . By monitoring the atomic phase shift using this atom-light hybrid interferometer, we can determine the photon number of the signal light without destroying the photons. The phase shift of the atomic spin wave is the readout observable, which can be measured by homodyne detection. Next, we analyze the performance of this scheme as a QND measurement.
A. SNR Analysis
The QND measurement scheme that uses the AC-Stark effect is based on the precision measurement of the photon-induced atomic phase shift; thus, the SNR analysis is helpful to examine the performance of the QND measurement process. Given the homodyne detection, the SNR is defined as
To have single-photon resolution, we need AC-Stark coefficient . Compared to the traditional SU(2) interferometer [45], the required coefficient is smaller by a factor of . This is due to the method of active correlation output readout for the SU(2) interferometer [54], in which the SNR is greater than for the SU(2) interferometer by a factor of of NRP.
B. Quality Estimation
In QND measurement, the signal light is coupled to the probe system, and a subsequent readout measurement of the probe output is made to extract the information about the signal light without perturbing it. An ideal QND measurement requires a perfect correlation between the signal and the probe system. In practice, the probe output itself has fluctuation, which leads to a nonideal QND measurement. Thus the quality of the QND measurement scheme is worth studying. In this section, we estimate the quality using the criteria introduced by Holland
For brevity, we omit the subscript of . In the previous section, even if we assume the signal light is in a number state, which is the eigenstate of the photon number measurement process (), the probe output has fluctuation and does not yield a definite value. Here, for convenience, the signal light is set in a coherent state with photon number . We obtain
Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (19), the criteria can be written as
C. Optimized
Next, we investigate the effects of losses on the correlation coefficient in the presence of photon losses and atomic decoherence losses [43].
The loss of the two arms inside the SU(2) interferometer is called internal loss, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The loss at the output of SU(2) and the associated optical field is called external loss, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Two fictitious beam splitters are introduced to mimic the loss of photons into the environment, and then optical waves and experience losses as
Figure 2.Lossy interferometer model with (a) internal loss and (b) external loss.
We study the effect of losses under the condition of , , , and , with a small around . Considering losses, the terms of , , and in Eq. (20) are given by
In our scheme, the atomic spin wave stays in the atomic ensemble, while the optical field travels out of the atomic ensemble. Here, within the coherence time, the atomic collisional dephasing loss () is small, and then we set . The correlation coefficient as a function of and in the balanced case is shown in Fig. 3. It is shown that the reduction in the correlation coefficient increases as the loss increases, and that our scheme is more tolerant with the internal photon loss compared to the photon loss outside the SU(2) interferometer . The reason behind the phenomenon is that a large external photon loss affects the quantum correlation between the light wave and atomic spin wave, which destroys the active correlation output readout.
Figure 3.Correlation coefficient
In the unbalanced case (), we can adjust the gain ratio of the beam recombination process to reduce the reduction in correlation coefficient. The black line in Fig. 3 is labeled as , as a benchmark for comparison before and after optimization; here we set . The correlation coefficient in the area of the upper right corner and within the lines can be kept above 0.6. After optimizing , the correlation coefficient as a function of and can also be obtained, where the line with equal to 0.6 is denoted as . The contour lines of optimized as a function of and are shown in Fig. 4, where the position of (before optimization) and (after optimization) in the contour figure of the correlation coefficient versus transmission rates has changed. It is demonstrated that for a given by optimizing , the small area between and can still stay above 0.6. That is, within a certain loss range, can continue to beat the criteria (such as equal to after optimizing . The newly added area after optimization is divided into two parts: (1) ratio within the very small area above is less than one, and (2) ratio needs to be greater than one.
Figure 4.Contour line of optimized
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In our scheme, the spin wave prepared by the first NRP participates in the subsequent LRP and NRP, and additional operations are required within the coherence time of the spin wave compared to previous experimental works on atom-light interferometers [40,41]; therefore, the pulse width and intensity of the pump field () and the read field () should be properly arranged. Experimental consideration of the implementation of the scheme may be performed with a rubidium atomic vapor in a cell. The energy levels of the Rb atom are shown in Fig. 1(b), where states and are the two ground states from hyperfine splitting, and is the excited state . The signal field is far resonance with the transition by detuning [40]. The interaction between the atom and signal light will induce an atomic phase shift that is proportional to the photon number of the signal field. With a detuning 2 GHz and photon number of signal light , the AC-Stark coupling coefficient is rad per photon [45]. With a gain obtained by turning the pumping field intensity, to realize a perfect correlation, the theoretical requirement and should be satisfied. Since given , we choose . In the calculations, the photon numbers are much smaller than the number of atoms in the interaction region. Thus, the density of the atomic sample is by controlling the cell temperature. The signal light is turned on after the first linear Raman splitting process and turned off right before the second linear Raman mixing process. The pulse width of signal light should be short, and in this way, it will not affect the LRP for splitting and mixing the atomic and optical waves. Here we set the pulse width of signal field . To realize , the power of signal light is for wavelength with coherent time 100 . The mean photon number of field is given with of coherent time for wavelength . The requirement for the number of photons and can be met and be feasible in the experiment.
In conclusion, we have proposed an SU(1,1)-SU(2)-concatenated atom-light hybrid interferometer and used it for QND measurement of photon numbers via the AC-Stark effect. In the scheme, the atomic spin wave of the SU(2) interferometer is prepared via an NRP, and the output is detected with the method of active correlation output readout via another NRP. Benefiting from that, the SNR in the balanced case is improved by a factor of compared to the traditional SU(2) interferometer. The condition for a perfect correlation is given. The measurement quality is reduced in the presence of losses. We can adjust the gain parameter of the NRP in the readout stage to reduce the impact of losses. Moreover, the scheme is a multiarm interferometer, and it provides an option for the simultaneous estimation of more than two parameters with a wide range of applications, such as phase imaging [55], quantum sensing networks [56], and detection of vector fields [57].
References
[1] C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, M. Zimmermann. On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a quantum-mechanical oscillator. I. Issues of principle. Rev. Mod. Phys., 52, 341-392(1980).
[2] M. F. Bocko, R. Onofrio. On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a harmonic oscillator: experimental progress. Rev. Mod. Phys., 68, 755-799(1996).
[3] V. B. Braginsky, F. Y. Khalili. Quantum nondemolition measurements: the route from toys to tools. Rev. Mod. Phys., 68, 1-11(1996).
[4] F. Lecocq, J. B. Clark, R. W. Simmonds, J. Aumentado, J. D. Teufel. Quantum non-demolition measurement of a nonclassical state of a massive object. Phys. Rev. X, 5, 041037(2015).
[5] M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, A. Schliesser. Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion. Nature, 563, 53-58(2018).
[6] D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland. High-fidelity adaptive qubit detection through repetitive quantum non-demolition measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 120502(2007).
[7] F. Wolf, Y. Wan, J. C. Heip, F. Gebert, C. Shi, P. O. Schmidt. Non-destructive state detection for quantum logic spectroscopy of molecular ions. Nature, 530, 457-460(2016).
[8] M. Raha, S. Chen, C. M. Phenicie, S. Ourari, A. M. Dibos, J. D. Thompson. Optical quantum non-demolition measurement of a single rare earth ion qubit. Nat. Commun., 11, 1605(2020).
[9] X. Xue, B. D’Anjou, T. F. Watson, D. R. Ward, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, W. A. Coish, L. M. K. Vandersypen. Repetitive quantum non-demolition measurement and soft decoding of a silicon spin qubit. Phys. Rev. X, 10, 021006(2020).
[10] S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, E. Flurin, V. V. Ramasesh, K. B. Whaley, I. Siddiqi. Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables. Nature, 538, 491-494(2016).
[11] U. Vool, S. Shankar, S. O. Mundhada, N. Ofek, A. Narla, K. Sliwa, E. Zalys-Geller, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret. Continuous quantum non-demolition measurement of the transverse component of a qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 133601(2016).
[12] P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, J.-P. Poizat. Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics. Nature, 396, 537-542(1998).
[13] A. Reiserer, S. Ritter, G. Rempe. Non-destructive detection of an optical photon. Science, 342, 1349-1351(2013).
[14] S. Kono, K. Koshino, Y. Tabuchi, A. Noguchi, Y. Nakamura. Quantum non-demolition detection of an itinerant microwave photon. Nat. Phys., 14, 546-549(2018).
[15] N. Imoto, H. A. Haus, Y. Yamamoto. Quantum nondemolition measurement of the photon number via the optical Kerr effect. Phys. Rev. A, 32, 2287-2292(1985).
[16] M. J. Holland, D. F. Walls, P. Zoller. Quantum nondemolition measurements of photon number by atomic beam deflection. Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 1716-1719(1991).
[17] S. R. Friberg, S. Machida, Y. Yamamoto. Quantum-nondemolition measurement of the photon number of an optical soliton. Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 3165-3168(1992).
[18] K. Jacobs, P. Tombesi, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls. Quantum-nondemolition measurement of photon number using radiation pressure. Phys. Rev. A, 49, 1961-1966(1994).
[19] Y. Sakai, R. J. Hawkins, S. R. Friberg. Soliton-collision interferometer for the quantum nondemolition measurement of photon number: numerical results. Opt. Lett., 15, 239-241(1990).
[20] P. Kok, H. Lee, J. P. Dowling. Single-photon quantum-nondemolition detectors constructed with linear optics and projective measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 66, 063814(2002).
[21] C. C. Gerry, T. Bui. Quantum non-demolition measurement of photon number using weak nonlinearities. Phys. Lett. A, 372, 7101-7104(2008).
[22] W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, R. G. Beausoleil, T. P. Spiller. High-efficiency quantum-nondemolition single-photonnumber-resolving detector. Phys. Rev. A, 71, 033819(2005).
[23] G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche. Seeing a single photon without destroying it. Nature, 400, 239-242(1999).
[24] Y. F. Xiao, S. K. Ozdemir, V. Gaddam, C. H. Dong, N. Imoto, L. Yang. Quantum nondemolition measurement of photon number via optical Kerr effect in an ultra-high-
[25] M. Ludwig, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, O. Painter, F. Marquardt. Enhanced quantum nonlinearities in a two-mode optomechanical system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 063601(2012).
[26] D. Malz, J. I. Cirac. Nondestructive photon counting in waveguide QED. Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 033091(2020).
[27] J. Liu, H. T. Chen, D. Segal. Quantum nondemolition photon counting with a hybrid electromechanical probe. Phys. Rev. A, 102, 061501(2020).
[28] C. M. Caves. Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer. Phys. Rev. D, 23, 1693-1708(1981).
[29] B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, J. R. Klauder. SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers. Phys. Rev. A, 33, 4033-4054(1986).
[30] L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi. Mach-Zehnder interferometry at the Heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 073601(2008).
[31] J. P. Dowling. Quantum optical metrology-the lowdown on high-N00N states. Contemp. Phys., 49, 125-143(2008).
[32] F. Hudelist, J. Kong, C. Liu, J. Jing, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers. Nat. Commun., 5, 3049(2014).
[33] D. Li, B. T. Gard, Y. Gao, C.-H. Yuan, W. Zhang, H. Lee, J. P. Dowling. Phase sensitivity at the Heisenberg limit in an SU(1,1) interferometer via parity detection. Phys. Rev. A, 94, 063840(2016).
[34] B. E. Anderson, P. Gupta, B. L. Schmittberger, T. Horrom, C. Hermann-Avigliano, K. M. Jones, P. D. Lett. Phase sensing beyond the standard quantum limit with a variation on the SU(1,1) interferometer. Optica, 4, 752-756(2017).
[35] M. Manceau, G. Leuchs, F. Khalili, M. Chekhova. Detection loss tolerant supersensitive phase measurement with an SU(1,1) interferometer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 223604(2017).
[36] W. Du, J. Kong, G. Bao, P. Yang, J. Jia, S. Ming, C.-H. Yuan, J. F. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, M. W. Mitchell, W. Zhang. SU(2)-in-SU(1,1) nested interferometer for high sensitivity, loss-tolerant quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 033601(2022).
[37] K. Zheng, M. Mi, B. Wang, L. Xu, L. Hu, S. Liu, Y. Lou, J. Jing, L. Zhang. Quantum-enhanced stochastic phase estimation with the SU(1,1) interferometer. Photon. Res., 8, 1653-1661(2020).
[38] J. Jacobson, G. Björk, Y. Yamamoto. Quantum limit for the atom-light interferometer. Appl. Phys. B, 60, 187-191(1995).
[39] G. Campbell, M. Hosseini, B. M. Sparkes, P. K. Lam, B. C. Buchler. Time-and frequency-domain polariton interference. New J. Phys., 14, 033022(2012).
[40] C. Qiu, S. Chen, L. Q. Chen, B. Chen, J. Guo, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. Atom-light superposition oscillation and Ramsey-like atom-light interferometer. Optica, 3, 775-780(2016).
[41] B. Chen, C. Qiu, S. Chen, J. Guo, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. Atom-light hybrid interferometer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 043602(2015).
[42] H.-M. Ma, D. Li, C.-H. Yuan, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. SU(1,1)-type light-atom-correlated interferometer. Phys. Rev. A, 92, 023847(2015).
[43] Z.-D. Chen, C.-H. Yuan, H.-M. Ma, D. Li, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. Effects of losses in the atom-light hybrid SU(1,1) interferometer. Opt. Express, 24, 17766-17778(2016).
[44] S. S. Szigeti, R. J. Lewis-Swan, S. A. Haine. Pumped-up SU(1,1) interferometry. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 150401(2017).
[45] S. Y. Chen, L. Q. Chen, Z. Y. Ou, W. Zhang. Quantum non-demolition measurement of photon number with atom-light interferometers. Opt. Express, 25, 31827-31839(2017).
[46] D. H. Fan, S. Y. Chen, Z. F. Yu, K. Zhang, L. Q. Chen. Quality estimation of non-demolition measurement with lossy atom-light hybrid interferometers. Opt. Express, 28, 9875-9884(2020).
[47] M. J. Holland, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls, M. D. Levenson. Nonideal quantum nondemolition measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 42, 2995-3005(1990).
[48] M. Dabrowski, R. Chrapkiewicz, W. Wasilewski. Hamiltonian design in readout from room-temperature Raman atomic memory. Opt. Express, 22, 26076-26091(2014).
[49] J. Nunn, J. H. D. Munns, S. Thomas, K. T. Kaczmarek, C. Qiu, A. Feizpour, E. Poem, B. Brecht, D. J. Saunders, P. M. Ledingham, D. V. Reddy, M. G. Raymer, I. A. Walmsley. Theory of noise suppression in Λ-type quantum memories by means of a cavity. Phys. Rev. A, 96, 012338(2017).
[50] S. E. Thomas, T. M. Hird, J. H. D. Munns, B. Brecht, D. J. Saunders. Raman quantum memory with built-in suppression of four-wave-mixing noise. Phys. Rev. A, 100, 033801(2019).
[51] S. H. Autler, C. H. Townes. Stark effect in rapidly varying fields. Phys. Rev., 100, 703-722(1955).
[52] K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, E. S. Polzik. Quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles. Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 1041-1093(2010).
[53] W. Heitler. The Quantum Theory of Radiation(1954).
[54] G.-F. Jiao, K. Zhang, L. Q. Chen, W. Zhang, C.-H. Yuan. Nonlinear phase estimation enhanced by an actively correlated Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Phys. Rev. A, 102, 033520(2020).
[55] M. Tsang. Quantum imaging beyond the diffraction limit by optical centroid measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 253601(2009).
[56] T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, J. A. Dunningham. Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 080501(2018).
[57] T. Baumgratz, A. Datta. Quantum enhanced estimation of a multidimensional field. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 030801(2016).
Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address