Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal quantum measurements for estimating different unknown parameters in a parameterized quantum state are usually incompatible with each other. Traditional approaches to addressing the measurement incompatibility issue, such as the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound, suffer from multiple difficulties toward practical applicability, as the optimal measurement strategies are usually state-dependent, difficult to implement and also take complex analyses to determine. Here we study randomized measurements as an approach for multiparameter quantum metrology. We show quantum measurements on single copies of quantum states given by <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <a:mn>3</a:mn> </a:math> -designs perform near-optimally when estimating an arbitrary number of parameters in pure states and more generally, approximately low-rank well-conditioned states, whose metrological information is largely concentrated in a low-dimensional subspace. The near-optimality is also shown in estimating the maximal number of parameters for three types of mixed states that are well conditioned on their supports. Examples of fidelity estimation and Hamiltonian estimation are explicitly provided to demonstrate the power and limitation of randomized measurements in multiparameter quantum metrology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".