Arxiv:1907.06628V2 [Quant-Ph] 19 Sep 2019 We Want to Measure

A Geometric Perspective on Quantum Parameter Estimation Jasminder S. Sidhu1, a) and Pieter Kok1, b) Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom. (Dated: 20 September 2019) Quantum metrology holds the promise of an early practical application of quantum technologies, in which measurements of physical quantities can be made with much greater precision than what is achievable with classical technologies. In this review, we collect some of the key theoretical results in quantum parameter estimation by presenting the theory for the quantum estimation of a single parameter, multiple parameters, and optical estimation using Gaussian states. We give an overview of results in areas of current research interest, such as Bayesian quantum estimation, noisy quantum metrology, and distributed quantum sensing. We address the question how minimum measurement errors can be achieved using entanglement as well as more general quantum states. This review is presented from a geometric perspective. This has the advantage that it unifies a wide variety of estimation procedures and strategies, thus providing a more intuitive big picture of quantum parameter estimation.

CONTENTS VI. Special cases of quantum estimation 25 A. Estimation using Gaussian states 25 I. Introduction 1 B. Hamiltonians with non-multiplicative factors 27

II. Classical estimation theory 2 VII. Noisy quantum metrology 28 A. Fundamentals of estimation theory3 A. Metrology in noisy quantum channels 28 B. Expectation values and covariance3 B. Ancilla-assisted schemes and channel C. Bounds on the covariance matrix4 estimation 30 D. The Cramér-Rao bound5 C. Fault-tolerant metrology 31

III. Geometry of estimation theory 6 VIII. Distributed quantum sensing 31 A. The probability simplex6 A. Framework for distributed sensing 32 B. The Fisher-Rao metric and statistical distance6 B. Estimating functions of parameters 33 C. Relative entropy7 IX. Conclusions and outlook 33 IV. Single parameter quantum estimation 8 A. Quantum model of precision measurements8 Acknowledgments 34 B. The quantum Fisher information8 C. Distance measures in quantum estimation 10 References 34 D. The Symmetric Logarithmic Derivative 10 E. The quantum Cramér-Rao bound 12 F. Biased Estimators 13 I. INTRODUCTION G. The role of entanglement 13 H. Non-entangling strategies 15 When we measure a physical quantity, we need to quantify the I. Optimal estimation strategies 15 error in that measurement, for example via the Mean Square J. Numerical approaches 16 Error (mse). The actual mse is hard to calculate directly, because it depends on the true unknown value of the quantity V. Multi-parameter quantum estimation 16

arXiv:1907.06628v2 [quant-ph] 19 Sep 2019 we want to measure. Remarkably, we can bound the mse such A. The quantum Fisher information matrix 16 that for any given experiment it cannot be smaller than a value B. The quantum Cramér-Rao bound 18 that we can calculate. In addition, we can establish general C. Saturating the quantum Cramér-Rao bound 18 conditions under which this bound can be saturated, i.e., the D. Simultaneous versus sequential estimation 19 minimum mse is in fact achieved. This is in broad strokes what E. The Right Logarithmic Derivative 21 parameter estimation theory is about. F. Kubo-Mori information 23 With the classical theory of parameter estimation well- G. Wigner-Yanase skew information 23 established in terms of the probability distribution of the ob- H. Bayesian quantum estimation theory 24 served data given the value of the physical quantity, we turn our attention to the space of probability distributions. Intu- itively, when probability distributions move a large distance in this space under a change in value of the physical quantity, a)Electronic mail: [email protected] our measurements can pick up this change more easily than b)Electronic mail: p.kok@sheﬃeld.ac.uk when the probability distribution moves hardly at all. This 2

estimation to the case where the evolution does not have a M h i simple phase-like unitary structure. The ﬁnal two sections are devoted to current areas of research interest, including Bayesian quantum estimation, noisy quantum metrology and some fault tolerant solutions, and distributed quantum sens- ∆M ∂ M α = arctan h∂θ i ing. Throughout this review, we aim to emphasise the bigger picture of quantum parameter estimation and how it very nat-

urally arises from a geometrical view of quantum states. To achieve this we have prioritised practical examples and intuition over mathematical rigour. Readers interested in the θ θ technical mathematical details are referred to the references, est and more mathematically inclined readers are referred to the ∆θ collection of selected papers on quantum statistical inference by Hayashi1. FIG. 1. We measure an observable M to obtain an estimate θest for a parameter of interest θ. We can relate the error ∆θ in the estimate to the standard deviation ∆M by relating the tangent at θest with angle α to the ratio between ∆M (red vertical line) and the error ∆θ. II. CLASSICAL ESTIMATION THEORY

In this section, we briefly review classical estimation theory. provides the link between measurement sensitivity (with cor- We introduce the expectation value and the variance between respondingly small mse) and distance functions in the space of the measured and the true value. We formulate a family of probabilities. Our task is to find a distance measure that allows generic lower bounds that constrain the variance of parameter us to make this link quantitative such that the distance measure estimates, culminating in the well-known Cramér-Rao bound. can be directly related to the mse. This gives us a metric in the For a general introduction to classical estimation theory, see space of probabilities, which is called the Fisher information. Kay (1993)2. We will review key properties of the Fisher information. Several features of estimation theory can be understood by The extension to quantum mechanics requires that we con- considering the following heuristic argument3: given a mea- sider density operators instead of classical probability distri- surement of the observable M whose outcomes depend on a butions. These operators also live in a linear vector space, parameter θ, we can associate an estimate and error to θ. The and we can again construct distance measures in the space that average value hMi over many measurements of M depends on connects the density operator to the minimal mse in a phys- θ, and the error formula can be obtained from Fig.1 as ical experiment. However, since the density operators have a richer structure than the classical probability distributions ∆M δθ = , (1) (e.g., allowing non-commutative operators), the correspond- |∂θ hMi| ing distance measures are also more complex. Based on the 2 2 1 choice of inner product in the space of density operators, dif- where ∂θ = ∂/∂θ, and ∆M = [hM i − hMi ] 2 is the standard ferent distance measures can be constructed that have subtly deviation in the measurement outcomes. The denominator different physical interpretations. The direct generalisation |∂θ hMi| can be viewed as a local correction in the units of δθ. of the Fisher information, the quantum Fisher information, is The steeper the tangent at θest, the more precise the estimate a well-studied quantity that provides an attainable bound for of θ at that point, i.e., the smaller δθ. On the other hand, the the estimation of a single parameter that is imprinted on the larger the standard deviation ∆M, the lower the precision. quantum state via a unitary evolution. When multiple pa- To illustrate the concepts of classical estimation theory, we rameters come into play, the picture complicates considerably use the example of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (mzi), il- due to the potential non-commutativity of the observables that lustrated in Fig.2. It can be used to make high precision mea- best estimate the individual parameters. Here, there are close surements of a relative phase difference between two beams of links to generalised uncertainty relations. Alternative met- light derived from some optical input state. This phase refer- rics can be more appropriate for different uses. For example, enced method has become a standard tool in estimation theory the Kubo-Mori information will be shown to have a particu- and has received considerable attention given its applications lar relevance when thermal states are considered, and when in enhanced phase estimations in optical interferometry4,5, fre- we are interested in the relation between parameter estimation quency measurements6,7, and biosensors8,9. and conserved quantities we may turn to the Wigner-Yanase Consider an experiment to estimate the relative phase dif- information. ference in the interferometer, where a single photon is sent Once we have established lower bounds for the error in the into one input mode of the mzi, and the two output modes are parameters, we consider how we can attain these bounds. For monitored with photodetectors. Each run of the experiment quantum estimation, entanglement plays an important, albeit provides two pieces of data x(1) and x(2) that measure the pho- subtle role. We review two important special cases in quantum ton counts in each detector, D1 and D2 respectively. Assuming estimation theory, namely estimation procedures using Gaus- no losses in the interferometer and ideal detectors, the prob- sian states in quantum optics, and the extension of quantum ability distribution function p(x(1), x(2)|θ) has the following 3

> θ x = (x1,..., xD) is formally addressed in parameter estima- aˆ tion theory. Here, > denotes the transpose. Owing to exper- ψ | ini imental uncertainties and errors, the inference of parameters ˆ b φ is related to the measurement outcomes through some conditional probability distribution p(θ|x) that constitutes a model of the physical system under consideration. The main question FIG. 2. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer, drawn with two evanes- is how well we can estimate these parameters. In other words, cently coupled 50:50 beam splitters. Here, ˆ and ˆ define two input a b what is the best possible precision that we can achieve? There modes. An optical path difference between the internal arms of the interferometer results in a relative phase difference. The objective is are generally two possibilities for θ: to estimate the relative phase θ = Φ − φ by measuring the photon intensities at the output using the photodetectors on the right. 1. θ are not random, but unknown; 2. θ are random and unknown. possible outcomes: In the first case we speak of Fisher estimation, while in the θ p(1, 1|θ) = 0, p(1, 0|θ) = sin2 , second case we have Bayesian estimation. An advantage of 2 using Bayesian methods is that they do not rely on asymp- 2 θ totics to provide optimal performance, a property not enjoyed p(0, 0|θ) = 0, p(0, 1|θ) = cos , (2) 11 2 by Fisher estimation . The optimal performance for both methods coincide in the large sample scenario12. Research with θ = Φ − φ the phase difference that we are interested in. efforts in quantum metrology and estimation theory have been If we count N1 photons in detector D1 and N2 in detector D2, dominated by work in the Fisher regime. To reflect this, we a suitable estimator for θ is focus our review mainly on the estimation of non-random pa- N − N rameters. The subtle difference between Fisher and Bayesian θˇ = arccos 1 2 , (3) N estimation will be covered in subsectionVH. Given that the probability density function (pdf) of the data where we denote the estimator of θ by θˇ (the notation ˆ· is p(x|θ) is known (i.e., we can model the physical process), the reserved for quantum mechanical operators). The estimator set of parameters θ may be extracted from a set of observation is a function of the data θˇ(x) and returns a value for θ.A data x via an estimator θˇ, which is a function of the observed generalisation of this to an N-photon Fock state in one arm data only. We will see that the estimators are also used to find of the mzi distributes the photons binomially over the output the estimation errors. modes10, with a more complicated corresponding estimator. An important estimator for a non-random θ is the maximum If we inject a classical coherent state with intensity I0 into one likelihood estimator mode and measure the intensities I1 and I2 in detectors D1 and D2, the estimator becomes θˇ(x) = arg max Pr(θ|x), (7) θ − ˇ I1 I2 θ = arccos , (4) where the likelihood function Pr(θ|x) is the probability of θ I0 being the true value given the data set x. This requires a model which is the continuous version of equation (3). for the process that gives us the probability Pr(θ|x). To calculate the precision of the measurement of θ in this While the true value of θ is an array of numbers, its estimates experiment, we use the error propagation formula in Eq. (1), are random variables. This is due to the probabilistic nature and the measurement operator is M = nˆ1 − nˆ2, with nˆ1 and nˆ2 of the data; two runs of an experiment with equal parameters the photon number operators for the output modes. Using the θ will not generate equal data due to statistical fluctuations: probability distribution in Eq. (2) we find that for N photons x1 , x2. Hence the estimates for both runs will differ from the sent into the interferometer actual values, and not be equal to each other. Given a very hMi = − cos θ and (∆M)2 = N sin2 θ . (5) large measurement data set, an estimator that generates the true values of the parameters is referred to as a perfect estimator. This yields a precision of In the next subsection, we introduce the covariance matrix as √ a natural measure of the performance of an estimator. N sin θ 1 δθ = = √ . (6) |N∂θ cos θ| N This is the so-called shot noise limit for interferometry. B. Expectation values and covariance

A natural figure of merit to quantify the performance of an A. Fundamentals of estimation theory estimator is the variance of a parameter estimate with respect to its true value. Hence, we can characterise the estimation The problem of estimating the value of a vector of pa- performance by searching for an estimator that has the small- > rameters θ = (θ1, . . ., θD) from a set of observed data est variance in parameter estimates. Although various other 4 methods to characterise the performance exist, this is a nat- For notational convenience we abbreviate Ex|θ by E for the ural choice that was first introduced by H. Cramér and C. R. remainder of this section. For a positive semi-definite matrix Rao13,14. In the remainder of this section we assume that the product XY we have that E[XY] ≥ 0. We choose measured data x is continuous without loss of generality. > For a multi-parameter estimation of θ, we may define the X = f − Ag and Y = X , (12) natural optimality criterion as the difference between the estimator and the true value of θ, ∆θ = θˇ − θ. However, since this with f a D-dimensional real vector of the same size as θ, g an relies directly on the unknown true value θ, it is often more R-dimensional real vector, and A an R× D matrix that depends convenient to define the variation in the estimates of θ as only on θ. We then find

E [ f (x, θ) − Ag(x, θ)][ f (x, θ) − Ag(x, θ)]> ≥ 0 . (13) δθˇ = θˇ − Ex|θ θˇ(x) , (8) where Since the expectation value is linear, we can expand this into ¹ E f f > − E f g> A> − E Ag f > + E Agg> A> ≥ 0, ˇ( ) ( | ) ˇ( ) Ex|θ θ x = dx Pr x θ θ x (9) (14) is the expectation value of the estimator θˇ(x) with respect to and extract the matrix A, which is a constant with respect to the probability distribution Pr(x|θ). When the estimator is the expectation: unbiased (i.e., there is no systematic error in the estimator), > > > > > > the expectation value approaches the true value and δθˇ reduces E f f ≥ E f g A + A E g f − A E gg A . (15) to ∆θ in the limit of large data sets. When we redefine We define the covariance matrix as > > > T = E f g and G = E gg , (16) Cov(θˇ) = Ex|θ δθˇ(x) δθˇ(x) > we arrive at = Ex|θ θˇ − Ex|θ θˇ θˇ − Ex|θ θˇ . (10) E f f > ≥ TA> + AT > − AGA> . (17) The covariance matrix depends on the parameters via the ex- > pectation value of the estimators. This is a bound on the expectation value of f f (which at The diagonal elements of the covariance matrix are the vari- this point can be anything that is consistent with the general definition of ), and to make the bound as tight as possible we ances of the different parameters θ j with j ∈ {1,..., D}. No- f tice that the estimator’s covariance is not the same as its mean must maximise the right-hand side of Eq. (17). square error matrix: Since T and G do not depend on x and θ (they are averaged over), we can choose A = TG−1 (where we require that the > > inverse of G exists; this places a restriction on g). This leads Ex|θ (∆θˇ)(∆θˇ) = Ex|θ (θˇ − θ)(θˇ − θ) (11) to the compact form = Cov[θˇ] + b(θˇ)2, E f f > ≥ TG−1T > . (18) where b(θˇ) = Ex|θ[θˇ(x)] − θ is the bias of the estimator. We see that the mean square error is equal to the variance if and Next we choose f = θˇ(x) − E[θˇ], so that E[ f f >] = Cov(θˇ) ˇ only if we have an unbiased estimator: b(θ j ) = 0. Unbiased and therefore estimators ensure that the average of the estimates converge to ˇ − > the true value of the parameter: hθi = θ. While we include the Cov(θˇ) ≥ TG 1T . (19) effect that biased estimators have on the estimation precision in subsectionIVF, we assume unbiased estimators for the rest This expression is valid for any estimator θˇ(x). The matrix G of the review. In the next subsection we define the expectation is called the information matrix. Different definitions of g (and value and covariance of estimators. thus G) will produce different bounds that may have various advantages (computational, tightness, etc.). The matrix G is the expectation of a projector gg> that may not be full rank C. Bounds on the covariance matrix (and therefore has no inverse). This typically happens when the estimator does not have enough degrees of freedom and It is typically not possible to calculate the exact values of the therefore cannot provide estimates of all parameters. covariance matrix. We can often only hope to place some For the above choice of f the T matrix becomes limits on the mse, the variance, and other quantities. In this h i section we will use the structure of the covariance matrix and T = E θˇ(x) − E[θˇ] g>(x, θ) arguments from information geometry to formulate generic ˇ > > bounds on the (elements of the) covariance matrix. = E θ(x)g (x, θ) − E θg (x, θ) . (20) 5

We restrict ourselves to choices of g that satisfy the condition a Maximum Likelihood estimator in the asymptotic regime of > Eθ |x[g (x, θ)] = 0. Therefore, the ﬁrst term in T becomes many independent samples. The Fisher information matrix is symmetric and positive, and it can be interpreted as the metric > > Ex,θ θˇ(x)g (x, θ) = Ex θˇ(x) Eθ |x g (x, θ) = 0 . (21) tensor in the parameter space. In particular, this means that when we re-parameterize the space and wish to estimate the As a result, the bounds on the covariance matrix are determined parameters ϑ = (ϑ1 . . ., ϑD), with ϑj (θ) some function of the by the estimator θˇ(x) and our choice of the function g(x, θ). original parameters θ, the corresponding transformed Fisher We can choose a variety of functions g to obtain diﬀerent information matrix becomes bounds, with the most famous choice of g leading to the Fisher information and the Cramér-Rao bound. > ∂θ j I(ϑ) = J I(θ)J and Jjk = , (28) ∂ϑk

D. The Cramér-Rao bound where J is the Jacobian of the parameter transformation. An important example for the Fisher information matrix is The choice for g(x, θ) we consider here is for a Gaussian (normal) distribution, which has a closed form2. Let the distribution be characterised by mean values µ(θ) and ∂ ln Pr(x|θ) g(x, θ) = , (22) covariance matrix Σ(θ): ∂θ 1 1 which requires that both the first and second derivative of ( | ) − ( − )>Σ−1( − ) Pr x θ = p exp x µ x µ . Pr(x|θ) exists, and is absolutely integrable. The function (2π)D det Σ 2 g(x, θ) is a natural choice in that it is additive for indepen- (29) dent samples due to the logarithm (since independent events multiply probabilities), and the derivative measures the rate The Fisher information matrix then takes the following closed of change of the probability distribution with respect to the form parameter of interest. The intuition is that a fast changing > probability distribution with θ will produce a clearer change ∂µ −1 ∂µ 1 −1 ∂Σ −1 ∂Σ [I(θ)]jk = Σ + Tr Σ Σ . (30) in measurement outcomes x as we vary θ. ∂θ j ∂θk 2 ∂θ j ∂θk As an example, we consider a single parameter θ such that g is a scalar function. Then we can evaluate T explicitly via Often, when estimating parameters there are several nui- partial integration: sance parameters that must also be estimated. We are not intrinsically interested in these parameters, but the estimators ∂ ln Pr(x|θ) T = Ex|θ θ = −1 . (23) of the parameters of interest depend on them. We can separate ∂θ the tuple of parameters θ into genuine and nuisance parameters, θ = (θg, θn). The Fisher information matrix can then be The information matrix G becomes written in block form: " 2# ∂ ln Pr(x|θ) G = E ≡ I(θ), (24) I(θg, θg) I(θg, θn) x|θ ∂θ I(θ) = . (31) I(θn, θg) I(θn, θn) which is better known as the Fisher information I(θ). The The crb is still given by the inverse of I, but now we can use classical Fisher information is generally dependent on θ. If we the inverse of a block matrix, have a model for the process under study, we can find Pr(x|θ) and calculate the classical Fisher information directly. The >−1 AD −1 variance in θ can then be bounded by P P = A − D>BD , (32) A DB A (δθ)2 ≥ I−1 . (25) where PA is the projection operator onto the subspace occupied This is the Cramér-Rao Bound (crb). It is saturated when by A, to establish how the nuisance parameters affect the crb:

∂ ln Pr(x|θ) −1 −1 θˇ(x) − θ = . (26) Cov(θˇ g) ≥ I(θg, θg) − I(θg, θn)I(θn, θn) I(θn, θg) . ∂θ (33) For a general D-parameter problem, the crb is a matrix inequality In other words, the nuisance parameters lower the Fisher information matrix compared to the Fisher information matrix [ (ˇ)] ≥ ( )−1 Cov θ ij I θ ij , (27) for the genuine parameters alone, as expected. There are other choices for the function g(x, θ) that lead to where the inequality means that Cov(θˇ) − I(θ)−1 is a positive diﬀerent bounds. For more details on classical and Bayesian semi-deﬁnite matrix. This bound is typically attainable using bounds, see Van Trees and Bell (2007)15. 6

changes dp and a metric h: p2 p2 2 Õ j k ds = hjk dp dp , (34) jk θ PB where we used contravariant elements for the probability in- PA p3 p3 crements and the covariant form of the metric. The metric p1 p1 tensor obeys

(a) The simplex. (b) Paths in the simplex. kl hjk h = δjl , (35) FIG. 3. Fig. 3a: the probability simplex where the measurement has where we use Einstein’s summation convention and where δ three outcomes with probabilities p , p , and p . Every probability jl 1 2 3 is the Kronecker delta. We have to derive a natural form for h. distribution is represented by a point in the simplex (PA and PB). Fig. 3b: θ parametrises a path through the probability simplex.

B. The Fisher-Rao metric and statistical distance

For this section, we follow the procedure in Bengtsson and III. GEOMETRY OF ESTIMATION THEORY ZÛ yczkowski18 to formulate an appropriate metric on the space of probability distributions. A similar procedure is taken by The Fisher information in Eq. (24) followed from our choice Kok and Lovett19. A natural scalar product on the simplex and of g(x, θ). In this section we will give an intuitive geomet- its dual space of classical random variables forms an expecta- ric derivation16,17 that will help us with the derivation of the tion value: quantum Fisher information in the next section. We relate Õ j parameter estimation to methods of distinguishing probability hAi = Aj p . (36) distributions, including the Fisher information and the relative j entropy. The correlation between two classical random variables A and B is then

Õ jk Õ j hABi = Aj Bk h = Aj Bj p . (37) A. The probability simplex j j

Using the relation in Eq. (35) we find that Any experiment used to infer a value of θ will return different measurement outcomes x = (x1,..., xD). Assuming that δjk hjk = , (38) different values of θ produce variations in the measurement pj outcomes (otherwise this particular measurement would not be useful in extracting a value of θ), we can posit a probability which leads to the so-called Fisher-Rao metric (fr) distribution Pr(x|θ), which may originate from some physical j j model. The problem of finding the value of θ is then reduced 2 Õ j k Õ dp dp ds = dp dp hjk = . (39) to telling the difference between two probability distributions FR p jk j j Pr(x|θ A) and Pr(x|θ B). In other words, how many times do we have to sample the system (i.e., what is D) in order to tell This defines the statistical distance between two probability the difference between Pr(x|θ A) and Pr(x|θ B)? distributions in the probability simplex. The generalisation of The probability distributions Pr(x|θ) form a space called a this metric for continuous probability density functions (pdf) probability simplex (see Fig.3 for a simple example). The can be written as18 probability distributions Pr(x|θ) for a single parameter θ typi- ¹ 1 ∂a p(x) ∂b p(x) cally form a curve through the simplex that is parametrised by h = dx , (40) ab (x) θ. In order to tell how many measurements we need to make in 4 Ω p order to distinguish two probability distributions on the curve where Ω defines a finite dimensional sub-manifold of the prob- a a we need some distance measure (a metric) on the simplex that ability simplex with coordinates θ , and ∂a ≡ ∂/∂θ . For sim- fits naturally with statistics. This metric can then be used to plicity we will mostly use the discrete form in the remainder tell how far away two distributions are from each other. In turn of this section. this will allow us to infer how many measurements we need The probability simplex with the fr metric exhibits strong to make to distinguish between the two distributions. In what curvature. Note that the statistical distance in Eq. (39) diverges θ follows we first specifically consider a single parameter for when one of the probabilities pj tends towards zero. This simplicity. gives us a clue how to interpret the distance between two In its general discrete form we can write the infinitesimal distributions: when the probability of one of the measurement distance ds on the simplex in terms of incremental probability outcomes is strictly zero, then obtaining that measurement 7

p2 which is strongly reminiscent of the Cramér-Rao bound. The diﬀerence is that δθ here is the segment of the path in the probability simplex, rather than the variance in the estimator of θ. Nevertheless, Eq. (45) is a powerful method for working out the number of measurements that are required to see a PA diﬀerence δθ in the data. Eq. (39) can also be re–expressed in a more convenient way p3 if we introduce a new coordinate system (x j )2 = pj . This p1 PB transforms the fr metric to the Euclidean metric:

2 Õ j j FIG. 4. The distance between probability distributions PA and PB ds = 4 dx dx . (47) diverges when one of them (B) lies on the hull of the simplex. j

The factor 4 can be absorbed in a change of units, but we choose to keep it here since it will reappear in the quantum extension outcome will allow us to infer with certainty that the system is later on. While in classical estimation√ theory the occurrence governed by the other probability distribution (see Fig.4). of (real) probability amplitudes xi = pi is something of a Next, we consider the displacement ds in the probability curiosity, in the quantum extension to estimation theory this simplex along a line element dθ. We can write allows us to construct the Fubini-Study metric20.

2 ds2 Õ 1 (dpj )2 Õ ∂ ln pj = = p . (41) θ2 j θ2 j ∂θ d j p d j C. Relative entropy Comparing this with Eq. (24) we see that this is the Fisher In addition to distance measures, probability distributions are information conveniently characterised by entropic functions. The Shan- ds 2 non entropy of a random variable P, I(θ) = , (42) dθ N Õ and in the case of continuous data sets S(P) = − pi log2 pi, (48) i=1 ¹ ∂ ln Pr(x|θ) 2 I(θ) = dx Pr(x|θ) . (43) measures the average amount of information in an event sam- ∂θ pled from a system described by the probability distribution Therefore, the Fisher information measures how fast the prob- pi. The units are bits, and in the remainder of this review, ability distribution changes along paths parametrised by θ. In logarithms are base 2, unless stated otherwise. order to tell the difference between two values θ and θ0 a To compare two probability distributions, we can make use higher Fisher information will be beneficial. We can think of of the Kullback-Leibler, or relative entropy the Fisher information I(θ) as the average amount of informa- N tion about θ in a single measurement. Õ pi For small finite distances induced by a shift δθ, and start- D(P k Q) = pi log . (49) qi ing at θ, we can express the statistical distance as a Taylor i=1 expansion While this is not a metric since it is not symmetric under ex- change of and , it remains sufficient as a distinguishability ds 2 pi qi s(θ + δθ) = s(θ) + δθ + O(δθ ) . (44) dθ measure between the two distributions. Eq. (49) describes the θ information gain when a prior distribution Q is updated to the p Defining δs = s(θ + δθ) − s(θ), we obtain δs = δθ I(θ) up posterior distribution P. to first order in δθ. We postulate that two probability distribu- A Taylor expansion to first order of the logarithmic term of tions are distinguishable after N measurements on independent the relative entropy in Eq. (49) yields identically prepared systems if the resulting distance crosses N some threshold α: Õ pi Õ dpi dpi D(P k P + dP) = pi ln ≈ . (50) pi + dpi 2pi Nδs2 ≥ α , (45) i=1 i where usually we set α = 1. We can eliminate δs from Eq. (45) The last term is identical to the statistical distance in Eq. (39) to obtain up to a factor two. The Fisher information must therefore be closely related to the relative entropy D in Eq. (49). Assuming 1 (δθ)2 ≥ , (46) that the two distributions in the relative entropy are connected NI(θ) by a curve θ, we may label the distributions by θ and θ 0. We 8

find that the Fisher information matrix can be approximated θ s by the second derivative of the relative entropy θˇν (s) 2 ! ∂ 0 N s [I(θ)]ij = D(θ k θ ) − ∂θ0∂θ0 i j θ0=θ ρ ˆ x ˇ ¹ ∂2 log Pr(x, θ) (0) Λ(θ) Π(x)dx θν (x) = − dx Pr(x, θ) . (51) ∂θi ∂θ j FIG. 5. General channel parameter estimation scheme with the possi- Conversely, the relative entropy can be written in terms if the bility of adaptive control, shown in parallel with the phase estimation Fisher information matrix procedure using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The quantum channel Λ(θ) imparts parameters θ on the input probe state. The probe is 1 ( ) D(θ k θ 0) = (θ 0 − θ)> I(θ)(θ 0 − θ), (52) measured by an operator of the form Π x dx and distributes estimates 2 according to Born’s rule. By data processing the measurement outcomes, we obtain our estimate θˇ. The goal of quantum metrology is 0 up to higher order corrections in (θ − θ). The relative entropy in finding both the optimal probe state and observable that minimises has a number of advantages over the Fisher information in that the covariance matrix of unbiased estimates. it is not affected by changes in parameterisation, it can be used even if the distributions are not all members of a parametric family, and fewer smoothness conditions on the probability densities are needed. uncertainties associated with the state-preparation procedure, while the povm captures those associated with the measurement stage. Together with Born’s rule, they model the probabilistic nature of the measurement data. IV. SINGLE PARAMETER QUANTUM ESTIMATION The bounds in the previous section were derived for probability distributions Pr(x|θ). This immediately generalises to In this section we review single-parameter quantum estimation the case where the probability distribution results from some theory and derive the quantum Cramér-Rao bound. We show quantum mechanical process described above through Born’s how the quantum fisher information can be obtained as a lim- rule. A natural question is what is the best possible precision iting case of the classical Fisher information, and we provide in θ that can be obtained from (many copies of) ρ(θ)? By op- an interpretation for the general parameter estimation scheme timising over the probe states and all measurement strategies, illustrated in Fig.5. We give various closed forms for the the result to this question is the quantum Cramér-Rao bound quantum Fisher information. (qcrb), which lower bounds the variance of any unbiased estimator that maps measured data from quantum measurements to parameter estimations21. It is of fundamental interest since A. Quantum model of precision measurements it can be regarded as an intrinsic property of the system, and is determined entirely by the quantum Fisher information (qfi), Any estimation strategy is described through a probe prepa- which depends only on the state ρ(θ). In the following sec- ration stage with state ρ(0), followed by an evolution that tion, we define the quantum mechanical version of the Fisher imprints the parameters of interest through a quantum channel information. We can derive this via geometrical arguments on ρ(θ) = Λ[ρ(0)](θ), and a measurement state by a self-adjoint ∫ the probability space similar to section III. observable X = dx x Π(x). This archetypal schema is illustrated in Fig.5 (in principle, a feedback mechanism can be included). For any given interaction, this protocol describes B. The quantum Fisher information a two-step optimisation problem; an experimenter must make a suitable choice of probe state that is sensitive to changes in We will find an expression for the qfi inspired by the above the parameters to assimilate maximal information, and they derivation of the classical Fisher information17,22. Notable must make an appropriate measurement that maximises the contributions to this extension were made by Wootters16, information extracted from the probe. Analytically, this can Hilgevoord and Uffink23, and Braunstein and Caves17. We be modelled by describing the evolved state of the system restrict ourselves again to the case of a single parameter θ. through ρ(θ), and by associating a positive operator valued In the quantum mechanical case the expectation value of an measure (povm) Π(x) dx, which describes the measurement operator is given by the Born rule yielding the data x. The probability distribution Pr(x|θ) is then given by Born’s rule hAi = Tr[ρA], (54)

Pr(x|θ) dx = Tr[Π(x)ρ(θ)] dx, (53) where ρ is the quantum state of the system and A is a self- adjoint operator. In order to find the single parameter qfi we where ∫ dx Π(x) = I. Born’s rule gives the probability dis- again define a metric via the correlation between two observ- tribution function (pdf) that distributes the measurement out- ables A and B. There is, however, a complication. Since comes x, given the parameterisation θ. The state captures observables in quantum mechanics generally do not commute, 9 the product AB is often not self-adjoint and cannot be con- where Im denotes the imaginary part. sidered an observable: (AB)† = B† A† = BA , AB. A nat- The qfi has a number of interesting properties25,26. First, it ural remedy for this problem is to use the anti-commutator is convex in the quantum states This means that for any two {A, B} = AB + BA as the observable for the correlation: states ρ1 and ρ2 we have 1 1 I (p ρ + p ρ ) ≤ p I (ρ )+ ≤ p I (ρ ), (62) 1 {A, B} = Tr[ρ{A, B}] = Tr[A{ρ, B}] Q 1 1 2 2 1 Q 1 2 Q 2 2 2 2 with probabilities p1 and p2 such that p1 + p2 = 1. Moreover, ≡ Tr A Rρ(B) , (55) the qfi is additive for independent measurements 1 where we included a factor 2 for normalisation, and we defined IQ(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2, θ) = IQ(ρ1, θ) + IQ(ρ2, θ), (63) the super-operator as well as for direct sums: 1 R (B) ≡ {ρ, B} , (56) IQ(p1 ρ1 ⊕ p2 ρ2, θ) = p1IQ(ρ1, θ) + p2IQ(ρ2, θ) . (64) ρ 2 Second, for unitary evolutions = exp(− θ ) generated by a which plays the role of the metric with raised indices. We U i G Hermitian operator , the qfi does not depend on the position can find the statistical distance by constructing the lowering G −1 along the orbit of U: operator Lρ = Rρ such that Lρ(Rρ(B)) = B. Explicit † † verification shows that Lρ satisfies IQ(UρU , G) = IQ(ρ, U GU) = IQ(ρ, G) . (65)

Õ Bjk It does not increase under cptp maps E [ρ] that do not depend Lρ(B) = 2 | ji hk| , (57) p + p on the parameter of interest: jk j k IQ(ρ, θ) ≥ IQ (E [ρ], θ), (66) where {| ji} is the eigenbasis of ρ, with eigenvalues pj , and and tracing out a subsystem cannot increase the qfi: Bjk is the matrix element of B corresponding to j and k. It ( ( )) is similarly easy to show that Rρ Lρ B = B, which proves IQ(ρ, G1 ⊗ I2) ≥ IQ(Tr2[ρ], G1) . (67) that Rρ and Lρ are each others’ inverse operations. Note that in this form the set of pure states is excluded from the space of Adding white noise to the state of N particles, each described density matrices. However, we will show in sectionIVD that in a d-dimensional Hilbert space, is equivalent to mixing in we can also include pure states. the identity matrix, such that The lowering operator allows us to construct a scalar product I ρ = p |ψi hψ| + (1 − p) . (68) between density operators Tr[σ1Lρ(σ2)]. In particular, for d N small changes in the density operator dρ we can construct the The qfi then becomes infinitesimal quantum statistical distance dsQ p2 ( ) ( ) 2 IQ ρ, θ = − IQ ψ, θ . (69) dsQ = Tr dρLρ(dρ) . (58) 1 p −N p + 2 d The qfi is then given by the change of the quantum statistical Third, we can write the qfi for a unitarily evolved state in terms distance along the curve θ: of the generator G as 2 dsQ Õ 2 Õ pj pk 2 ( ) ≡ ( ) IQ(θ) = 4 pj |hj|G|ki| − 8 |hj|G|ki| (70) IQ θ = Tr ∂θ ρ Lρ ∂θ ρ , (59) p + p dθ j,k j,k j k ≡ / 2 Õ pj pk 2 where again ∂θ ∂ ∂θ. = hG i − 8 |hj|G|ki| , (71) p + p The qfi in Eq. (59) is a Riemannian metric on the quantum j,k j k state space. Nagaoka24 and Braunstein and Caves17 show that this quantum Fisher information can be attained by a judicially where we used the diagonal form of the density operator Í chosen measurement. In other words, consider a measurement ρ = j pj | ji hj|. The qfi does not depend on the diagonal M expressed in terms of its povm elements: elements of G, so we can write ¹ IQ(ρ, G) = IQ(ρ, G + D), (72) M = dx m(x) Π(x), (60) where D is any diagonal matrix. Another way to express the 27 where m(x) is the real eigenspectrum of M. For the optimal qfi for mixed states is via purifications : choice of M the qfi in Eq. (59) coincides with the Fisher Û Û Û 2 IQ(ρ, θ) = min Ψ Ψ − Ψ Ψ , (73) information in Eq (42), where Pr(x|θ) = Tr[Π(x)ρ(θ)] is the Ψ probability distribution over the measurement outcomes of M. where |Ψi is a purification of ρ. Another form is due to The two necessary and sufficient conditions for M to be optimal Fujiwara and Imai28: are that for all x ( ) Û Û IQ ρ, θ = min Ψ Ψ . (74) (1) Im Tr ρΠ(x)Lρ(∂θ ρ) = 0, Ψ p √ p √ Eqs. (73) and (74) are equivalent for the purification that Π(x) ρ Π(x) Lρ(∂θ ρ) ρ (61) (2) = , achieves the minimum. In other words, |hΨÛ |Ψi|2 = 0 for Tr[Π(x)ρ] Tr[ρΠ(x) (∂ ρ)] Lρ θ the minimal purification state |Ψmini. 10

C. Distance measures in quantum estimation we can define a similar quantity, now an operator Lθ , that is called the symmetric logarithmic derivative34,35 (sld), which We momentarily return to the role of distance measures in the is equal to the lowering operator in Eq. (57) of the derivative definition of the qfi, and its relation to other distance functions of ρ in classical and quantum parameter estimation. L = L (∂ ρ) . (82) The classical statistical distance induces a curvature in the θ ρ θ probability simplex that can be removed by introducing proba- Moreover, the sld is implicitly defined by the relation bility amplitudes, as shown in Eq. (47). Introducing a complex iφj 1 phase in the amplitudes, xj → xj e , allows us to relate these ∂θ ρ = (ρLθ + Lθ ρ) . (83) amplitudes to normalised vectors |ψi in a complex Hilbert 2 space H whose distance to other vectors in H is then given The symmetric form of this definition is directly related to by the angle between them. In infinitesimal form, this gives the symmetrized definition of the correlation between quan- 16,29 1 the Wootters distance tum observables 2 h{A, B}i in Eq. (55) via the identification with (∂ ρ), which is a metric operator derived directly 2 2 Lρ θ dsW = (arccos|hψ|ψ + δψi|) , (75) 1 from the inner product 2 h{A, B}i. Some intuition for the and the metric is called the Fubini-Study metric on the space definition of Lθ can be gained from the classical logarithmic derivative L = ∂ log Pr(x|θ), which gives the relation of projectors R(H ) = H ⊗ H . The pullback metric from cl θ ∂ Pr(x|θ) = Pr(x|θ)L (Note that L is equal to the function R(H ) to H is given by20 θ cl cl g(x, θ) in Eq. (22)). Replacing the classical probability distri- h∂θ ψ|∂θ ψi h∂θ ψ|ψihψ|∂θ ψi bution Pr(x|θ) with a density operator introduces an ambiguity h = − , (76) FS hψ|ψi hψ|ψi2 in the operator order of ρ and Lθ , which is resolved by taking the anti-commutator in Eq. (83). where |∂θ ψi ≡ ∂θ |ψi. Assuming hψ|ψi = 1 then up to a To prove relation Eq. (82), we write Lθ in the eigenbasis of factor 4 this equals the qfi for pure states30 ρ:

2 Õ Õ IQ(θ) = 4hFS = 4 h∂θ ψ|∂θ ψi − |h∂θ ψ|ψi| . (77) Lθ = Ljk | ji hk| and ρ = pl |li hl| , (84) jk l When we extend the Fubini-Study metric to density operators in R(H ) we obtain the Bures metric20,31,32 given in Eq. (58) and construct the operator form of Lθ 2 2 1 1 Õ 4 ds = ds = Tr dρLρ(dρ) . (78) (L ρ + ρL ) = p + p L | ji hk| Bures Q 2 θ θ 2 j k jk jk The origin of the factor 4 is the same as in Eq. (47). Õ The Wootters distance between two quantum states |ψi and = (∂θ ρ)jk | ji hk| . (85) 2 jk |φi is closely related to√ the fidelity F = |hψ|φi| between the states, ds2 = (arccos F)2. The corresponding fidelity for 1 W Each matrix element of ∂θ ρ must match that of 2 (Lθ ρ + ρLθ ), mixed states is the Uhlmann fidelity33 and therefore we have q√ √ 2 2(∂θ ρ)jk (ρ, σ) = Tr ρσ ρ , (79) Ljk = . (86) F pj + pk

Substituting this back into Lθ we see that the sld in Eq. (86) and we can express the quantum statistical distance ds2 as Q takes the same form as Lρ(∂θ ρ) in Eq. (57), and the identity in Eq. (82) is proved. This identification unifies the geometric 2 h p i dsQ(ρ, ρ + dρ) = 8 1 − F(ρ, ρ + dρ) . (80) interpretation of the qfi with its interpretation as a limiting case of the classical Fisher information in the next subsection. The qfi can then be written in terms of the quantum fidelity The qfi can now be written in terms of the sld Lθ by noting as17 that 8 h p i IQ(θ) = Tr (∂θ ρ)Lρ(∂θ ρ) = Tr[(∂θ ρ)Lθ ] IQ(θ) = 1 − F(ρ, ρ + δρ) , (81) δθ2 1 = Tr[(Lθ ρ + ρLθ ) Lθ ] which will allow for analytic expressions in a variety of cases. 2 2 = Tr ρLθ . (87)

D. The Symmetric Logarithmic Derivative In the eigenbasis of the density operator ρ and using Eq. (59), the qfi can then be written as 2 The classical Fisher information is the expectation value of the Õ |hj|(∂θ ρ)|ki| squared derivative of the logarithm of the probability distri- IQ(θ) = 2 . (88) pj + pk bution, as shown in Eq. (24). In quantum estimation theory, jk 11

The sum extends over all j with nonzero pj . For vanish- Note that the qfi is independent of the povm and is a function ing probabilities pj , the qfi becomes ill-defined and we have of the state only. to find an alternative way to define it36,37, such as through As we observe from Eq. (84), the sld for mixed states often Eq. (77). Alternatively, we review a regularisation procedure requires diagonalising the density matrix. For arbitrarily large in sectionVI which can be used to determine the qfi for pure s-dimensional states, this becomes increasingly difficult. To states from expressions valid for mixed states. From Eq. (88), address this difficulty, alternative methods at determining Lθ we observe that the qfi is dependent on the quantum state have been developed. For example, it has been shown that and its derivative only, and not on the measurement that is evaluating Lθ is isomorphic to solving a set of linear algebraic performed. In this sense, the qfi is a property of the state. equations39. We also note that the qfi is the expectation value of the The implicit definition of the sld in Eq. (83) is a basis- square of the sld (i.e., its second moment), which prompts independent Lyapunov matrix equation that has the general 38 us to ask what is the first moment of Lθ . Using the fact that solution Tr[∂θ ρ] = 0, it is straightforward to show that Tr[ρLθ ] = 0. ¹ ∞ This leads us to the important relations Lθ = 2 ds exp [−ρ(θ)s] ∂θ ρ(θ) exp [−ρ(θ)s] . (94) 0 2 2 hLθ i = 0 and IQ(θ) = hL i = (∆Lθ ) , (89) θ When ρ is not full rank we can still define Lθ in this way, but some care needs to be taken in order to show that the qfi where (∆A)2 ≡ hA2i − hAi2 is the variance of an operator A. is still well-defined40. The sld is not uniquely defined when Next, we will show that the sld form of the qfi in Eq. (87) the state is not full-rank, since the part of the operator acting originates from the maximisation over all possible measure- on the null-space of ρ is not specified. The qfi based on this ments in an estimation procedure17,24. This connects the geo- expression for the sld can then be written as metric interpretation of the qfi as the Bures metric in the space ¹ ∞ of density operators to the statistical interpretation of the qfi −ρs −ρs as the maximum amount of information about θ that can be IQ(θ) = 2 ds Tr[(∂θ ρ)e (∂θ ρ)e ], (95) 0 extracted on average in an optimal measurement. Using the Born rule and the fact that the sld is traceless, the classical The Lyapunov representation proves to be very useful for sce- Fisher information can be written as38 narios in which a periodic nature is observed for the anti- commutator of the density matrix and its partial derivative40. ¹ 2 (Re {Tr[ρ(θ)Π(x)Lθ ]}) When the evolution imparting the parameter θ onto the I(θ) = dx , (90) Tr[Π(x)ρ(θ)] quantum state ρ(θ) is a unitary transformation of the form U = exp(−iθG) with G a Hermitian observable and the eigen- (x) Next, we maximise this quantity over all possible povms Π . values of ρ independent of θ, we can use the Lyapunov form ∈ C2 [ ] [ ] ≤ Given the complex vectors α, β , and Re α Re β to find a particularly elegant expression for the qfi. kαβk, we develop Eq. (90) into ¹ ∞ 2 I (θ) = 2 ds Tr[(∂ ρ)e−ρs ∂ ρe−ρs] ¹ Tr[ρ(θ)Π(x) ] Q θ θ Lθ 0 I(θ) ≤ dx ∞ pTr[Π(x)ρ(θ)] ¹ h i = −2 ds Tr ([G, ρ]e−ρs)2 ¹ " p p # 2 0 ρ(θ) Π(x) p p ¹ ∞ = dx Tr Π(x)Lθ ρ(θ) , (91) −ρs 2 pTr[Π(x)ρ(θ)] ≤ −2 ds Tr[([G, ρ]e )] (96) 0 where equality holds if and only if Im[Tr[ρ(θ)Π(x)Lθ ]] = 0, Next, we recall that the Schwarz inequality for the trace is i.e. if the vectors lie in the real space R2. This requires the given by 2 sld to be Hermitian. Introducing (∆Lθ ) as the variance of † 2 † † the sld, we use the Schwartz inequality to obtain: Tr AB ≤ Tr AA Tr BB , (97) ¹ hp p p p i and we can bound the qfi by I(θ) ≤ dx Tr Π(x)Lθ ρ(θ) Π(x)Lθ ρ(θ) , ¹ ∞ ¹ 2 −ρs 2 (92) IQ(θ) ≤ −2 Tr [G, ρ] Tr[e ] ds = dx Tr[ρ(θ)Lθ Π(x)Lθ ], 0 ¹ ∞ 2 2 −ρs 2 = Tr ρ(θ)Lθ , = −2 Tr (Gρ − ρG) Tr[e ] ds 0 where the final equality used the vanishing trace property of !2 ¹ ∞ Õ the sld. This completes the maximisation of the cfim over = 4 Tr G2 ρ2 − Tr (Gρ)2 e−spk ds all possible measurements. It shows that the classical Fisher 0 k information for any measurement is upper bounded by the ≤ 4(∆G)2 , (98) quantum Fisher information (qfi) 2 where the last inequality can be obtained by evaluating the I(θ) ≤ IQ(θ) = Tr ρ(θ)Lθ = Tr[∂θ ρ(θ)Lθ ]. (93) traces in the eigenbasis of ρ. When the probe state is pure 12

(ρ2 = ρ), the integral in the last line evaluates to 1, and we Identifying Tr[ρ(M − θ)2] with the mse in θ, we arrive at the obtain quantum Cramér-Rao bound (qcrb)

2 2 IQ(θ, ψ) = 4(∆G) , (99) Var θ = Eρ (M − θ) 2 (1 + ∂θ b) 2 −1 which can often be found analytically. ≥ = (1 + ∂θ b) I (θ), (103) Tr[ρ 2] Q Finally, we address the issue that the sld, as defined in Lθ Eq. (86) becomes singular for pure states. Nevertheless, there [ 2] ( ) is a simple expression for the qfi for pure states, as shown in where we have identified Tr ρLθ with the qfi IQ θ . Note Eq. (99). We can also find a simple expression for the sld that for types of bias with negative derivatives the mse appears when ρ is pure. Using ρ2 = ρ, differentiating with respect to to be better than in the case of an unbiased estimator (b = the parameters θ and comparing with the definition Eq. (83) 0). This can cause some confusion when comparing the mse we arrive at with a pre-calculated value of the qfi. When N independent measurements are made using an unbiased estimator, additivity of the qfi implies that the resulting bound is given by Lθ = 2∂θ ρ = 2i[ρ, G], (100) 1 where we relate the sld to the von Neumann equation of motion Var θ ≥ . (104) describing the dynamics of the system. NIQ The calculation of the qfi for any physical system is at This is the form of the crb for a single parameter that is mostly the heart of quantum metrology and is typically a difficult used. task. Determining the qfi using the sld operator is particularly suited to unitary quantum metrology. It is less suited The qcrb, together with the bound in Eq. (98) on the qfi, for noisy processes, where the calculation involves complex leads immediately to a familiar result. For a single shot mea- optimisation procedures27,41. To address this, an extended surement (N = 1) Eq. (104) becomes Hilbert space approach may be taken where information about 1 the parameter is obtained by observing both the system and Var θ ≥ , (105) 2 its environment42. This method prescribes the qfi in terms 4(∆G) of the state evolving Hamiltonian, and is well suited to many where we set ~ = 1. When we define Var θ = (δθ)2, this leads physical implementations of parameter estimations, including 22 open quantum systems43–46. to 1 δθ ∆G ≥ , (106) 2 E. The quantum Cramér-Rao bound and can be interpreted as an uncertainty relation for a quantity θ and its generator of translations . While Heisenberg’s In this section we will derive qcrb (or the Helstrom bound) for G uncertainty relations are typically derived for conjugate ob- a single parameter θ. We follow Helstrom’s original deriva- servables like position and momentum, Eq. (106) allows us tion34 that employs the sld. First, we consider a measurement to define uncertainty relations between energy and time, or M on a system in state ρ that serves as an estimator for θ. In angular momentum and rotation angles where Robertson in- other words, the expectation value Tr[ρM] provides the esti- equalities cannot be constructed due to a lack of self-adjoint mate θˇ(x) with a possible bias b(θ) = Tr[ρ(M − θ)]. We can operators for time and rotation angles. take the derivative of the bias with respect to θ to obtain The next question to address is how to find the optimal estimator that saturates the qcrb. First, does there exist a ∂ b(θ) = Tr[(M − θ)∂ ρ] − 1, (101) θ θ measurement for which the qfi equals the classical Fisher where we assume that M does not itself depend on θ. This information? And if so, what is this measurement? To answer is an important caveat that we will return to when we wish these questions, we recall the error propagation formula from to determine the optimal estimator in sectionVC. We next Eq. (1): square Eq. (101), and together with the sld and the Schwarz (∆M)2 inequality for the trace we get Var θ = . (107) |dhMi/dθ|2 2 2 (1 + ∂θ b) = Tr[(M − θ)∂θ ρ] This formula relates the variance in the parameter θ to the vari- 1 35 = Tr[(M − θ) (L ρ + ρL )]2 ance of the operator M that is used to estimate θ. Helstrom 2 θ θ states that the crb is saturated if and only if Lθ = k(θ)(M − θ), 2 = (Re Tr[(M − θ)ρLθ ]) with k(θ) some function that does not depend on M. Choosing 2 √ √ 2 ≤ |Tr[(M − θ)Lθ ρ]| = Tr ρ(M − θ)Lθ ρ Lθ 2 2 M = θ I + , (108) ≤ Tr ρLθ Tr ρ(M − θ) . (102) IQ(θ) 13 we can prove that Var θ saturates the crb. For this choice the G. The role of entanglement bias vanishes: b(θ) = Tr[ρ(M − θ)] = 0. From Eq. (89) we calculate that Consider an experiment that estimates a parameter θ. The dhMi experiment is repeated N times under identical conditions, hMi = θ and = 1, (109) dθ and each time the average information that is extracted about θ is given by the qfi. Since the Fisher information is additive and for independent measurements, the total information in the N * + L L2 1 experiments is NIQ, leading to the crb in Eq. (104). The Root h 2i = θ2 + 2θ θ + θ = θ2 + . (110) M 2 Mean Square Error (rmse) then behaves as IQ IQ IQ 1 δθ ≥ . (114) From this, we find that Var θ = I−1, which saturates Eq. (104). p Q NIQ So there indeed does exist an estimator that saturates the qcrb, √ but it generally depends on the unknown parameter θ. The square-root scaling 1/ N of δθ is called the Standard It was shown by Braunstein and Caves17 that the optimal Quantum Limit (sql), or shot-noise limit. This is the best pos- measurement for θ is a von Neumann measurement that con- sible performance for a classical estimation procedure, i.e., es- sists of projections onto the eigenstates of the sld Lθ . How- timation procedures that do not employ entangled probe states. ever, Lθ generally depends on the unknown value of θ, and it To see how we can improve over Eq. (114), we consider the may not be possible to choose the optimal estimator at the out- case where the parameter is imparted on the quantum state via 47 set . Since the qcrb, like the classical crb, is an asymptotic the unitary evolution exp(−iθG), such that the qfi takes the bound on the variance of θ, many measurements must be made form before the bound is saturated, and this allows for adaptive mea- 12,24,48 (max) 2 surements that converge to the optimal measurement . IQ (θ) = 4(∆G) . (115)

2 To maximise the qfi is therefore to maximise (∆GN ) over the F. Biased Estimators state of the N physical systems. Clearly, when each experiment 2 2 is independent, the variances (∆GN ) add, such that (∆GN ) = 2 Helstrom34 constructed a quantum version of the Cramér- N(∆G) and we recover the sql in Eq. (114). However, we can Rao bound for a single variable θ from the sld. First, also prepare the N systems in a suitable entangled state. This 2 we consider a measurement M on a system in state ρ that will allow us to increase (∆GN ) substantially, scaling instead 2 serves as an estimator for θ. In other words, the expectation with N . The qcrb then becomes value Tr[ρM] provides the estimate θˇ(x) with a possible bias α Var θ ≥ , (116) b(θ) = Tr[ρ(M − θ)]. We can take the derivative of the bias N2 with respect to θ to obtain where α is some constant, typically of order unity. This leads to an rmse that scales with N−1: ∂θ b(θ) = Tr[(M − θ)∂θ ρ] − 1, (111) 1 δθ ∼ . (117) where we assume that M does not itself depend on θ. This N is an important caveat that we will return to when we wish to This is called the Heisenberg limit, and it is the ultimate limit determine the optimal estimator. We next square Eq. (111), for quantum parameter estimation49. and together with the sld and the Schwarz inequality for the To see how such a precision can be achieved, we consider trace we get the optical noon state6,7,50–52 2 2 (1 + ∂θ b) = Tr[(M − θ)∂θ ρ] |N, 0i + |0, Ni 2 |ψi = √ , (118) = (Re Tr[(M − θ)ρLθ ]) 2 2 ≤ |Tr[(M − θ)Lθ ρ]| where |Ni is the N-photon Fock state. This is a two-mode ≤ Tr ρL2Tr ρ(M − θ)2 . (112) entangled state that is extremely challenging to make in the θ lab53,54, but it serves as a clear proof of principle. Assuming Identifying Tr[ρ(M − θ)2] with the mse in θ, we arrive at the a simple phase shift θ in the second mode, the noon state quantum Cramér-Rao bound (qcrb) evolves to 2 |N, 0i + eiNθ |0, Ni 2 (1 + ∂θ b) | ( )i Var [θ] = Eρ (M − θ) ≥ . (113) ψ θ = √ , (119) IQ 2 Note that for types of bias with negative derivatives the mse where each photon in the second mode picks up a phase eiNθ . appears to be better than in the case of an unbiased estimator We calculate the qfi using the expression in Eq. (77) (b = 0). This can cause some confusion when comparing the 2 mse with a pre-calculated value of the qfi. IQ(θ) = 4h∂θ ψ(θ)|∂θ ψ(θ)i − 4 |h∂θ ψ(θ)|ψ(θ)i| . (120) 14

glement is required to achieve the Heisenberg limit. Consid- Λ(θ) ˆ ering three possible parameters θ , θ and θ generated by the Πj1 x y z Pauli operators σx, σ)y, and σz, the following general results hold:

Λ(θ) Πˆ 1. for N-qubit separable states the qfi is bounded by j2 Í Q/C Q/C j IQ(θ j ) ≤ 2N and for a single parameter IQ(θ j ) ≤ N; Í . . . 2. for general N-qubit quantum states j IQ(θ j ) ≤ N(N + . . . 2), 3. for k-producible states, where a pure state is k-produ- Λ(θ) Πˆ j cible if it is a tensor product state of at most k qubits, N 2 2 IQ(θ j ) ≤ nk + (N − nk) , where n is the integer part of N/k. FIG. 6. General parallel parameter estimation strategies. The initial 4. the sum of the qfi’s for each parameter is bounded by probe states, ρ(0) are represented by the circles on the left. The probe Õ states may be entangled before passing through an evolving channel, IQ(θ j ) ≤ nk(k + 2) + (N − nk)(N − nk + 2) (122) illustrated by the grey central squares. The state passes through j another potentially entangling evolution and is finally measured using local povms Πj , represented by the blue polygons on the right. This if N − nk , 1, and setup allows for four classes of estimation, where the input states Õ many be entangled or not (Q/C on the left), and where the input state IQ(θ j ) ≤ nk(k + 2) + 2 (123) may be subjected to entangled or separable measurement observables j (Q/C on the right). if N − nk = 1; 5. for multi-partite quantum states with M unentangled particles Í I (θ ) ≤ M + (N − M)(N − M + 2). The derivative of the state is given by j Q j The broader question of how useful quantum states are for iNeiNθ quantum metrology was answered by Oszmaniec et al.62, who |∂θ ψ(θ)i = − √ |0, Ni , (121) 2 showed that pure states chosen randomly from the symmetric subspace typically achieve the optimal Heisenberg scaling 2 and the qfi becomes IQ = N , as required. To complete the es- without the need for local unitary optimisation. Further, an ex- timation procedure, practical measurement observables were plicit non-random choice of symmetric probe states with error proposed by Pryde et al.55 and Cable et al.56. A similar argu- correction capabilities has recently been demonstrated useful ment can be constructed using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger for robust metrology63. In this work, it was shown that if the (ghz) states57. probe state lies within the code space of certain permutation- To understand more generally how quantum entanglement invariant quantum codes64, a precision enhancement is pos- can improve the estimation precision, Giovannetti, Lloyd and sible even in the presence of noise. Other symmetric states Maccone classified various metrology approaches49. They have been considered for robust quantum metrology65. These unified parallel and adaptive sequential strategies into a gen- studies reflect the current area of intense research on error eral framework shown in Fig.6. The unitary evolutions U correction inspired robust metrology, where quantum error imparting the parameter are again of the form U = exp(−iθG). correction is not applied. This removes the requirement for This classification allows for classical or quantum state prepa- feed-forward and error-correction, which reduces the difficulty ration and measurement procedures, resulting in four different and practicality of implementing practical quantum metrology. classes of experiments: classical states and classical mea- These methods are motivated by the near term emergence of surements (cc), classical states and quantum measurements noisy quantum devices; the so-called noisy intermediate-scale (cq), quantum states and classical measurements (qc), and quantum (nisq) era. We review fault-tolerant quantum metrol- both quantum states and measurements (qq). Here, we under- ogy methods later in section VII. stand by “classical” that the input state is separable, and the The entanglement requirements above can be turned on their measurement projects onto separable povm elements. Since head, such that a qfi in excess of a certain value indicates that the qcrb is determined by the quantum state via the qfi, no at least genuine k-partite entanglement must be present in the quantum entangling strategies at the measurement stage can quantum state. This is a so-called entanglement witness66–69. introduce further enhancements to the estimation procedure In other words, the difference in precision scaling can be used than what is already present in the quantum state. Therefore to deduce whether entanglement is present in the probe state. the cc and cq strategies will always yield at best the sql58. Relaxing the Heisenberg limit to δθ ∼ 1/N1− for any > 0, Any resolution enhancements must then be sourced from the the amount of entanglement required can be made arbitrarily probe preparation. Bound entanglement can also surpass the small70. shot noise limit59,60. The bounds established by Toth on the qfi holds for qubits 61 Toth showed that for qubits, genuine multi-partite entan- undergoing unitary evolutions exp(−iθ j σj /2). The question 15 remains whether other types of evolution can lead to a dif- These methods rely on the use of quantum correlations, and ferent scaling. Indeed, when the generator of translations in nontrivial Hamiltonian extensions. θ is a multi-particle Hamiltonian, the estimation precision in an experiment using N particles can scale with N−m for some −N 71 m > 1, or even 2 , as shown by Boixo et al. and Roy and I. Optimal estimation strategies Braunstein72, respectively. These results cannot be compared directly with the Heisenberg limit, since the evolution in those Once the fundamental limits to the precision of parameter es- generalised scaling laws is generated by fundamentally differ- timations have been determined, a natural question that arises ent physical processes than the typical single-particle evolution is given that all classical noise has been eliminated, how can (− ) exp iθG . we identify the measurement(s) that practically saturate these One way to understand these limits is via the query complex- 73 bounds? Optimal measurements can be constructed from the ity of the estimation procedure . In the standard parameter eigenstates of the sld38. In almost all cases, determining the estimation procedure each particle evolves according to the ef- measurement that corresponds to this theoretical description fective Hamiltonian G. However, for systems with a bi-partite is difficult. Generally it depends on the parameters that we Hamiltonian Hjk = Gj ⊗ Gk each evolution requires a pair of would like to estimate. particles. Each pair is now a query of the parameter θ, and for Adaptive strategies have been suggested to circumvent the particles there are = 1 ( − 1) queries. This structure N Q 2 N N parameter dependence of the optimal measurements93. Wise- generalises to multi-partite Hamiltonians. The precision limit man showed that feedback control of the phase of a local oscil- always scales at most linearly with the number of queries, not 73–76 lator can approximate the measurement of the phase quadra- the number of particles . ture in an optical mode94. This was demonstrated experimentally by Armen et al.95 By adaptively changing the phase in one arm of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, nearly opti- H. Non-entangling strategies mal measurement of the relative phase given N input photons can be achieved96,97. This technique was extended to narrow- The entanglement strategies in the previous section refer to band squeezed beams by Berry and Wiseman98,99. Fujiwara systems consisting of distinguishable particles. A different proved that a sequence of maximum likelihood estimators is situation arises in quantum optics, where at least in princi- asymptotically efficient for adaptive quantum parameter esti- ple, non-entangled states can achieve sub-shot noise precision. mation100. Okamoto et al. use this technique to estimate the In particular, the squeezed vacuum can be used to suppress phase between left- and right-handed circular polarisation of the fluctuations due to shot noise77,78. Other states that have single photons101. For a review of quantum feedback control been used to attain the Heisenberg limit are the class of en- techniques, see Serafini102. Palittapongarnpim and Sanders tangled coherent states (ecs)79–81. For phase estimations in proposed tests to see whether adaptive strategies in quantum a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, ecs have demonstrated better metrology are robust against phase noise103. precision scalings than noon states82. Even in a lossy interfer- Achieving the Heisenberg limit is state dependent. How- ometer, ecs can still beat the shot-noise limit for modest loss ever, the probe state chosen should be tailored to achieve the rates83. best practical precision for a specific parameter. For exam- Nevertheless, generating highly entangled states is practi- ple, squeezed light is routinely used for phase estimations104. cally difficult for two main reasons. First, the photonic over- A natural question to ask is what is the optimal probe state head increases exponentially with the number of entangled that maximises the qfi for a parameter estimation protocol? modes and second, the fidelity decreases due to decoherence This was answered by Braunstein, Caves and Milburn22 and processes84. Furthermore, despite the results in the previous Giovannetti, Lloyd and Maccone49 in the context of unitary section the use of quantum entanglement as a resource is still evolutions exp(−iθG). The optimal probe state is an equal poorly understood. Specifically, the performance of noon superposition of eigenstates corresponding the minimum and states for optical phase imaging performs worst in compari- maximum eigenvalues of the generator G. These states are son with the class of other states including entangled coher- generally difficult to prepare. ent states, entangled squeezed coherent states, and entangled Only very few experiments have reported a Heisenberg limit squeezed vacuum85. This suggests that mode entanglement scaling for parameter estimates105,106. This is generally due alone is not sufficient to provide certain precision enhance- to two factors. First, achieving the sql is already practically ments. Indeed, too much entanglement is detrimental to attain- difficult since it requires eliminating all non-intrinsic system ing the Heisenberg scaling in the estimation of unitarily gen- noises. Second, state entanglement of multipartite systems erated parameters86. Similarly, the estimation precision of n is challenging to realise due to their increasing susceptibil- optical phase differences can be enhanced by using an n-mode ity to environmental losses with increasing particle number. entangled state as input in a multi-mode interferometer87–89. For example, the path-entangled noon states in Eq. (118) can However, this precision enhancement has also been matched be shown to achieve the Heisenberg limit resolution scaling using separable states with equal number of modes90. This has for phase measurements in optical interferometers19, but for been demonstrated theoretically for spatial distinguishability larger photon number the loss of a single photon becomes in- of different light emitters91. Alternative approaches to achieve creasingly likely, and this completely destroys the capability quantum enhanced measurements have been investigated92. of measuring the parameter θ. 16

Even modest Markovian noise reduces the Heisenberg limit parameter qcrb. If the slds for each parameter are mutually scaling achievable by highly entangled states to scalings pro- compatible—that is they commute with each other—then a portional to the sql7,27,107. Common decoherences include simultaneous, optimal estimate for all of the parameters can depolarisation, dephasing and amplitude damping. Owing to be made in their common eigenbasis. If the optimal measure- the difficulty and stabilisation of highly entangled states, alter- ments corresponding to the different slds for each parameter native approaches to achieve quantum enhanced measurements do not commute, a compromise between the estimation pre- have been investigated92. These methods rely on the use of cision for each parameter must be addressed. Second, what quantum correlations and identical particles such as photons. is the tradeoff between estimation precision enhancement and the physical resources used to attain it116? Specifically, is it better to estimate a tuple of parameters simultaneously or se- J. Numerical approaches quentially? Addressing these questions will help in the design of novel estimation schemes that propel precisions closer to As has been shown so far, if the qfi is known, the fundamental the Heisenberg limit. precision bound is known and the optimal measurement strat- In this section we will first derive the qfi matrix for multi- egy can be determined. Often however, it is not possible to ple parameters, and construct the corresponding Cramér-Rao find the qfi analytically, for example when probe states with a bound. We consider alternatives to the qfi, based on the right large rank are used. In those cases a numerical approach may logarithmic derivative, as well as the Kubo-Mori information be better suited. and the Wigner-Yanase skew information. We conclude this Saturating the qcrb requires a suitable choice of estimator, section with a discussion of the Holevo bound and the general which can be found numerically. Unfortunately, the numeri- attainability of the qcrb. cal method required to determine a well-behaved and efficient estimator depends on the estimation problem, since the procedure will generally depend on how the parameters are encoded A. The quantum Fisher information matrix in the state. However, a common procedure used is maximum likelihood estimation, which given its simplicity, has found The qfi in sectionIV produces a real positive number associ- widespread use in estimation theory. The maximum likeli- ated with a single parameter θ that can be written as an inner hood procedure attempts to find the values of the parameters θ product [ (x|θ)] that maximise the log likelihood function ln p . In some circumstances this may be as simple as taking the derivative of IQ(θ) = Tr ∂θ ρ Lρ(∂θ ρ) . (125) the likelihood function and equating it to zero to find the max- ( ) imum. However, this is not always a straightforward operation For multiple parameters θ = θ1, . . ., θD the qfi becomes a matrix, since the generalisation to the D-dimensional param- and alternative methods for obtaining the maximum likelihood 31 estimator must be used. eter space creates a natural two-form Numerically, the maximum likelihood estimator may be im- [IQ(θ)]jk = Tr ∂j ρ Lρ(∂k ρ) , (126) plemented via an iterative scoring algorithm2. Defining the (k) kth iteration of the estimator by θˇ , the scoring algorithm where j, k = {1, 2,..., D}. If we furthermore associate a new proceeds according to the iterative equation sld Lj = Lρ(∂j ρ) with each parameter θ j :

( ) ( ) ( ) ∂ ln [ (x|θ)] ˇ k+1 ˇ k −1 ˇ k p 1 θ (x) = θ (x) + IQ θ (k) . (124) ∂ ρ = L ρ + ρL , (127) ∂θ θ=θˇ j 2 j j Based on any information on the system, by taking an ini- (0) where ∂j ≡ ∂/∂θ j , then in terms of the slds the qfi matrix tial guess of the parameters θˇ , successive iterations of the becomes scoring algorithm generate estimates that more closely approx- imates the true value. For open quantum systems the Markov 1 [IQ(θ)]jk = Tr ρ{Lj, Lk } . (128) chain Monte Carlo integration and Metropolis Hastings algo- 2 108 rithm are better suited than the scoring algorithm . The anti-commutator appears due to the possibility of a nonzero commutator between Lj and Lk . Since the optimal estimator for θ j is given by the projectors along the eigenvec- V. MULTI-PARAMETER QUANTUM ESTIMATION tors of Lj , it is clear that in general non-commuting Lj and Lk will cause trouble for the simultaneous estimation of θ j and In this section, we review enhanced quantum parameter esti- θk . Nevertheless, the qfi matrix is well-deﬁned, and we can mation of multiple parameters simultaneously. Many practical write for the matrix elements high-precision estimation protocols require a multi-parameter estimation approach. This includes the estimation of mul- Õ 2 [IQ(θ)]lm = hj|(∂l ρ)|kihk|(∂m ρ)| ji , (129) 87,109–111 p + p tiple phases , characterisation of multidimensional jk j k ﬁelds86,112,113, and Hamiltonian tomography114,115. Multi-parameter quantum metrology raises two important which again is hard to calculate in general, and does not include questions. First, what is the attainability of the multi- pure states. 17

When ρ = |ψi hψ| is a pure state and the evolution of the We start with the general definition in Eq. (128) and note that parameters is given by exp(−iθ j Gj ) with Gj the self-adjoint we can modify the derivative of ρ according to generators of θ j , the state |ψi obeys the Schródinger-like equations ∂j ρ = −i[Gj, ρ] = −i[Gj − hGj i, ρ] ≡ −i[∆Gj, ρ], (138) where we defined h i = Tr[ρ ]. Using ∆ ≡ − h i, the i ∂j |ψi = Gj |ψi . (130) Gj Gj G G G sld for θk is then The sld Lj can then be written as Õ [∆Gk, ρ]lm Lρ(∂k ρ) = −2i |li hm| p + p Lj = 2∂j ρ = 2 (|∂j ψi hψ| + |ψi h∂j ψ|) , (131) lm l m Õ pl − pm | i | i | i h | − | i h | = 2i hl|∆Gk |mi |li hm| . (139) with ∂j ψ = ∂j ψ . Moreover, since ψ ∂j ψ = ∂j ψ ψ , pl + pm we obtain lm Similarly, we find [IQ(θ)]jk = 4Re h∂j ψ|∂k ψi − h∂j ψ|ψihψ|∂k ψi . (132) Õ ∂j ρ = −i pn ∆Gj |ni hn| − |ni hn| ∆Gj . (140) This is the multi-parameter quantum Fisher information for n pure states and simple unitary evolution. We obtain a particularly useful form for IQ(ψ, θ) when we relate the derivatives of Putting this together in Eq. (98), we obtain |ψi to the generators Gj associated with θ j . Eq. (128) becomes 2 Õ pl − pm [IQ(θ)]jk = 2 (pl + pm) hl|∆Gk |mihm|∆Gj |li . 1 pl + pm [IQ(θ)]jk = 4 hψ| {Gj, Gk }|ψi − hψ|Gj |ψihψ|Gk |ψi lm 2 (141) ≡ 4 CovS(G)jk , Writing this in symmetric form and noting that (133) 2 pl − pm Õ Õ ( ) ≤ 1 and (pl + pm)Alm = 2 pl Alm , where we defined G = G1,..., GD , and p + p l m lm lm 1 (142) Cov (G) = hψ| {G , G }|ψi − hψ|G |ψihψ|G |ψi S jk 2 j k j k (134) for any symmetric matrix A and probabilities 0 ≤ pm ≤ 1, we infer that is the symmetrized covariance matrix for G. This can also 1 be written in terms of a non-symmetrized covariance matrix [IQ(θ)]jk ≤ 4Tr ρ {∆Gj, ∆Gk } . (143) Cov(G) according to 2 When ρ is a pure state, the trace reduces to the matrix element 1 CovS(G)jk = Cov(G)jk + Cov(G)k j , (135) CovS(G)jk in Eq. (134). We can therefore define a more gen- 2 eral symmetrized covariance matrix for the generators of trans- lation Cov (G) = Tr[ρ 1 {∆G , ∆G }]. Similarly it is easy where Cov(G)jk = hψ|Gj Gk |ψi − hψ|Gj |ψihψ|Gk |ψi. An S jk 2 j k to show that we can cast the qfi matrix in non-symmetric form alternative form for IQ(θ) is then using the real part of a suitably generalised non-symmetric covariance matrix for the generators. [IQ(θ)]jk = 4Re Cov(G)jk . (136) Returning for the moment again to the qfi matrix for pure 117 When all Gj commute with each other, the covariance matrix states, another useful form for IQ(θ) in Eq. (132) is Cov(G) is real. The expressions in Eqs. (133) and (136) are (1) (2) (1) (2) the multi-parameter generalisations of Eq. (99). The multi- [IQ(θ)]jk = 4∂ ∂ log|hψ(θ )|ψ(θ )i| . j k θ(1)=θ(2)=θ parameter qfi is a manifestly symmetric positive semi-definite (144) matrix, and like the classical Fisher information matrix it transforms as a tensor under re-parameterization. Defining again a This can be easily shown by explicitly evaluating the deriva- new set of variables ϑ through some invertible transformation tives. The expression then reduces to Eq. (132). Jacobian matrix, J, such that ϑ = Jθ, then the qfim for the In Lyapunov form, the qfi for multiple parameters becomes new parameters may be written ¹ ∞ −ρs −ρs [IQ(θ)]jk = 2 ds Tr (∂j ρ)e (∂k ρ)e . (145) > ∂θk IQ(ϑ) = J IQ(θ)J, with Jkl = . (137) 0 ∂ϑl We can use this form to construct an analytic expression for We can bound the qfi for general mixed states by the covari- the qfi without having to evaluate the integral118. It makes use ance matrix, just as we did for a single parameter in Eq. (98). of the concept of vectorisation of matrices, denoted by vec A 18 of a matrix A, where the columns of a matrix are put below where we identified the qfi matrix and defined the covariance each other in a single column: matrix † ∗ −1 [IQ(θ)]jk = 2 vec(∂j ρ) (ρ ⊗ I + I ⊗ ρ) vec(∂k ρ) . (146) Cov(θ)jk = Tr ρ(Mj − θ j )(Mk − θk ) . (154)

Similarly, we can construct the sld: −1 For the choice of z = IQ y, we obtain the inequality ( ∗ ⊗ I I ⊗ )−1 ( ) vec Lj = 2 ρ + ρ vec ∂j ρ . (147) > > −1 y Cov(θ) y ≥ y IQ y . (155) These expressions are valid for finite-dimensional systems, and can be calculated directly based on matrix forms of the density This bound is valid for any real vector y, and therefore simpli- matrix ρ and its derivatives ∂j ρ. When ρ is pure, the inverse fies to (ρ∗ ⊗ I + I ⊗ ρ)−1 does not exist. However, we can circumvent Cov(θ) ≥ −1, (156) this problem by using instead the density matrix IQ I where the matrix inequality A ≥ B means that A − B is a pos- ρ = (1 − )ρ + , (148) d itive semi-definite matrix. This is the famous multi-parameter quantum Cramér-Rao bound. Given that the qfi elements where d is the dimension of the Hilbert space of ρ. Calculating transform as a metric tensor, the qfi for the vector of param- the qfi and sld based on ρ , and taking the limit of → 0 118 eters ϑ can be written in terms of the qfi for θ, and the qcrb then retrieves the forms of the qfi and sld for pure states . becomes

−1 −1 −1 > −1 Cov(ϑˇ ) ≥ IQ(ϑ) = J IQ(θˇ) [J ] . (157) B. The quantum Cramér-Rao bound where J is the transformation Jacobian with matrix elements Now that we have the qfi matrix in terms of the slds Lj Jkl = ∂θk /∂ϑl. associated with θ j , as given in Eq. (139), we can derive the We can immediately infer the mse of a parameter θ j as multi-parameter quantum Cramér-Rao bound. This inequality 13,35 −1 was originally first derived by Helstrom and is occasionally Var θ j ≥ [IQ ]j j , (158) referred to as the Helstrom bound. We start with the following since the variances are the diagonal elements of the covariance identity for unbiased estimators −1 −1 matrix. Note that [I ]j j ≥ [IQ] , since the qfi is a positive Q j j Tr (∂j ρ)(Mk − θk ) = δjk , (149) definite matrix. Given a covariance matrix and a positive- definite risk matrix R, we can balance the precision of the where is the estimator for θ and δ is the Kronecker delta. Mk k jk various parameters. This leads to the inequality Using the sld, this can be written as h i 1 C ≡ Tr[R Cov(θ)] ≥ Tr RI−1 ≡ C . (159) δ = Tr (ρL + L ρ)(M − θ ) . (150) Q Q jk 2 j j k k Next, we introduce two real-valued vectors y and z such that The qcrb for a single parameter can in principle be achieved asymptotically by a suitable measurement. The question is Õ 1 Õ whether the multi-parameter qcrb can be attained. We explore z y = Tr z (ρL + L ρ)(M − θ )y j k 2 j j j k k k this in the next subsection. k jk " ! !# Õ Õ ( − ) = Re Tr ρ zj Lj yk Mk θk . (151) C. Saturating the quantum Cramér-Rao bound j k We can square both sides of the equation, and note that The the optimal unbiased quantum estimators that saturate the (Re u)2 ≤ |u|2, with equality if and only if Im u = 0: qcrb takes the form " ! !# 2 1 −1 Õ Õ Mj (θ) = θ j + [I Q(θ) · L]j, (160) ( > )2 ≤ ( − ) z y Tr ρ zj Lj yk Mk θk , (152) j k which form a set of self-adjoint operators38. They are linear combinations of the slds L = (L ,..., L ). Determining where z>y is the standard dot product between two real-valued 1 D the measurement Mj (θ) is typically a difficult task, since it vectors. Using the Schwarz inequality for traces in Eq. (97), depends on θ. To overcome this difficulty, adaptive measure- we can write Eq. (152) as ments have been suggested96,97. An important caveat to the  !2 " !# multi-parameter qcrb is that the qcrb for multiple parame- > 2  Õ  Õ ters is generally not saturable, since the optimal observables (z y) ≤ Tr ρ zj Lj Tr ρ yk (Mk − θk )   in Eq. (160) may not be compatible. It is easy to see that this  j  k > >  may occur when the slds associated with the parameters do ≡ (z IQz)(y Cov(θ) y), (153) not commute. However, there is a bit more to it than that. 19

To explore the attainability of the multi-parameter qcrb, we This is of course a weaker condition than requiring that the consider a more general bound derived by Holevo24,119. slds commute directly. The condition in Eq. (164) is necessary and sufficient for unitary evolutions on pure states130, √ √ ≥ ( ) ≡ which is equivalent to requiring the existence of commuting C min Tr[R Re J] + R Im J R CH , (161) {Mj } 1 generators that generate the evolution of the probe. For mixed states, the demands to realise optimal simultaneous estima- where R denotes a positive definite weight matrix, and Jjk = tion are more involved. Specifically, we require the existence 120 Tr[Mj Mk ρ(θ)] and k·k1 is the trace norm . The bound in of a single probe state that maximises the qfi for all values Eq. (161) is the Holevo Cramér Rao bound (hcrb) and defines of θ, a compatible measurement that ensures saturability of a scalar lower bound on the weighted mean square error and the qcrb, and a diagonal qfim, which would allow indepen- represents the best precision attainable with global measure- dent estimations of each parameter120. Alternative methods to ments on an asymptotically large number of identical copies provide better precision bounds may involve collective mea- 121–124 of a quantum state . surements over many independent copies of the system, which Despite its importance for practical metrology, the hcrb has is experimentally challenging. seen limited use in multi-parameter quantum metrology. This From the above discussion we see that the sld operator is due to the non-trivial optimisation over a set of observables plays a pivotal role in quantum estimation theory. For a multi- and the implementation of global measurements is a difficult parameter estimation problem, finding the sld for each pa- task. However, few results that use the hcrb do exist for rameter in θ is sufficient to inform whether a simultaneous, 125 qubit state estimation , two-parameter estimation with pure efficient estimation can be performed. It also prescribes the 12 states and two-parameter displacement estimation with two- optimal estimator that saturates the qcrb; the fundamental 126,127 mode Gaussian states . A recent study by Albarelli et al. limit to estimation precisions allowed by quantum mechanics. have investigated the numerical tractability of calculating the We therefore turn our attention to find a functional form for 128 hcrb for multi-parameter estimation problems . the sld. The inequality in Eq. (161) follows24 from the lemma that ∫ ( ) ( ) given the identity Ω f ω M dω = F we have ¹ D. Simultaneous versus sequential estimation | f (ω)|2 M(dω) ≥ FF† , (162) Ω Multi-parameter quantum estimation is important for model- where M is an observable with outcomes in Ω, f (ω) a ing a wider class of physical systems. For example, it may be complex function on Ω, and F an operator. We choose necessary to infer the value of a parameter by estimating a set ˇ Í ˇ Í f (θ) = j ξj (θ j − θ j ) and F = j ξj Mj , substitute them of related but different parameters. Also, there are examples into Eq. (162) and take the expectation value with respect to where knowledge of multiple parameters are required, such ρ. Taking into account a risk matrix R and optimising over all as for microscopy, optical, electromagnetic, and gravitational Mj we obtain Eq. (161). field imaging. One approach for the estimation of multiple pa- The Holevo form of the qcrb can be attained when the rameters is to prepare individual optimal probe and measure- statistical model involves the broad class of Gaussian state ments schemes for each parameter. However, this is generally shifts where the parameters are encoded in shifts of the first challenging to implement experimentally. It would also be 119,122,123,129 moment . When we choose the measurements Mj unsuitable for sensing dynamically evolving probes. Instead, derived from the slds in Eq. (160) and substitute them into a natural approach would be to simultaneously estimate each CH , we find that the first term becomes the standard qcrb: parameter at the same time. The qcrb matrix bounds the pre- [ ] → [ −1] cision of simultaneous multi-parameter estimates, and it could min{Mj } Tr R Re J Tr R IQ , and the second term be- in principle be faster to implement the measurements simlu- comes kR Im I−1 k . Since I−1 is a real positive definite ma- Q 1 Q taneously with fewer resources. For example, in the case of trix, this term vanishes, and C reduces to the qcrb based H estimating D phases, Humphreys et al.134 have demonstrated on the slds. The significance of Eq. (161) is that for non- that simultaneous estimation provides an intrinsic O(D) preci- commuting slds there may be a different set of observables sion improvement over the best quantum scheme for individ- that outperform the M in Eq. (160). j ual measurements devised by Lee, Kok, and Dowling51 using Next, we note that Im J can be written in terms of the noon states. A similar advantage has been demonstrated by commutator Baumgratz and Datta for multi-field estimation86. Within the 1 literature, simultaneous strategies are also referred to as paral- Im J = Tr[ρ[M , M ]] . (163) jk 2 j k lel estimation strategies. Even for large photon losses in phase imaging applications, simultaneous estimation schemes can Assuming R and IQ strictly positive matrices, and noting that provide a constant factor advantage over individual schemes. Tr[ρ[Mj, Mk ]] = 0 implies that Tr[ρ[Lj, Lk ]] = 0, a neces- This has seen a surge of recent work focused on yielding sary and sufficient condition for the saturability of the multi- quantum enhanced sensing from simultaneous estimation of parameter qcrb is then109,111,120,125,130–133 multiple parameters109,113,131,135–137. The principal difficulty of simultaneous multi-parameter Tr ρ[Lj, Lk ] = 0 . (164) estimation arises from the non-attainability of the precision 20 bounds when the infinitesimal generators associated with the Pezze et al. also demonstrate that there always exists a set of 138–140 parameters do not mutually commute . This can lead to projectors nonorthogonal to the probe such that hΓk |ψφi = 0 146 the requirement of non-Hermitian measurements to saturate for all k that saturates I(θ) = IQ(θ) if and only if precision bounds141, which would be difficult to realise. We 2 also saw in the previous section that the necessary condition Im [h∂lψθ |Γk i hΓk |ψθ i] = |hψθ |Γk i| Im [h∂lψθ |ψθ i] . (166) to saturate the qcrb asymptotically is a zero expectation value of the commutator of the slds, as shown in Eq. (164). If this for all l = 1, 2,..., D and all k , 1. Finally, any general condition holds, there exists a common optimal measurement projective measurement for pure probe states under unitary basis for simultaneous estimates. This case is well studied with dynamics is optimal if general results derived for the optimal estimation of multiple phases. For example, Macchiavello calculates the cost associ- Im ∂lψφ Γk Γk ψφ lim = 0, (167) ated with the estimation and finds it increases with increasing φ→θ Γk ψφ number of phase measurements142. Ballester demonstrated that entanglement in the probe states and measurements pro- for all indices l, m and all k for which hΓk |ψφi = 0 and vides no advantage for estimating multiple phases143. If how- if Eq. (166) is fulfilled for all indices l and all k for which ever, Eq. (164) does not hold, there is no simultaneous eigenba- hΓk |ψφi , 0. These conditions are necessary and sufficient sis for the optimal simultaneous estimation of all parameters. for saturating the multi-parameter qcrb provided the qfim is One option to counter this would be to search for alternative invertible. Further conditions for when the information content informative bounds. However, this depends strongly on the from simultaneous estimation of multiple parameters matches specific estimation problem. For example, Genoni et al. find or exceeds that from separable measurements for general probe that for the estimation of complex parameters, the so-called states was analysed by Ragy et al.120. right logarithmic derivative is more informative136 (see sec- Generally, the conditions for optimal simultaneous mea- tionVE). We have already seen alternative bounds based on surements may be hard to realise. This makes it difficult or the sld and the Holevo bound. impossible to saturate the qcrb matrix, and several tradeoffs Several studies have illuminated progress towards simul- are considered. The first deals with the probe states, since the taneous estimation of parameters with non-commuting slds. optimal probe is generally different for each of the D parame- Even when the condition in Eq. (164) is not satisfied, a pre- ters147,148. The second tradeoff deals with the choice of mea- cision advantage may still be granted when estimating all of surements for each parameter, as the optimal measurements the parameters simultaneously120. For non-commuting uni- for different parameters are usually incompatible149. To im- tary operations, it has been shown that entanglement in both pose meaningful quantifiers of these tradeoffs, a cost function the probe states and measurements can attain the Heisenberg is introduced to assign a figure of merit. A general cost func- limit116,144. Constructing the optimal simultaneous projective tion, based on the Fisher information for a particular choice of measurements requires knowledge of the povms that saturate probe state and measurement strategy is the qcrb. Knowledge of this provides an instructive guide −1 for the design of multi-parameter estimation experiments and CΠ(IQ) = Tr IQ(θ)I(θ) , (168) has been heavily investigated. For single parameter estima- where (θ)−1 is the inverse of the classical Fisher information tion, finding an optimal measurement for which the equality I for a given povm, Π. This quantifier enables optimisation I(θ) = I (θ) holds is always possible17,22. Unfortunately, this Q over probe states and measurement strategies to address gen- does not trivially extend to multi-parameter, where few ana- eral tradeoffs in multi-parameter estimation schemes with non- lytic results are known for specific physical systems. The first commuting slds. Although any positive definite matrix can is the estimation of single qubit mixed states122,145. Simul- taneous optimal estimation has also been considered for the be used as the weight matrix in the cost function in Eq. (168), class of pure states. Determining the attainability of the qcrb the qfim is a natural choice for state estimation since it max- for pure states was considered by Matsumoto. Specifically, if imises the average fidelity between the estimated state and the actual state145. Notice that the cost function is lower bounded ( ) ≥ Im [h∂lψθ |∂mψθ i] = 0 l, m (165) by CΠ IQ D, with equality applicable for measurements ∀ that are simultaneously optimal for all parameters. This cost and the qfim is invertible, then a measurement scheme ex- function has been used to determine general bounds for ther- ists for which the classical Fisher information saturates the mometry of distant black bodies150. qfim130. This is weaker constraint than the requirement of Using this strategy, a tradeoff between how well different commuting Hamiltonians for each parameter [Hj, Hk ] = 0 for parameters may be estimated is often considered. This ap- all j, k used for the estimation of multi-dimensional fields86. proach has been explored by Crowley et al. for the estimation Further conditions on projective measurements for optimal of phase φ and loss η in optical interferometry, where saturating phase-like estimation schemes using pure states has been dis- the qcrb for both parameters simultaneously is impossible111. cussed by Pezze et al.146. First, assuming we have a pure However, in many instances there is a single measurement 128 probe state |ψθ i evolving under unitary dynamics and satisfy- observable for both φ and η that saturates the Holevo crb . ing Eq. (165), then the projectors {|Γk i hΓk |} constructed from For a general two-mode pure probe state with definite pho- the probe state and from vectors on the orthogonal subspace al- ton number N, Demkowicz-Dobrzanski et al. show that in ways saturates the qcrb, which can be experimentally realised. lossy interferometers the density matrix for the evolved state 21

4 ( ) ⊕N can be written as the direct sum ρ θ = j=0pj ψj ψj . the possible non-commutativity of A and B. The qfi matrix An intuition behind the origin for the tradeoff between preci- elements are defined in terms of this inner product as sions in phase and loss estimation can be understood by noting [ ] ( ) that the derivatives ∂φ |ψj i and ∂η |ψj i are the same up to an IQ jk = Lj, Lk ρ , (171) imaginary constant111. Hence, estimating θ = (φ, η)> corre- with the usual definition for the slds. sponds to measuring along the axes given by |ψj i ± ∂φ |ψj i and 140 However, there are also other definitions for the inner prod- |ψj i ± i∂φ |ψj i . Using a similar quantifier as in Eq. (168), uct we could use. For example, we could define the inner the qfi for phase measurements can be saturated at the cost of 30,141 the following diminished information on the loss parameter111 product as hh , ii ≡ Tr ρ † . (172) 1 A B ρ BA I(η) = IQ(θ) − IQ(θ) . (169) ηη 4η2 φφ This leads to a different metric, and correspondingly to a dif- For the same probe state, a similar estimation trade-off has ferent logarithmic derivative. Following the same procedure been explored for the estimation of phase and phase diffusion as in sectionIV, the inner product leads to a raising operator 148 (R) for different levels of noise . Rρ (B) = ρB. Since the lowering operator is defined as the Besides optimising over probe states and measurement inverse of the raising operator, we find strategies, a further optimisation over multi-parameter encod- (R) ing channels has been considered in the literature. The two Lρ (ρB) = B . (173) channel schemes that examine this optimisation is parallel and sequential estimation schemes. An important question then When we let the lowering operator act on the derivative ∂j ρ, is which scheme is better suited for different quantum in- we obtain the so-called Right Logarithmic Derivative138,141,158 formation tasks. In quantum estimation, based on general (rld) precision bounds for single parameters in the presence of (R) noise, parallel schemes perform better than sequential feed- Rj ≡ Lρ (∂j ρ), (174) back schemes27,46. For Hamiltonian parameter estimation on D-dimensional systems, sequential feedback has been demon- which from Eq. (173) can be written as ( ) strated to provide an order of O D + 1 improvement over † 147 parallel schemes . In quantum channel discrimination, the ∂j ρ = ρRj = Rj ρ . (175) comparison of these two strategies has drawn a lot of atten- tion151–153. In this scenario, sequential feedback schemes out- The information matrix corresponding to these rlds is given perform parallel schemes, where the use of ancillary systems by 154,155 was necessary . However, the use of ancillary systems or h i [ ] † entanglement was relaxed in a separate protocol by Duan et al., IR jk = Rj, Rk ρ = Tr Rj ρRk . (176) who developed the optimal sequential scheme to discriminate between different quantum channels156. This inner product is a different way to define a metric in the space of linear operators, leading to an alternative way of measuring the distance between density matrices along curves E. The Right Logarithmic Derivative parametrised by θ. The question is when and how this is useful for metrology. The classical Fisher information is the unique Riemannian met- We can derive a bound on the covariance matrix for θ anal- ric on the space of classical probability distribtions that has the ogous to the qcrb, but instead based on the rld. Unbiased property of contraction under coarse graining. However, in the estimators Mj for θ j obey Tr[ρMj ] = θ j , and we find quantum-mechanical case the possibility of non-commuting h i operators breaks this uniqueness, and instead we obtain a fam- ( )( − ) ( − ) † Tr ∂k ρ Mj θ j = Tr ρ Mj θ j Rk = δjk . (177) ily of metrics157. It is therefore interesting to explore some alternative quantum extensions of the Fisher information. The fact that the rld involves a simple product of operators The qfi and the sld are derived from the symmetrised cor- Rj and ρ means that we can left- and right-multiply Eq. (177) relation 1 h{ , }i between two observables and (see 2 A B A B by two complex vectors y = (y1,..., yD) and z = (z1,..., zD), Eq. (55)). This correlation can be interpreted as an instance of respectively: an inner product in the space of linear operators Õ h ∗ † i Õ ∗ Tr y ρ(Mj − θ j )R zk = y zj . (178) 1 h † † i j k j (A, B) ≡ Tr ρ BA + A B , (170) j ρ 2 jk which also applies to operators A and B that are not self- We separate the trace into a product of operators adjoint. As shown in sectionIV, this inner product defines √ Õ √ Õ ∗( − ) ∗ the metric operator Lρ that is used to construct the sld and ρ yj Mj θ j and ρ zj Rj , (179) the qfi. Our choice of the inner product was motivated by j k 22 and use the Schwarz inequality for the trace to obtain the less than the rld-based bound. Therefore, the rld bound is following inequality: interesting only when we consider multiple parameters. Another constraint is that the rld does not exist for pure 2 Õ h i Õ states. Nevertheless, a meaningful bound may still be con- y†z ≤ © ∗Tr ρ † ª © y∗ Cov(θ) y ª . (180) zj Rj Rk zk ® j jk k ® structed, relying on the fact that the non-existence of Rj for jk jk not −130 « ¬ « ¬ pure states does imply the non-existence of IR . Fuji- wara gives two examples. First, I−1 for the quadrature mea- We can choose y and z any way we want. Using [I ] = R R jk surements (q, p) of a pure coherent state |αi with complex [ †] −1 Tr ρRj Rk and setting z = IR y, the resulting inequality is amplitude α and frequency ω is given by † † − y Cov(θ) y ≥ y I 1y . (181) 1 ω i R I−1 = . (189) R 2 −i ω−1 Again, since this must be true for any complex-valued vector y, we obtain the inequality The information in Eq. (189) is interesting, since the associated bound in Eq. (183) takes the form of the additive uncertainty −1 159 Cov(θ) ≥ IR . (182) relation for the rescaled position and momentum

2 2 Clearly, the matrix IR plays a role similar to the qfi IQ, but now ∆q˜ + ∆p˜ ≥ 1, (190) using the rld. Expressed using a cost matrix R, the bound √ √ based on the rld becomes where q˜ = q/ ω and p˜ = ω p. This is in contrast to the qcrb using the qfi for the evolution U = exp(−iq˜p˜) with p˜ the −1 Tr[R Cov(θ)] ≥ Tr RIR ≡ CR . (183) momentum operator, which recovers the standard form of the 1 uncertainty relation ∆q˜ ∆p˜ ≥ 2 . There are instances in which the this bound is tighter (i.e., Second, for a measurement of a rotation R(θ, φ) of a spin-j > more informative) that the qcrb, or CR CQ. system in a state | ji oriented along the z-axis the information For a single parameter the qcrb based on the sld is always I−1 becomes higher than the bound based on the rld21. To show this, we R write the rld in the diagonal basis of the density operator. 2 −1 1 sin θ −i sin θ First, we use the deﬁnitions I = , (191) R sin2 θ i sin θ 1 Õ ∂θ ρ = (∂θ ρ)mn |mi hn| . (184) where θ and φ are the usual spherical coordinates. Again, mn this information translates via Eq. (183) into an additive un- and certainty relation for the two rotation angles Õ ∆θ2 + sin2 θ ∆φ2 ≥ 1 . (192) Rθ = Rjk | ji hk| . (185) jk Both these examples outperform the standard qcrb, and provide the most informative bounds24,119,141,159. Suzuki provides The rld can then be written as an explicit formula for the bound on two-parameter estimation 125 Õ (∂θ ρ)jk using qubits . Rθ = | ji hk| . (186) Finally, the rld is generally not Hermitian. Consequently, pj jk the optimal estimator derived from these two quantities may From this it follows that not correspond to a physical povm. Despite this, the use of non-self adjoint operators have been demonstrated to saturate the multi-parameter qcrb12,141. IR = Tr[(∂θ ρ)Rθ ] Õ |hj|(∂ ρ)|ki|2 Õ |hj|(∂ ρ)|ki|2 = θ = θ It is interesting to consider how the rld bound relates to the p p Holevo form of the qcrb in Eq. (161). Nagaoka24 deﬁnes the jk j jk k rld bound in Eq. (183) as 1 Õ 1 1 2 = + |hj|(∂θ ρ)|ki| . (187) √ √ 2 pj pk −1 −1 jk CR = Tr R Re IR + R (Im IR ) R , (193) 1

We can now compare this with the qfi for a single parameter which takes the form of Eq. (161) when the observables Mj as in Eq. (88), and note that −1 are chosen such that J = IR . These are generally not the same obervables found through minimisation, and we therefore ﬁnd 2 1 1 1 ≤ + . (188) pj + pk 2 pj pk CH ≥ max{CQ, CR } , (194)

This means that for single parameter estimation problems IQ ≤ and the Holevo form is the most informative bound on the IR (when Rθ exists), and the qcrb based on the sld is never covariance matrix of θ. 23

F. Kubo-Mori information and therefore the use of IKM(θ) in Eq. (202) can be considered more natural for statistical physics applications than the 162 When the quantum system under consideration is in a thermal qfi . For further details, see chapter 4 of Kubo, Toda, and 163 state, a more natural crb can be found based on so-called Hashitsume . Kubo-Mori information. The density operator of a thermal A Cramér-Rao-type inequality can be derived when we con- ˇ state can be written in exponential form as sider the covariance of Mθ = θ − θ, such that ¹ ∞ ρ = e−βH−θ A , (195) x 1−x −1 CovB(θ) = Tr ρ Mθ ρ Mθ dx ≥ IKM(θ) . (203) 0 where β = 1/kBT, with kB Boltzmann’s constant, T the temperature, H the Hamiltonian, and we absorbed the partition For a single parameter θ, the Kubo-Mori information is equal function in H. The term θ A corresponds to a force on the to system generated by A. Õ log pj − log pk 2 The quantum relative entropy for two states ρ and σ is given IKM(θ) = |hj|∂θ ρ|ki| . (204) p + p by160 jk j k

D(ρ k σ) = Tr[ρ log ρ] − Tr[ρ log σ] . (196) This is a more informative bound than the one based on the rld in Eq. (187), but less informative than the qcrb based The quantum relative entropy for two states e−βH−θ A and on the sld in Eq. (88)161. The Kubo-Mori information gives 0 e−βH−θ B then becomes the bound for consistent supereﬃcient estimators162, i.e., estimators that outperform maximum likelihood estimation. The 0 −βH−θ A 0 D(ρ(θ, A) k ρ(θ , B)) = Tr[e (βH + θ B)] Kubo-Mori information plays a central role in the construction − Tr[e−βH−θ A(βH + θ A)] . (197) of uncertainty relations between energy and temperature in quantum thermodynamics164. Taking the derivative of the quantum relative entropy with respect to θ and θ0, we obtain the relation G. Wigner-Yanase skew information 1 ∂2D(A k B) = hAihBi (198) β2 ∂θ∂θ0 We have seen in Eqs. (88), (187), and (204) that we can write ¹ β IQ, IR, and IKM in terms of the matrix elements of the deriva- 1 −βH xH −xH − Tr e e Ae B dx , tive of the density operator ∂θ ρ in the basis of ρ: β 0

0 Õ 2 2 when θ → θ. This motivates the Bogoliubov inner product IQ(θ) = |hj|(∂θ ρ)|ki| , (205) p + p for thermal states: jk j k 1 1 1 ( ) ¹ Õ 2 (A, B) B = Tr ρx A† ρ1−x B dx , (199) IR(θ) = + |hj|(∂θ ρ)|ki| , (206) ρ 2pj 2pk 0 jk

161 Õ log pj − log pk 2 which can be used to construct a new logarithmic derivative IKM(θ) = |hj|(∂θ ρ)|ki| . (207) p + p called the Bogoliubov Logarithmic Derivative (bld) jk j k ¹ 1 x 1−x The different types of quantum information are determined by ∂θ ρ = ρ Bθ ρ dx . (200) ( ) 0 the functions c pj, pk of the eigenvalues of ρ in the above equations. Morozova and Chentsov (and extended by Petz) and proposed these functions as a classification of monotone Rie- ¹ ∞ mannian metrics on matrix spaces157,165, and they include −1 −1 Bθ = (x + ρ) (∂θ ρ)(x + ρ) dx , (201) another interesting example: 0 Õ 4 leading to the Kubo-Mori information I (θ) = |hj|(∂ ρ)|ki|2 . (208) WY √ √ 2 θ jk pj + pk ¹ 1 (B) h x † 1−x i IKM(θ) = (Bθ, Bθ )ρ = Tr ρ Bθ ρ Bθ dx . (202) 166 0 This is the Wigner-Yanase skew information . When the parameter θ is generated unitarily by the self-adjoint operator The form of the Bogoliubov inner product in Eq. (199) origi- G, the form becomes nates in the theory of linear response of thermal systems using the canonical correlation between A and B 1 √ 2 IWY (G) = − Tr [ ρ, G] ¹ 1 2 x 1−x 2 h 1 1 i Tr ρ (A − Tr[ρA])ρ (B − Tr[ρB]) dx , = Tr G ρ − Tr Gρ 2 Gρ 2 , (209) 0 24 which no longer relies on finding the spectrum of ρ. In the limit Let Pr(x, θ) be the joint probability distribution of x and θ. of pure states, IWY reduces to the variance of G. For unitary Bayes’ theorem then states that Pr(x, θ) = Pr(x|θ) Pr(θ). We 167 evolutions exp(−iθG), is was shown that IQ(θ) = 8IWY(G). can change the natural expectation value to Wigner and Yanase sought to capture the sense in which ¹ observables that commute with some conserved quantity G Ex,θ [ f ] = dx dθ Pr(x, θ) f (x, θ), (214) are easier to measure than observables that do not166. The skew information they propose measures the information in ρ about not-so-easy-to-measure observables, e.g., it provides for some integrable function f (x, θ). The Bayesian covariance a measure of non-commutativity between ρ and G. Their matrix becomes definition ensures that I is convex, additive, and is non- > WY increasing over time for open quantum systems. Cov(θˇ) = Ex,θ θˇ − Ex,θ θˇ θˇ − Ex,θ θˇ . (215) As with most other metrics in this review, the Wigner-Yanase skew information can be used to derive uncertainty relations This no longer depends directly on θ via the probability distri- between observables A and B. Furuichi and Yanagi define the bution Pr(x|θ), and it incorporates the prior information about 168 correlation between observables as θ. Classically, we can switch between Fisher and Bayesian esti- √ √ mation by simply replacing the expectation values throughout, Cor(A, B) ≡ Tr[ρAB] − Tr ρA ρB , (210) even though the interpretations of the resulting quantities will and prove that this is bounded by be subtly different in important ways. For example, the classical mse will depend on the true value of θ, while the Bayesian 2 Cor (A, B) ≥ IWY(A) IWY(B) . (211) mse will have no dependence on θ at all. The optimal estimator θˇ that minimises the Bayesian mse There are many other uses for the Wigner-Yanase skew infor- B of a parameter θ is the mean of the posterior probability dis- mation, including as an entanglement witness169. tribution2 Pr(θ|x) Another way to understand the Wigner-Yanase skew information is as a measure of the quantum fluctuations in a state ρ ¹ ˇ for an observable A, as opposed to the variance (∆A)2, which θB(x) = dθ θ Pr(θ|x) . (216) measures both the classical and the quantum fluctuations: This estimator changes as additional data x is obtained. In 1 (∆A)2 = − Tr [ρa, A][ρ1−a, A] + Tr ρaδAρ1−aδA , addition, the choice of a prior probability distribution Pr(θ) is 2 important for a successful Bayesian parameter estimation. For (212) more details on Bayesian estimation in the classical domain, 2 where a ∈ [0, 1] and δA = A − hAi. The first term is the see Kay (1993) . Wigner-Yanase skew information generalised by Dyson, which To derive the Bayesian form of the quantum Fisher informa- 1 tion we use again the density matrix of a system ρ(θ) evolved reduces to IWY(A) when a = 2 . The second term is the classical uncertainty in A given the state ρ. A common ap- according to a parameter θ of interest. There is now a prior proach164,170,171 is to average the quantum fluctuations over probability distribution Pr(θ) over θ, so that we can define a the possible values of a: prior-weighted density operator as: ¹ 1 ¹ 1 a 1−a 2 (B) ( ) ( ) − Tr [ρ , A][ρ , A] da = A − (A, A)ρ . (213) ρ = dθ Pr θ ρ θ . (217) 2 0 This relates the average to the Bogoliubov inner product in Similarly, we can define the posterior mean operator Eq. (199), from which the Kubo-Mori information was de- ¹ rived. Hence the Bogoliubov inner product is intimately re- θρ = dθ Pr(θ)θρ(θ) . (218) lated to the classical fluctuations of A given the state ρ. It is (B) easily verified that for pure states (A, B)ψ = hAihBi and the Just like the qfi was given by the scalar product of ∂θ ρ with classical uncertainty vanishes. itself, IQ(θ) = (∂θ ρ, ∂θ ρ)ρ = Tr ∂θ ρ Lρ(∂θ ρ) , we define a new Bayesian information IB based on θρ using the same H. Bayesian quantum estimation theory inner product that originated from the symmetrised operator correlation in Eq. (55): So far we have considered Fisher estimation theory, where θ h i is an unknown parameter that is not random. However, of- IB ≡ θρ, θρ ρ¯ = Tr θρ Lρ¯(θρ) (219) ten the parameter θ can itself be a random variable. This is handled by the Bayesian approach to probability theory. In A new symmetric logarithmic posterior mean operator Sθ ≡ this case we have some probability distribution Pr(θ) over θ, Lρ¯(θρ) can be constructed from called the prior. Bayesian quantum metrology using prior information was considered by Demkowicz-Dobrzański172, and 1 θρ = {ρ, S } , (220) Macieszczak, Fraas and Demkowicz-Dobrzański173. 2 θ 25 which plays a similar role to the sld in the ordinary quantum quantum Allan variance to the precision of atomic clocks. Ru- 1 Cramér-Rao bound. Using that A = 2 {ρ, B} has a general bio and Dunningham describe quantum metrology in the pres- solution174 ence of limited data using this formalism176. Bernád, Sanavio ∞ and Xuereb use the quantum Bayesian estimation technique to ¹ 177 B = 2 ds e−ρs Ae−ρs , (221) estimate the nonlinear opto-mechanical coupling strength 0 and the matter-field coupling strength in the dipole approx- imation178. Rz˛adkowski and Demkowicz-Dobrzański apply we find Bayesian techniques to discrete phases179. ¹ ∞ ( ) −ρ¯s −ρ¯s The multi-parameter form of CovB for θ = θ1, . . ., θD with Sθ = 2 ds e θρ e . (222) estimator observables S = (S ,..., S ) is 0 1 D h i h i The quantum Bayesian information IB then takes the form CovB(S)jk = Eθ θ j θk − Tr θ j ρ Sk − Tr θk ρ Sj (229) ¹ ∞ h −ρ¯s −ρ¯s i 2 1 IB = 2 ds Tr θρ e θρ e = Tr ρ Sθ . (223) + Tr ρ{Sj, Sk } , (230) 0 2 Contrary to the qfi, which has units of θ−2, this information where j, k ∈ {1,..., D}. Furthermore, we can prove that 2 has units of θ . h i h i Personick174 showed how these definitions leads to a mini- Tr θ j ρ Sk + Tr θk ρ Sj = Tr ρ{Sj, Sk } , (231) mum mse for the situation where we have a prior distribution Pr(θ) over the parameter θ. The mse for θ is obtained via a and we can therefore introduce the quantum Bayes information measurement of some observable M: matrix ¹ h i 1 2 ( ) ≡ ( ) ( ) ( − I) [IB(S)]jk = Tr θ j ρ Lρ¯ θk ρ = Tr ρ {Sj, Sk } . (232) CovB M dθ Pr θ Tr ρ θ M θ 2 h i ¹ = Tr ρM2 − 2Tr θρ M + dθ Pr(θ) θ2 The proof of this expression for the matrix follows from the fact that the Bayesian estimation case has the same geometric h i structure as the Fisher estimation case. The multi-parameter = E θ2 − Tr θρ M , (224) θ Bayesian minimum mse bound can then be written as where ρ and θρ are defined as above, and we used the subscript CovB(S)jk ≥ Eθ θ j θk − [IB(S)]jk . (233) “B” to emphasize this is a Bayesian covariance. Our task is to find the optimal operator M that achieves the minimal mse. A similar result for the multi-parameter Bayesian mse was It is given by Eq. (222), and M is Hermitian and unique174, independently obtained by Rubio and Dunningham180. at least in the single-parameter case. The proof by Personick proceeds by considering VI. SPECIAL CASES OF QUANTUM ESTIMATION CovB(M) ≤ CovB(M + H), (225) There are a number of special applications in quantum param- with ≥ 0 and and arbitrary Hermitian operator. Using the H eter estimation. First, in quantum optics we very often deal definition in Eq. (224) and expanding the square then leads to with Gaussian states, and these admit closed forms for the qfi the condition that and the slds. Second, we consider the case when the evolution h i of the probe state does not take the form of a simple unitary Tr H ρM + M ρ − 2θρ = 0, (226) U = exp(−iθG). and from Eq. (220) the identification M = Sθ follows. The Bayesian quantum Cramér-Rao bound then becomes A. Estimation using Gaussian states 2 2 (∆θ)B ≥ (∆θ)p − IB , (227) The practical implementation of quantum parameter estima- 2 tion often involves Gaussian quantum states, due to their ubiq- where (∆θ)p is the variance of the prior distribution uity, relative easy of preparation, and their admittance of closed ¹ form analytical expressions for the qfi and the sld. Of partic- ( )2 ( ) 2 ∆θ p = dθ Pr θ θ , (228) ular importance is the use of Gaussian states in the context of quantum optics, where coherent, squeezed, and thermal states 2 175 and the quantity (∆θ)p − IB is the quantum Allan variance . all form part of the Gaussian family of states. This construction was used by Macieszczak et al. for Consider a system comprised of n modes of a bosonic field. 173 ⊗n Bayesian quantum frequency estimation , leading to the in- The Hilbert space H = k=1Hk is the tensor product of the troduction of the quantum Allan variance by Chabuda, Leroux, infinite dimensional Fock space of each mode k, that is spanned 175 and Demkowicz-Dobrzański and their application of the by the number basis {|mik }, with m a natural number. The 26 creation and annihilation operators for each mode are defined with zero mean λth = 0 and covariance Σth = (2n + 1)1. Any by single-mode Gaussian state can be written in terms of a dis- √ placed squeezed thermal state181: aˆk |mik = m |m − 1ik √ † † † † | i | i ρG = S Dα ρthDαS = UρthU , (242) aˆk m k = m + 1 m + 1 k , (234) † where the Gaussian unitaries obeying the commutation relation [ak, aj ] = δjk , with all other † ∗ commutators zero. In the phase space formalism, a conven- Dα = exp αaˆ − α aˆ , (243) tional approach is to arrange these operators into a vectorial 1 ( † † )> ∗ 2 †2 operator aˆ := aˆ1, aˆ1,..., aˆn, aˆn . The vector then satisfies S = exp ( aˆ − aˆ ) , (244) the compact commutation relation 2 are defined as the displacement operator and single mode aˆ i, aˆ j = Ωij (235) squeezing operator, respectively. The ordering of a displace- ⊕n > − −1 ment and squeezing operations can be reversed according to where the matrix Ω = j=1iσy satisfies Ω = Ω = Ω , and σy is the Pauli y matrix. An equivalent description of bosonic systems can be written in terms of the dimensionless canonical DαS = S Dγ, (245) quadrature field operators: ∗ with γ = α cosh r − α exp[iϑ ] sinh r . States described by 1 † i † Eq. (242) are readily prepared in laboratories and their unitary qˆj = √ aˆj + aˆj , and pˆj = −√ aˆj − aˆj . (236) 2 2 evolutions realised by use of lasers, linear optical elements, and squeezing mediums182. The multi-mode generalisation of These observables act similar to the position and momentum Eq. (242) can be found using the matrix generalisation183 of operators of the quantum harmonic oscillator, and satisfy the the operators in Eq. (244). canonical commutation relations [qˆj, pˆk ] = iδjk . Introducing Both the mean and second moment of a Gaussian quantum > the vector of operators Rˆ = (qˆ1, pˆ1,..., qˆn, pˆn) , we similarly state may depend on parameters θ that we wish to estimate. re-write the canonical commutation relations in the compact To bound the precision of the estimation procedure, we aim form to calculate the qfi of Gaussian quantum states. This is not always an easy task. All of the work described in the previ- ˆ ˆ Rj, Rk = iΩjk . (237) ous sections relied on knowledge of the density matrix, and for Gaussian states this is most conveniently addressed in the A Gaussian n-mode quantum state ρ is a state that is com- phase-space formalism by mapping transformations of the state pletely characterized by n first moments λ and an n × n second 184 moment matrix Σ such that to transformations of the moments . The first work in this direction was completed by Pinel et 185 λ = Tr[ρ aˆ] = haî, Σjk = Tr ρ a˜ˆj, a˜ˆk , (238) al. who derived the expression for the ultimate limit to parameter estimations using pure Gaussian states of arbitrarily with the zero mean operators a˜ˆj = aˆj − haˆj i, and {A, B} = many modes. A more general approach to finding the qfi and AB + BA the anti-commutator of operators A and B. The the sld for Gaussian states is through the mean displacement characteristic function of ρ is defined as and covariance matrix. This approach has been taken by a > number of authors. The first result in this direction was by χ(ζ) = Tr ρ exp[−aˆ Ω ζ] , (239) Monras in 2013, who derived the form of the sld for general Gaussian states evolving under Gaussian unitaries186. By tak- where ζ = (ζ , ζ ∗, . . ., ζ , ζ ∗)> ∈ R2n. For a Gaussian den- 1 1 n n ing an sld ansatz that is quadratic in the quadrature operators, Σ sity matrix with first moment λ and second moment , the the sld and qfi are written as an infinite series solution to corresponding characteristic function is also Gaussian: the Stein-equation. A similar approach by Jiang confirmed Monras’ result and gave the sld for states in exponential form 1 > > > χ(ζ) = exp ζ (ΩΣΩ )ζ − i(Ωλ ζ) , (240) in terms of the generator and its moments187. Gao and Lee 2 followed an alternative method to derive the sld and the qfi A Gaussian unitary transformation is any trace preserving for multi-mode Gaussian states. The necessity of inverting quantum channel that preserves the Gaussian nature of the relatively large matrices is a drawback of this method188. Ex- characteristic function. pressions for the qfim for multi-mode Gaussian states were 189 A common pure Gaussian state is the vacuum ρin = |0i h0|, reported by Šafránek, Lee, and Fuentes . A unification of while for mixed states it is the thermal state: these results and a resolution of the problematic divergence behaviour of the qfim for pure states has been addressed190. ∞ n Õ n Specifically, by applying the regularisation procedure R to ex- ρ = |ni hn| , (241) th (1 + )1+n pressions of the qfim valid for mixed Gaussian states only, the n=0 n qfim for Gaussian states with any number of pure modes can be where n = hnî is the expectation of the photon number nˆ. immediately determined. Defining IQ[ρG; {λ, Σ}] as the qfim Thermal radiation exhibits a Gaussian characteristic function for a mixed Gaussian state with mean λ and covariance Σ, the 27 regularisation procedure R for some regularisation parameter where M = Σ ⊗ Σ + Ω ⊗ Ω/4. The qfi for any n-mode ξ > 1 proceeds according to bosonic Gaussian system was then determined through ap- 0 plication of Wicks theorem for Gaussian states to yield R : lim IQ ρ ; {λ, ξΣ} . (246) ξ→1 G

The resulting value is the correct qfim for any Gaussian state 1 −1 αβ µν −1 µ ν IQ = M ∂j Σ ∂k Σ + Σ ∂jλ ∂kλ . (251) and does not suffer from divergences. A similar regularisation jk 2 αβ,µν µν has been also been used to regularise the qfi for non-Gaussian states36. Marian and Marian gave a full analysis of the qfi for Calculating the qfi increases exponentially in computational two-mode Gaussian states191,192. time with the number of modes owing to the inversion of large Due to the structure of Gaussian states, the sld is at most dimensional matrices. This result is limited to mixed Gaussian quadratic in the bosonic (or equivalently the canonical) mode states. operators. Hence, for the sld of parameter θk we make the Finally, Banchi, Braunstein and Pirandola derived analytical following Ansatz: forms for the fidelity between two arbitrary Gaussian states193, 1 ( ) ( ) 1 h i which can be related to the qfi via the quantum fidelity in- L = A k a˜ˆ α, a˜ˆ β + B k a˜ˆ α − Tr A(k)Σ , (247) k 2 αβ α 2 troduced in Eq. (81). A closed form of the sld has recently been derived using the quantum fidelity formalism194. The for the sld for Gaussian states, where Greek indices imply optimal measurement described by these slds does not always Einstein summation convention. Notice that the first term in correspond to Gaussian measurements195. Eq. (247) is composed of bilinear contributions (i.e., a product of a creation operator with an annihilation operator) that corresponds to linear unitary operations such as beam-splitters, half and quarter wave plates, and phase-shifters. The quadratic contribution describes active devices such as squeezers and B. Hamiltonians with non-multiplicative factors down-converters. The second term in Eq. (247) has a linear dependence on the operators. These operations describe dis- (k) (k) So far we have considered the estimation precision of a given placements in phase space. The coefficients A and B are probe into the dynamics that imprints the parameter θ. This completely determined from the first and second moments of is a channel estimation scheme, where an optimisation over the probe state and their derivatives. Finally, we include a the possible input probe states can improve the estimation pre- − 1 [ (k)Σ] constant term 2 Tr A . cision196. Within this regime, we have reviewed parameter 186 Monras found a closed form for these coefficients as a estimation schemes where the Hamiltonian is either a constant solution to the Stein-equation or has multiplicative dependence on the parameter of interest ∞ (e.g., a coupling strength). This regime is known as the phase- (k) Õ >j −1 j (k) −1 A = F ∂k (Σ )F , B = 2Σ (∂kλ), (248) shift or phase-like Hamiltonian estimation, where the parame- j=0 ter to estimate multiplies a parameter-independent Hermitian 22,197 − ( ) generator G , taking the unitary form U = exp(−iθG). with F = (iΣσ ) 1. Notice that the constant A k is defined y This regime has been extensively studied, and these single only for non-singular states, which excludes pure states. The parameter phase-shift Hamiltonians define the optimal probe qfim then reads state58 as discussed in subsectionIVI. It has been applied for 2 198–201 1 n¯ −1 −1 > −1 Hamiltonian characterisation in the absence of noise , [IQ]jk = Tr (∂j Σ)Σ (∂k Σ)Σ + 2(∂jλ) Σ (∂kλ), 2 1 + n¯2 and frequency measurements and atomic spectroscopy in the (249) presence of decoherence7,27. where n¯ is the average photon number of the thermal states More general Hamiltonians have recently started to attract before symplectic transformations. The qfi in Eq. (249) is not attention202, since they permit the application of quantum valid for all mixed states, but only for ‘isotropic’ or ‘isother- metrology to a more general class of problems such as time- mal’ states that have the same symplectic eigenvalues for all varying fields203,204 and in gradient magnetometry205. It is modes, which includes the class of pure state models. An ele- well known that a pure state parameterised by a multiplicative gant form for the qfim for arbitrary mixed Gaussian states was Hamiltonian of the form Hj = θ j Gj for a time t, the qfi is derived by Šafránek190, from which the origin of precision given by22,112 enhancements were assigned to three qualitatively different terms: changes to the orientation and squeezing of the Gaus- 2 2 IQ(θ j ) = 4t (∆Gj ) . (252) sian state, changes in purity, and changes in displacement. Independently, Gao and Lee used phase space methods to derive an exact form of the sld and the qfi188. Their use of a The definition of the generator when the state is parame- quadratic Ansatz for the sld lead to the result terised by a more general Hamiltonian for the form H(θ) becomes unclear. Assuming the Hamiltonian has n unique 1 −1 αβ ˆγ ˆκ γκ −1 ν ˆµ eigenvalues Ej with j = 1,..., n, degeneracy dj and cor- Lj = Mγκ,αβ ∂j Σ a˜ a˜ − Σ + Σµν ∂jλ a˜ , (k) 2 responding eigenvectors |E i, k ∈ {1,..., dj } satisfying (250) (β) (δ) j hEα |Eγ i = δαγδβδ, then the generator of translations in θ j 28 can be written as112,206,207 A. Metrology in noisy quantum channels

ng d d Õ Õ Õk Õl Various methods to calculate parameter precision bounds in ( ) [− ( − )/ ] Gj θ = ∂j Ek Pk + 2 exp i Ek El 2 the presence of noise have been developed. A common ap- k=1 k,l m=1 n=1 proach is to use the Kraus decomposition of the quantum Ek − El D ( ) ( )E ( )ED ( ) 27,41,44 × sin E n ∂ E m E m E n , channel . The completely positive, trace preserving 2 l j k k l (cptp) channel ρ(θ) = Λ[ρ(0)](θ), satisfying Λ[ρ(0)](θ) ≥ 0 (253) and Tr[ρ(θ)] = Tr[ρ(0)], can be expanded in terms of the Kraus operators210,211 Í | (j)i h (j)| where Pk = j Ek Ek is the projector onto the Ek - q eigenspace. The form of the generator in Eq. (253) implies that Õ † ρ(θ) = Λ [ρ(0)] = K (θ)ρ(0)K (θ). (255) the qfi can be separated into two parts. The first part is due to j j j=1 the dependence of the eigenvalues on θ j , and the second due to the dependence of the eigenstates on θ . An upper bound j The set of q Kraus operators K (θ) = {Kj (θ)} is referred to as a on the qfi was derived by Pang and Brun112 Íq †( ) ( ) 1 q-Kraus decomposition of Λ, satisfying j=1 Kj θ Kj θ = . This representation is not unique, since for every q-Kraus de- n Õ composition of a channel, all the other q-Kraus decomposi- max ≤ 2 ( )2 IQ 2t dj ∂j Ej (254) tions can be constructed via a unitary transformation j=1 d d Õ k l 2 2 u (θ)K (θ), Õ Õ Õ (Ek − El)t D (n) (m)E jk j + sin E |∂j E . 2 l k k k,l m=1 n=1 where uij (θ) is a unitary matrix. The set of all q-Kraus de- Increasing the channel qfi can be achieved by enhancing the compositions of a channel is called the q-Kraus ensemble and sensitivity of the generator through additional terms in the is noted Kq(θ). The smallest possible number q of Kraus Hamiltonian196. Specifically, for time evolutions with param- operators is known as the Kraus rank. It can be obtained as eter independent eigenvalues, Eq. (253) exhibits a periodic the number of non-vanishing eigenvalues of the Choi-matrix time dependence of the channel qfi112. Generally, this alone of the channel18. The generality of this representation is that does not saturate the Heisenberg limit precision, but can with it can be used to model any system decoherence. Specifi- feedback controls147,208. In section VII, we see how the preci- cally, adding arbitrary environmental degrees of freedom to sion achievable in channel estimation schemes can be improved the probe system, the probe dynamics can be written as a with ancilla states. unitary evolution for the combined probe-bath system. This The general result in Eq. (253) implies that for any unitary process is not unique since it requires the environment to be encoding, the optimal probe states can be assigned through defined; the probe evolution depends on the unitary evolution the prescription described by Giovannetti et al.58. However, associated with the enlarged Hilbert space. A fixed choice of this method requires that the spectrum for the Hamiltonian the unitary evolution and environmental degrees of freedom is known, and this is generally difficult. This complication corresponds to choosing a Kraus operator Kj (θ), which leads 27 can be avoided if the non-multiplicative estimation problem to an upper bound for the qfi can be related to an equivalent, phase-like estimation problem ( ) ( ) ≥ h ( )i − h ( )i2 through re-parameterisation of the parameters θ, since the qfi IQ,max ρ 0 , Kj θ 4 H1 θ H2 θ , (256) matrix elements transforms as a metric tensor209, as we have where seen in sectionVA. If a nonlinear function of the parameters can be transformed into a phase-like scheme this approach may †( ) Õ dKj θ dKj (θ) simplify the calculation of the qfi. We will return to functions H (θ) = , (257) 1 dθ d of multiple parameters in section VIII B. j x †( ) Õ dKj θ H (θ) = i K (θ), (258) 2 dθ j j VII. NOISY QUANTUM METROLOGY and the expectation is with respect to the initial probe state. We have seen that quantum resources can improve sensing ca- For unitary processes, Eq. (256) reduces to the common gen- pabilities over classical methods. However, very few systems erator variance bound. The Kraus decomposition can be ap- can be prepared in complete isolation from its environment plied to ancilla assisted schemes, where the bound can be in practice. Therefore, applications of quantum metrology similarly determined from the reduced density matrix of the must include a description of the interaction of a system with probe. Determining the qfi requires optimising Eq. (256) over its environment as illustrated in figure7. Generally, the per- all Kraus operators, which is generally difficult. Alternative formance of sensors are limited by decoherence in a familiar methods have been introduced to determine error bounds in fashion to most applications of quantum technologies. noisy systems. This includes using a variational approach42, a 29

environment which is often referred to as the Master Equation. One method Hˆ to obtain general precision bounds from Eq. (259) is through e numerical methods, which does not match the insight provided by analytical approaches. Fortunately, this limitation has been HÎ system addressed by Sekatski et al., who developed a framework to Hˆs provide analytic results for general decoherence models described through the master equation220. This was followed by a more qualitative approach that addresses the effects of arbitrary Markovian dynamics on the precision scaling of unitary FIG. 7. System-bath interaction model where Hs, He, and HI are the parameter estimation problems. Specifically, if the generator system, environment, and interaction Hamiltonians. of translations G in θ can be written in terms of the opera- tors221,222 n o 212 1 H AH † H † AH generalised Bures angle approach to quantum channels , and , Lj , iLj , (Lj Lj ) , i(Lj Lj ) , (260) through the geometry of quantum channels, which has been used to explore the effects depolarisation, dephasing, sponta- where the superscript ‘H’ and ‘AH’ denote the Hermitian and neous emission and photon loss channels44,213. the anti-Hermitian part of an operator respectively, then for For non-unitary probe encoding, few analytic expressions some interrogation time T, the precision scales as at most for the qfi exist4,200,214 given that the calculation involves α ∆θ ≥ √ , (261) complex optimisation procedures which becomes increasingly T difficult with increasing system size. In this case, it is more informative to report on asymptotic lower bounds to the esti- where α is a real constant. Equivalently, the precision scales mation precision for specific noise models. For the estimation no better than 1/N with N quantifying the resources used. of some parameter θ, the error in its estimate depends on This method does not depend on the integrated form of the the initial probe state. Noise generally degrades the optimal master equation, but only on the geometric properties on the quadratic enhancement of precision estimates to one that is a Lindblad operators. Furthermore, if the generator is not in the constant improvement over classical methods213. In fact, it has span of the Lindblad operators then the Heisenberg scaling been demonstrated that for parallel Markovian dephasing noise can be recovered with application of quantum error correction in the probe preparation, the precision scaling is reduced to the procedures. This was realised experimentally by Kessler et √ 223 224 220 classical sql ∆θ ∼ 1/ N7,27,213, and transverse Markovian deal. , Dür et al. , and Sekatski et al. . We will review this phasing noise reduces the scaling bound to ∆θ ∼ 1/N5/6 if an in further detail in subsection VII C. entangled probe is used215. For the entangled ghz probe, One approach to quantify and understand the impact of these scalings were generalised to Markovian noise in nonlin- decoherence on parameter estimates is to have access to the ear quantum metrology with many-body open systems by Beau environmental degrees of freedom to make estimates of both and del Campo216. Specifically, for a k-dimensional Hamilto- Hamiltonian and bath-coupling parameters. Monras and Paris nian and p-dimensional Lindblad operator, the variance of a showed that for Gaussian probes, this approach makes no im- 214 Hamiltonian parameter scales as N−[k−(p/2)], which surpasses provement in that there is always an environment such that the shot-noise limit for 2k > p + 1. The system-environment observing the combined probe-environment state does not pro- coupling parameter can be estimated with a precision that vide additional information gain when compared to simply 27 scales as N−(p/2), while many-body decoherence enhances the observing the probe itself . For small losses, the qfi scales precision to N−k in the noise-amplitude estimation of a fluc- with the loss parameter itself, which demonstrates a qualitative tuating k-body Hamiltonian. For non-Markovian noise, the improvement over the shot-noise limit. precision bound can scale as ∆θ ∼ 1/N3/443,217. Although The impact of loss on optical interferometry has been ex- these reduced precision scalings lower the prospects of quan- plored in detail in the field. We observed in subsectionIVG tum metrology and sensing, some gain has been demonstrated that the highly entangled noon state saturates the Heisenberg with non-Markovian dephasing and probe readout schemes218. limit on precision for phase measurements. However, this class We also review alternative methods to attempt to diminish the of states is extremely susceptible to losses, and are outper- 7,225–227 effects of noise later in this section. formed by purely classical states for moderate losses . Although for lossy interferometry the Heisenberg limit is not Most of these established precision bounds are based on 107,228 educated guesses or numerical methods on the integrated form attainable , certain quantum states have been engineered to outperform both standard and noon states for phase mea- of the probe dynamics. For non-unitary dynamics, where extra 229 terms have to be added to fully describe the dynamics of the surements in the presence of losses . Note that this strat- probe state, even the integration is not straightforward. The egy differs from quantum error correction techniques used for quantum computing and protecting quantum memories, specific dynamics are described by the Lindblad operators Lj through the Lindblad equation219 where the approach is to protect the information encoded in light230. This demonstrates that a quantum enhancement is

Õ † 1 † possible even in the presence of decoherences. Given that ∂ ρ = −i[ρ, H(θ)] + L ρL − ρ, L L , (259) t j j 2 j j a diverse range of diﬀerent physical quantities can be deter- j mined through phase measurements, it is important to place 30

the probe system to arbitrarily interact with the ancilla. There Λ(θ) are two ways in which an ancillary state can be introduced to the state. In the first, the ancilla state is entangled with the probe but does not itself participate in the estimation46. ρ(0) ρ(θ) Πˆ j This is known as channel extension and is illustrated in Fig.8. The objective is to consider how changes to the dynamics that imprints the parameters to the probe state improves or limits the estimation precision. Given that quantum channels are FIG. 8. Ancilla assisted quantum channel extension scheme, de- completely positive trace preserving maps, channel extension scribed by Λ(θ) ⊗ 1 and a povm measurement Πj . can be described through Λ(θ) → Λ(θ) ⊗ A, (262) general bounds for phase estimation with lossy optical inter- where A is an arbitrary channel acting on an ancilla system. ferometers. A systematic approach to address the optimal The channel quantum Fisher information IQ,ch(Λ; θ) for Λ(θ) states with definite photon numbers for interferometry in the is defined as presence of losses was first considered by Dorner et al.200. IQ,ch(Λ; θ) = max IQ (Λ [ρ] ; θ) . (263) This idea was later extended to find the optimal input state ρ for two-mode interferometry using a numerical optimisation 4 Using the monotonicity of the qfi, it is enough to consider of the qfi . Due to the convexity of the qfi that we observed extensions by the identity238. This identity channel extension in subsectionIVB, miniminising the estimation error is a con- has been demonstrated to generate increased estimation preci- vex optimisation problem. The corresponding precision beats sions239,240. The underlying principle is to enlarge the Hilbert classical methods and lies between the sql and the Heisenberg space of the probing system, such that noisy components can limit, depending on the loss rates. It can not be improved by be readily separated from the signal. It has been shown that for considering probes with indefinite photon number and states phase estimation, the ancilla is useful for arbitrary values of the with photons distributed between distinguishable time bins. noise parameter241,242. This has recently been demonstrated Besides interferometry, further applications of noisy metrol- experimentally243,244. ogy have been considered. For example, the effects of phase The second method of extending the Hilbert space of the flip and amplitude damping decoherence channels with N- system through ancillary states is the Hamiltonian extension qubit ghz probes have been explored. As we observed in scheme and involves adding an operator to the Hamiltonian. subsectionIVG, in the absence of noise, the Heisenberg limit This is a more fundamental approach, since the Hamiltonian can be achieved through rotations along the Z direction. For describes the probe dynamics during the parameterisation pro- a phase noise channel, the qfi decreases with increasing de- cess. It differs to channel extension since it can include an coherence rate due to information leak to the environment, 231 interaction term between the probe and the ancilla. This pro- although it can exhibit revivals . For an amplitude damping vides a general framework for the treatment of open quantum channel, the qfi can be enhanced by adjusting the tempera- systems. However, it has been shown that this approach does ture of the environment. In bosonic quantum metrology, a not improve the sensitivity of phase shift-type measurements constant scaling improvement over the sql was observed by when considering the quantum Fisher information optimised Spedalieri et al., who demonstrated that correlated thermal over input states196. Several experiments have demonstrated states outperform coherent states for the estimation of a loss 232 the advantage of entanglement-assisted schemes in other appli- parameter . Also, the case of simultaneous estimation of cations including channel tomography245 and channel capacity multi-parameters in the presence of noise has been investi- 246 89,233 estimation . gated . Since preparing noiseless probe states and en- The precision limit for more general parameter estimation coding channels is experimentally challenging, efforts to view schemes—including adaptive protocols—can be addressed by noise as a utility to introduce correlations into the system have ( ) 234–236 defining the encoding channel Λ θ . Gaussian channel estima- been explored . These correlations can lead to entangle- 247 237 tion has been explored by Takeoka and Wilde using the no- ment , which may provide precision enhancements. Hence tion of ‘environment-parameterised’ channels. This includes decoherences can be used to protect precisions against noise. the set of thermal-loss248, Pauli249, erasure250, and noisy am- However, too much noise is detrimental. Understanding the plifier channels. The qfi for the adaptive estimation of a noise interplay between relaxing the noiseless criterion for ease of parameter θ in a channel is determined through experimental realisation and the amount of useful noise in the system remains an open question. 8 1 − F ρΛθ , ρΛθ+dθ IQ (Λ; θ) = . (264) ,ch dθ2 Equivalent results to bound the performance of continuous- B. Ancilla-assisted schemes and channel estimation variable adaptive channel estimation schemes have been derived for these channels using the notion of ‘teleportation- Assuming that noise cannot be eliminated from the system, a covariant’ quantum channels251 natural question to ask is whether it is possible to negate its † † effects. One strategy is to use ancillary systems, and allow Λ UρU = VΛ[ρ]V , (265) 31 where V is not necessarily equal to U. Channel estimation are not suitable for quantum sensing applications264. It is pos- bounds determined in this manner use the teleportation simu- sible to identify qec codes that can be used to protect quantum lation method introduced by Bennet et al.252. In this technique, sensing protocols against noise, based on certain criteria. First, all adaptive operations on many uses of a channel can be recast if the signal Hamiltonian and the error operators commute, it as a non-adaptive protocol if it is possible to simulate every has been shown that the application of error correction can en- channel by teleportation. Hence, due to the property (265), hance the sensing precision223,224,261. Quantum sensing in this the precision scaling can be written in terms of the Choi ma- regime has been demonstrated using nitrogen-vacancy cen- trices of the encoding teleportation-covariant channel253. The ters223, trapped ions systems265, and has been experimentally estimation of noise parameters in these channels is limited to demonstrated for field sensing266 without the use of feedback the sql. These channels equivalently describe the class of control methods. Second, provided the generator exists out- physically motivated quantum channels described earlier and side the span of the Lindblad operators and assuming access bosonic Gaussian channels181. to noiseless ancillas, there exists a quantum error correction It is worth noting that studies of channel estimation and protocol that protects the sensor against noise220–222. This has channel discrimination are inextricably linked. For the proto- been extended to more realistic settings, e.g., where the signal typical quantum channel Λ(θ), the former scheme corresponds and noise are in the same direction267, and where noiseless to continuous θ, where the task is to estimate the unknown ancilla states were shown to be unnecessary when the signal parameterisation. Channel discrimination corresponds to dis- Hamiltonian and the error operators commute264. crete θ, where it is more meaningful to distinguish the quantum The overheads necessary to realise fault-tolerant metrol- channels. The symmetric discrimination between two arbi- ogy schemes makes them unfeasible with current technology. trary qudit channels was considered by Pirandola et al. using However, these methods are gaining increasing attention, and a port-based teleportation (pbt) scheme for channel simula- the next goal is to determine realisable fault tolerant quantum tion254. The pbt scheme is a quantum teleportation protocol metrology protocols. introduced by Ishizaka and Hiroshima, to transmit an unknown state of a subsystem to a receiver255. It differs from conven- 256 tional teleportation protocol by removing the requirement VIII. DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM SENSING for the receiver to perform conditional unitary operations. The pbt scheme for channel simulation has also be used to derive A natural extension to multi-parameter quantum estimation is general limits to adaptive quantum metrology257. Specifically, to distribute the parameters over different sensors and use mul- any adaptive protocol of channel estimation is bounded in tiple probe systems to interrogate the whole system. This net- terms of the channel’s Choi matrix and saturates the hl in the worked approach distributes sensing protocols over multiple number of probings. resources. Distributed quantum sensing has recently gained Via bounds on state discrimination, one can immediately de- increased attention since it provides a promising platform to termine informative bounds for a range of other tasks. This has address a wider class of applications and compare existing re- been illustrated in quantum communication and key distribu- 258 259 260 sults. For example, this framework can describe distributed tion , estimation theory , quantum illumination tasks , 268 247,254 interferometric phase sensing , estimate the properties of and quantum hypothesis testing . a multi-dimensional field where each sensor is an ensemble of atoms269, and calibrating continuous-variable quantum key distribution networks270. Architectures based on a network of C. Fault-tolerant metrology sensors have also been reported to realise the quantum inter- net271, scalable quantum computing272, and national273 and Tools from quantum error correction can also be used to international274 quantum cryptography. Proctor et al. devel- enhance and potentially recover estimation precisions in the oped a general framework for the treatment of photonic and Heisenberg scaling regime for sensing under Markovian noise. atomic sensor networks275. This approach is also important These methods are often used in conjunction with, or in ad- since it helps to understand the optimal strategies that saturate dition to, ancilla-assisted schemes222–224,261 and are referred the qcrb. to as fault tolerant quantum metrology. Their purpose is to In sectionIVG we reviewed work that demonstrated the ne- correct errors in the probe state and/or the measurement pro- cessity of entangled probe states to facilitate hl precision scal- cedure against noise while permitting the signal to be encoded ings. However, in sectionIVH we saw recent work that demon- on the sensor. strate non-entangling strategies to achieve the same scaling as Quantum error correction (qec) has found widespread ap- entangled probes92. Beyond a few counter examples that have plication in quantum information processing and has evolved reported too much entanglement as detrimental86, little re- into a selfcontained and well developed field of active research to date has addressed the question when and how much search262,263. However, migrating these tools to implement entanglement is necessary as a resource in order to saturate fault tolerant quantum metrology is not straightforward. The fundamental quantum precision bounds137. Distributed quan- characteristic difficulty is in designing qec codes that detect tum sensing holds the promise to demonstrate the utility of and correct the noise in the sensor, while leaving the encoded entanglement and elucidate its contribution in providing pre- signal intact. This constraint is uncommon in quantum com- cision enhancements. A separate question that shares a similar puting applications and consequently many existing qec codes dilemma is the choice between simultaneous and sequential 32

θ[2] a given decomposition of a network into different sensors, an θ 90 [1] θ[3] estimation procedure is local if (1) the input probe state is separable with respect to the network of quantum sensors, and (2) the measurement and the construction of the estimator can be implemented with only local operations and classical communication (locc), along with local (classical) computations. θ[5] A global estimation strategy is defined as a non-local estima- θ[4] tion procedure, where either a probe that is entangled over the quantum sensors and/or a measurement requiring non-local FIG. 9. Networked approach to quantum sensing for a decomposition quantum operations is used. Note that in local strategies, each of the parameters across 5 sensors with potentially entangled states parameter is estimated individually, while in global strategies th (dashed lines). The j node is encoded by the parameter subset θ[j]. parameters are estimated simultaneously. Local estimation The dashed lines represent (quantum) correlations between the nodes. strategies are more robust against local estimation failure than This approach is well suited to field sensing, where each node is a global strategies and often involve more realistic methods of spin system. state preparation280, measurement, and control281.

estimation strategies. These two strategies generate different The use of correlations between different sensors in the net- 276–278 work can provide precision enhancements beyond unentangled precision scalings in the count resource and the time 270 resource204,208,218. However, no clear results have been found systems . However, this is true only in specific scenarios. that determine when either strategy should be preferred. In When each quantum sensor is used to estimate a single param- this section, we review efforts in distributed quantum sensing eter, entanglement between different sensors has a detrimental to address these two open questions. impact on the estimation precision. Intuitively, when the parameters are encoded locally on each sensor, it does not make sense to use global states or measurements that exhibit entan- A. Framework for distributed sensing glement between the sensors for improved precisions. Hence, under the single parameter networked sensing remit, separable state and measurements over the sensors are preferred269. To formally define distributed sensing, consider a quantum This reflects the results of simultaneous estimation in optical system comprised of n subsystems, labelled through an index multi-parameter estimation problems88,89,134. It is also con- j = 1, 2,..., n, with an associated Hilbert space . The Hj sistent with the results in86 where too much entanglement was Hilbert space associated with two different subsystems are reported as being detrimental, and the calibration of optical not required to be identical. Additionally, each space is not quantum gyroscopes, where the optimal level of entanglement limited to a single field mode. The total Hilbert space is depends on the parameters137. If instead each sensor is used = ⊗n . This product structure of the total system H j=1Hj to estimate multiple parameters, the effect of entanglement on Hilbert space describes a spatially distributed sensor network the estimation precision depends on properties of each of the as illustrated in9. The physical system associated with each parameter generators269. If all the generators corresponding to Hilbert space Hj is referred to as a quantum sensor, and the the parameters commute, then entanglement between sensors collection of all sensors a quantum sensing network. is still detrimental to the estimation precision. In contrast, if Similar to single probe states, the parameters can be im- the generators do not all commute then entanglement between printed on the quantum network via unitary evolutions269 and 279 sensors may in some cases give a small constant reduction more general dynamics . A unitary evolution of the total in the estimation uncertainty. However, this advantage di- system is written as U(θ) = exp[−iH · θ] where the vector of minishes when each sensor is coupled to an ancillary system. Hermitian operators H = (H1,..., HD) is the system Hamilto- Í Practically, this is important for examples where the resources nian, and each node j has dj parameters such that j dj = D. used must be limited to avoid damaging a sample whose prop- th 1 The j Hamiltonian element Hj = hj ⊗k,j k acts non-trivially erties are being probed282–284. on the jth quantum sensor. From this, the product nature of the unitary is explicit:

n The original scheme for simultaneous quantum-enhanced Ì U(θ) = Uj (θ[j]), (266) phase estimation by Humphreys et al. was realised using highly j=1 entangled noon states. However, the same precision enhancements exhibited by the global strategies can be obtained with 90 where [j] indicates the set of dj parameters at node j. Any mode-separable states and local measurements alone . This is system with a tensor product structure can be reconstructed in not surprising since in multimode optical systems with com- the language of quantum networks. muting phase generators, the crucial resource for enhanced To understand how distributed sensing framework can be metrology is a large particle number variance within each used to evaluate the role of entanglement, it is necessary to mode, which can be obtained without multimode entangle- introduce local and global networked sensing strategies. For ment. 33

B. Estimating functions of parameters element is non-zero, the process is local and entanglement is not required and can indeed be detrimental for the estimation So far we have considered the multi-parameter estimation of performance. a vector of parameters: for a well-defined decomposition of a To conclude, the use of simultaneous estimation schemes network of quantum sensors, different subsets θ[j] of the pa- and entangled resources are not always necessary to achieve rameters are locally encoded onto the space of the jth sensor. quantum-enhanced sensing. In particular, the use of entangle- An alternative approach to estimating the vector of parameters ment can be detrimental and any precision enhancements de- is to estimate a function of these elements instead. This is pend on whether the parameters of interest are local or global better suited for many practical applications and can be more properties of a set of systems. As future work, it would be informative than estimating the parameters. Immediate exam- interesting to observe how these results can be extended to ples of this include vectorial magnetometry for imaging using the class of non-linear functions. The analogy between the a network of atomic sensors285,286, the realisation of a global choice of appropriate weight/importance matrices in the class quantum network of clocks287, and field interpolation288. Field of non-distributed sensing to the freedom in choice of arbitrary interpolation exemplifies the advantage of estimating a func- functions in distributed sensing can also be explored. tion of parameters since the the objective is to estimate the field at a spatial region not covered by a sensor within the network. Determining precision bounds for the estimation of func- IX. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK tions requires a strategy that minimises estimate variances of general functions of θ. One can construct a D-dimensional Without exaggeration, our ability to devise novel approaches vector of parameter functions for high precision measurements has been one of the greatest drivers of fundamental science and technologies. A plethora ϑ = ( f (θ),..., f (θ)) (267) 1 D of historical examples in optics, communication, computation, D where fj : R → R, j ∈ {1, D} are continuously differen- imaging, and metrology bear substantial evidence to support tiable functions. In sectionV, we observed that the qfi el- this statement. However, we are reaching various limits in ements transform as a metric tensor. Hence the single-shot metrology, including the shot noise limit and the diffraction qcrb for an estimator of ϑ is given by Eq. (157). The attain- limit. The latter directly impacts our ability to keep up with ability of this bound for function estimation has a strict caveat. Moore’s law in the manufacturing of electronics. Quantum Extreme care should be taken when estimating a scalar func- metrology provides a natural extension to classical methods to tion of multiple parameters f (θ1, . . ., θD). This can not be continue driving performance improvements using quantum treated as a single-parameter estimation f , since the mapping systems. of many parameters to one implicitly assumes that the remain- Quantum metrology has matured into a broad field with ing D − 1 parameters, whatever they are, are known perfectly. many active areas of theoretical and experimental research. In This assumption is generally not satisfied and the procedure this review, we provide a summary of the main techniques in therefore leads to unattainable bounds289. This unattainability sensing and metrology. We use geometric arguments stem- has been explored for a network of single qubits by Eldredge ming from information theoretic concepts to motivate the key et al., where for the specific problem of nanoscale magnetic quantities in classical and quantum estimation theory. This is a resonance imaging, ghz and spin-squeezed states are found to powerful approach that provides a method to visualise the esti- be optimal290. mation process, and helps compare different sensing protocols. Work in this direction has to date been limited to estimating It is important to understand what resources are necessary to the class of linear functions, where the vector ϑ is constructed improve the precision of measurements. Precision bounds de- from linear transformations of θ through ϑ = Jθ. This class rived using geometric arguments can also provide conceptual of functions is useful for modeling optical and atomic sensing connections between quantum estimation and general quan- applications, and the estimation of parameter averages. The tum information tasks. We review methods to generate gen- last application has been considered for a network of precision eral bounds for qubit and multi-particle systems using query clocks by Komar et al.287. To facilitate convenient compar- complexity arguments for the estimation procedure. isons between these works, Proctor et al. demand each row of Central to information geometry is the information matrix, the transformation matrix J be a normalised vector275. In the which assigns a quantitative measure on the performance of case of a single parameter encoded on each sensor, entangle- parameter estimates. We show that the quantum Fisher infor- ment can help to perform better estimates of linear functions. mation (qfim) is part of a wider family of different information The precise effect of entanglement depends on the explicit matrices that can be found via the Schwarz inequality. These chose of linear function. Denoting the first row of J with the information matrices can be used to derive bounds for elements vector v such that ϑ1 = v · θ, then Proctor et al. find that an of the covariance matrix. For multiple parameters, we review entangled probe across the sensors always provides a preci- the symmetric logarithmic derivative (sld) and the right log- sion enhancement compared with a separable state, unless the arithmic derivative qfim, the Kubo-Mori and Wigner-Yanase 269 function v = kvkek . Intuitively, if v contains more than one skew information matrices. We review how they can be con- non-zero element, then ϑ1 describes a global process across nected via their Riemannian metrics. We provide a comparison multiple sensors and naturally, a globally correlated state will of these bounds and discuss their attainability. Specifically, we be most sensitive to changes in ϑ. Conversely, if only one report that the commonly used qcrb for multiple parameters 34 is often not simultaneously saturable, which adds to the dif- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ficulty that optimal measurements often depend on the true, unknown values of the parameters. The Holevo Cramér-Rao The authors would like to thank Jonathan A. Gross, Rafal bound is then found to be the most informative alternative Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, and Jesús Rubio Jimenez for useful bound, although it is generally difficult to determine for an discussions, and Cosmo Lupo for valuable comments on the arbitrary probe (note that this is an area of current research in- manuscript. JSS and PK acknowledge EPSRC for funding via 128 terest ). The specific case of Gaussian state estimation and the Quantum Communications Hub (EP/M013472/1). non phase-like parameters is considered. Numerical methods to solve the qcrb have also been discussed. Although we focus mostly on unbiased Fisher estimation schemes, we comment REFERENCES on the effect that biased estimators have on the estimation precision. As a first in the literature, we also show how to construct the Bayesian analogue of the qfim. We show that 1M. Hayashi, ed., Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference this procedure follows the same method as the Fisher estima- (World Scientific Publishing, 2005). tion scheme using the prior-weighted density operator and the 2S. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I: Estima- posterior mean operator to define a corresponding symmetric tion Theory (v. 1), 1st ed. (Prentice Hall, United States, 1993). 3G. Tóth and D. Petz, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032324 (2013). logarithmic posterior mean operator. 4R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013825 (2009). The prevailing thought of entanglement as a necessary re- 5L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Proc. Int. School Phys. Enrico Fermi Course 188, source for enhanced quantum sensing has been challenged, 691 (2014). 6J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. and several works attribute the precision enhancement instead A 54, R4649 (1996). to quantum correlations. Further, the optimal amount of en- 7S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and tanglement in the probe state depends on the parameters and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997). the estimation scheme. This demonstrates that entanglement 8B. Luff, J. Wilkinson, J. Piehler, U. Hollenbach, J. Ingenhoff, and N. Fabri- provides limited use in certain cases. This could be seen as cius, J. Lightwave Technol. 16, 583 (1998). 9C. Yang, A. Wax, M. S. Hahn, K. Badizadegan, R. R. Dasari, and M. S. welcoming news, given the difficultly to produce robust states Feld, Opt. Lett. 26, 1271 (2001). with high entanglement. We review efforts that explore non- 10C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics, 1st ed. (Cam- entangling strategies to saturate the qcrb. bridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2004). 11D. McNeish, Struc. Eq. Model. 23, 750 (2016). 12M. Hayashi, Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference (World We conclude by summarising key results in current research Scientific Publishing, 2008). 13C. W. Helstrom, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 8, 361 (1973). efforts in noisy metrology schemes. A longstanding impedi- 14H. Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princeton University Press, ment of noisy quantum metrology is the reduction of quantum 1999). enhancements to constant factor improvements over classical 15H. L. V. Trees and K. L. Bell, Bayesian Bounds for Parameter Estimation precision bounds. This has often reduced expectations of prac- and Nonlinear Filtering/Tracking (Wiley-Blackwell, 2007). 16W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. D 23, 357 (1981). tical applications of quantum sensing. The use of fault-tolerant 17S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994). schemes to reinstate quantum scaling has renewed efforts to 18I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Intro- explore the most general bounds in noisy quantum metrology duction to Quantum Entanglement, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, with error correction. This strategy introduces its own unique New York, 2008). 19 difficulties: first, well-known methods in quantum error cor- P. Kok and B. W. Lovett, Introduction to Optical Quantum Information Processing, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010). rection for quantum computing cannot be straightforwardly 20P. Facchi, R. Kulkarni, V. I. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E. C. G. Sudarshan, and implemented for use in quantum metrology since they would F. Ventriglia, Physics Letters A 374, 4801 (2010). also “correct” the signal we want to measure. Second, the 21C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic physical overheads required make most uses currently imprac- Press Inc., 1976). 22 tical. We review research that addresses these issues. Another S. L. Braunstein, C. Caves, and G. Milburn, Ann. Phys. 247, 135 (1995). 23J. Hilgevoord and J. Uffink, Found. Phys. 21, 323 (1991). current area of intense research is distributed quantum sensing. 24H. Nagaoka, “A new approach to Cramér-Rao bounds for quantum state This field demonstrates how methods in quantum estimation estimation,” (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008) Chap. 8, pp. 100–112. theory are often interwoven with related efforts in quantum 25G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 47, 424006 (2014). communication. We summarise our current understanding of 26S. Yu, “Quantum Fisher Information as the Convex Roof of Variance,” the most efficient methods to distribute resources over different (2013), unpublished, arXiv:1302.5311. 27B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, Nat. Phys. 7, 406 nodes in a network of sensors. (2011). 28A. Fujiwara and H. Imai, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 41, 255304 (2008). 29M. Hübner, Phys. Lett. A 163, 239 (1992). The progress of practical applications presented in this re- 30A. Fujiwara, METR 94-8 (1994). 31 view highlights quantum sensing as a frontrunner to the emer- S. Amari and H. Nagaoka, Methods of Information Geometry, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 191 (American Mathematical Society, gence of quantum technologies. However, developing realis- Oxford University Press, 1993). able protocols remains a non-trivial problem with many open 32S. Amari, Information Geometry and Its Applications, 1st ed., Applied questions. Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 194 (Springer, 2016). 35

33A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976). 85, 041802 (2012). 34C. W. Helstrom, Phys. Lett. A 25, 101 (1967). 77C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981). 35C. W. Helstrom, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 14, 234 (1968). 78L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073601 (2008). 36D. Šafránek, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052320 (2017). 79X.-X. Jing, J. Liu, W. Zhong, and X.-G. Wang, Comms. in Theo. Phys. 37L. Seveso, F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, and M. G. A. Paris, ArXiv (2019), 61, 115 (2014). arXiv:1906.06185 [quant-ph]. 80J. Joo, K. Park, H. Jeong, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. 38M. G. A. Paris, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 7, 125 (2009). Rev. A 86, 043828 (2012). 39E. Ercolessi and M. Schiavina, Phys. Lett. A 377, 1996 (2013). 81T. Ono and H. F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A 81, 033819 (2010). 40J. Liu, J. Chen, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 49, 82J. Joo, W. Munro, and T. Spiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 083601 (2011). 275302 (2016). 83Y. M. Zhang, X. W. Li, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043832 41M. Sarovar and G. J. Milburn, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 8487 (2006). (2013). 42B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, N. Zagury, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Phys. 84H. Wang, M. Mariantoni, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Nee- Rev. Lett. 109, 190404 (2012). ley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, Y.Yin, 43A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233601 J. Zhao, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 060401 (2012). (2011). 44J. Kołodyński and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, New J. Phys. 15, 073043 85L. Zhang and K. W. C. Chan, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032321 (2017). (2013). 86T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 030801 (2016). 45S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi, and A. T. Rezakhani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 87P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. 120405 (2014). Lett. 111, 070403 (2013). 46R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 250801 88J. Liu, X.-M. Lu, Z. Sun, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 49, (2014). 115302 (2016). 47O. E. Barndorﬀ-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33, 4481 89J.-D. Yue, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Sci. Rep. 4, 5933 (2014). (2000). 90P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. F. Ralph, P. Kok, and J. A. 48A. Fujiwara, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 12489 (2006). Dunningham, Phys. Rev. A 94, 062312 (2016). 49V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 91J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063829 (2017). (2006). 92D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. 50A. Boto, P. Kok, D. Abrams, S. Braunstein, C. Williams, and J. Dowling, Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Rev. Mod. Phys 90, 035006 (2018). Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000). 93S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, 51H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325 (2002). Nat. Photon. 12, 724 (2018). 52P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052104 (2002). 94H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4587 (1995). 53P. Walther, J. W. Pan, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Ursin, S. Gasparoni, and 95M. A. Armen, J. K. Au, J. K. Stockton, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, A. Zeilinger, Nature 429, 158 (2004). Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 59 (2002). 54M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature 429, 161 96D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5098 (2000). (2004). 97D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043803 (2002). 55G. J. Pryde and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A 68, 052315 (2003). 98D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 73, 013813 (2006). 56H. Cable and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 163604 (2007). 99D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 87, 019901 (2013). 57D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bell’s Theorem, 100A. Fujiwara, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 12489 (2006). Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe (Springer, Dordrecht, 101R. Okamoto, S. Oyama, K. Yamagata, A. F. P. R. A, and 2017, Phys. Rev. Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72. Lett. 109, 130404 (2012). 58V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011). 102A. Seraﬁni, ISRN Optics 2012, 275016 (2012). 59P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, 103P. Palittapongarnpim and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012106 (2019). H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012). 104J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, 60Ł. Czekaj, A. Przysi˛eżna,M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al., Nat. Photon. 7, 92, 062303 (2015). 613 (2013). 61G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A 85, 195 (2012). 105B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. 62M. Oszmaniec, R. Augusiak, C. Gogolin, J. Kołodyński, A. Acin, and Pryde, Nature 450, 393 (2007). M. Lewenstein, Physical Review X 6, 0291 (2016). 106B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, H. M. Wiseman, 63Y. Ouyang, N. Shettell, and D. Markham, “Robust quantum metrology and G. J. Pryde, New J. Phys. 11, 073023 (2009). with explicit symmetric states,” (2019), unpublished, arXiv:1908.02378. 107J. Kołodyński and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Phys. Rev. A 82, 053804 64Y. Ouyang, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062317 (2014). (2010). 65B. Koczor, S. Endo, T. Jones, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. C. Ben- 108B. Gong and W. Cui, “On the calculation of Fisher information for quantum jamin, “Variational-state quantum metrology,” (2019), unpublished, parameter estimation based on the stochastic master equation,” (2017), arXiv:1908.08904. unpublished, arXiv:1702.08089. 66A. Shimizu and T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090401 (2005). 109M. D. Vidrighin, G. Donati, M. G. Genoni, X.-M. Jin, W. S. Kolthammer, 67O. Gühne and G. Toth, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009). M. Kim, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Commun. 5, 3532 68L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100401 (2009). (2014). 69I. Apellaniz, M. Kleinmann, O. Gühne, and G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A 95, 110D. W. Berry, M. Tsang, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. X 032330 (2017). 5, 031018 (2015). 70R. Augusiak, J. Kołodyński, A. Streltsov, M. N. Bera, A. Acin, and 111P. J. D. Crowley, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A M. Lewenstein, Physical Review A 94, 012339 (2016). 89, 023845 (2014). 71S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022117 (2014). 98, 090401 (2007). 113Y. Yao, L. Ge, X. Xiao, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062113 72S. M. Roy and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 220501 (2008). (2014). 73M. Zwierz, C. A. Pérez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 180402 114J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080401 (2014). (2010). 115N. Kura and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012101 (2018). 74M. Zwierz, C. A. Perez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 059904 116H. Imai and A. Fujiwara, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 40, 4391 (2007). (2011). 117S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170401 (2014). 75M. Zwierz, C. A. Perez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042112 118D. Šafránek, Physical Review A 97, 042322 (2018). (2012). 119A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory 76M. J. W. Hall, D. W. Berry, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982). 36

120S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Phys. Rev. A 94, 172R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Phys. Rev. A 83, 061802 (2011). 052108 (2016). 173K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, New J. Phys. 121M. u. u. u. u. Guţă and J. Kahn, Phys. Rev. A 73, 052108 (2006). 16, 113002 (2014). 122M. Hayashi and K. Matsumoto, J. Math. Phys. 49, 102101 (2008). 174S. D. Personick, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 17, 240 (1971). 123K. Yamagata, A. Fujiwara, and R. D. Gill, Ann. Statist. 41, 2197 (2013). 175K. Chabuda, I. D. Leroux, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, New J. Phys. 124Y. Yang, G. Chiribella, and M. Hayashi, Commun. Math. Phys. 368, 223 18, 1 (2019). (2019). 176J. Rubio and J. Dunningham, New J. Phys. 21, 043037 (2019). 125J. Suzuki, J. Math. Phys. 57, 042201 (2016). 177J. Z. Bernád, C. Sanavio, and A. Xuereb, Physical Review A 97, 063821 126M. Bradshaw, S. M. Assad, and P. K. Lam, Physics Letters A 381, 2598 (2018). (2017). 178J. Z. Bernád, C. Sanavio, and A. Xuereb, Physical Review A 99, 062106 127M. Bradshaw, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012106 (2019). (2018). 179W. Rz˛adkowski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Physical Review A 96, 128F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, “Evaluating the Holevo Cramér-Rao 032319 (2017). bound for multi-parameter quantum metrology,” (2019), unpublished, 180J. Rubio and J. Dunningham, “Bayesian multi-parameter quantum metrol- arXiv:1906.05724. ogy with limited data,” (2019), unpublished, arXiv:1906.04123v2. 129J. Kahn and M. Guta, Commun. Math. Phys. 289, 597 (2009). 181C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, 130K. Matsumoto, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 3111 (2002). J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012). 131A. Monras and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012315 (2011). 182A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, “Gaussian states in contin- 132R. D. Gill and M. Guta, arXiv.org (2012), 1112.2078v2. uous variable quantum information,” (2005), unpublished, arXiv:quant- 133C. Vaneph, T. Tufarelli, and M. G. Genoni, Quant. Meas. Quant. Metr. 1, ph/0503237. 12 (2013). 183S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. A 71, 055801 (2005). 134P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. 184G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 21, 1440001 Lett. 111, 070403 (2013). (2014). 135A. Fujiwara, METR 94-9 (1994). 185O. Pinel, J. Fade, D. Braun, P. Jian, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, Phys. Rev. A 136M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. S. 85, 010101 (2012). Kim, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012107 (2013). 186A. Monras, “Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian 137P. Kok, J. Dunningham, and J. F. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012326 (2017). states,” (2013), unpublished, arXiv:arXiv:1303.3682. 138C. W. Helstrom and R. S. Kennedy, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 20, 16 (1974). 187Z. Jiang, Phys. Rev. A 89, 032128 (2014). 139V. P. Belavkin, Theoret. Math. Phys. 26, 213 (1976). 188Y. Gao and H. Lee, Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 1 (2014). 140A. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012316 (2001). 189D. Šafránek, A. R. Lee, and I. Fuentes, New J. Phys. 17, 073016 (2015). 141H. P. Yuen and M. Lax, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 19, 740 (1973). 190D. Šafránek, J. Phys. A: Math. Theoret. 52, 035304 (2018). 142C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062302 (2003). 191P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Physical Review A 93, 99 (2016). 143M. A. Ballester, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032310 (2004). 192P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Phys. Rev. A 86, 022340 (2012). 144M. A. Ballester, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022303 (2004). 193L. Banchi, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 260501 145E. Bagan, M. A. Ballester, R. D. Gill, A. Monras, and R. Muñoz Tapia, (2015). Phys. Rev. A 73, 032301 (2006). 194C. Oh, C. Lee, L. Banchi, S.-Y. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, and H. Jeong, Phys. 146L. Pezzè, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Rev. A 100, 012323 (2019). Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 195C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, and S.-Y. Lee, NPJ 130504 (2017). Quantum Inf. 5, 10 (2019). 147H. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 160801 (2016). 196J. M. E. Fraïsse and D. Braun, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062342 (2017). 148M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Quantum Science and 197A. Holevo, Reports on Mathematical Physics 13, 379 (1978). Technology 2, 044004 (2017). 198B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986). 149R. D. Gill and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042312 (2000). 199B. C. Sanders and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2944 (1995). 150M. E. Pearce, E. T. Campbell, and P. Kok, Quantum 1, 21 (2017). 200U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, 151A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 177901 (2001). W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 152G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040403 (2009). 270404 (2001). 201M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, and W. Dür, New J. Phys. 17, 073032 (2015). 153R. Duan, Y. Feng, and M. Ying, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100503 (2007). 202D. C. Brody and E.-M. Graefe, Entropy 15, 3361 (2013). 154G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 203M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090401 180501 (2008). (2011). 155A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, D. W. Leung, and J. Watrous, Phys. Rev. A 204E. Magesan, A. Cooper, H. Yum, and P. Cappellaro, Phys. Rev. A 88, 81, 032339 (2010). 032107 (2013). 156R. Duan, Y. Feng, and M. Ying, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210501 (2009). 205I. Urizar-Lanz, P. Hyllus, I. L. Egusquiza, M. W. Mitchell, and G. Tóth, 157D. Petz, Lin. Alg. Appl. 244, 81 (1996). Phys. Rev. A 88, 013626 (2013). 158V. P. Belavkin, Theo. Math. Phys. 26, 213 (1976). 206S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Phys. Rev. A 93, 059901 (2016). 159L. Maccone and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 296 (2014). 207J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, ArXiv (2018), arXiv:1802.01601 [quant-ph]. 160D. Petz, J. Math. Phys. 35, 780 (1994). 208H. Yuan and C.-H. F. Fung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 110401 (2015). 161D. Petz and G. Toth, Lett. Math. Phys. 27, 205 (1993). 209M. Tsang, Optica 2, 646 (2015). 162M. Hayashi, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 7689 (2002). 210M.-D. Choi, Lin. Alg. Appl. 10, 285 (1975). 163R. Kubo, M. Toda, and N. Hashitsume, Statistical Physics II: Nonequilib- 211K. Kraus, States, Eﬀects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quan- rium Statistical Mechanics, Springer Series in Solid-state Sciences, Vol. 31 tum Theory, 1983rd ed., edited by A. Böhma, J. D. Dollard, and W. H. (Springer, 1985). Wootters, Lecture Notes in Physics (Book 190) (Springer, 1983). 164H. J. D. Miller and J. Anders, Nat. Commun. 9, 349 (2018). 212H. Yuan and C.-H. F. Fung, NPJ Quantum Inf. 3 (2017), 10.1038/s41534- 165E. A. Morozova and N. N. Chentsov, Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki 36, 69 (1990). 017-0014-6. 166E. P. Wigner and M. M. Yanase, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 49, 910 (1963). 213R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, J. Kolodynski, and M. Guta, Nat. Commun. 167S. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 101 (2003). 3, 1063 (2012). 168S. Furuichi and K. Yanagi, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 388, 1147 (2012). 214A. Monras and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160401 (2007). 169Z. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 71, 195 (2005). 215R. Chaves, J. B. Brask, M. Markiewicz, J. Kołodyński, and A. Acin, Phys. 170X. Li, D. Li, H. Huang, and L. C. Kwek, Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 147 (2011). Rev. Lett. 111, 120401 (2013). 171I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. B 94, 075121 (2016). 216M. Beau and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010403 (2017). 37

217Y. Matsuzaki, S. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012103 256C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. (2011). Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993). 218S. Dooley, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052320 (2016). 257R. Laurenza, C. Lupo, G. Spedalieri, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, 219H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems Quant. Meas. Quant. Metr. 5, 1 (2019). (Oxford University Press, 2002). 258Q. Liao, Y. Guo, D. Huang, P. Huang, and G. Zeng, New J. Phys. 20, 220P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Kołodyński, and W. Dür, Quantum 1, 27 023015 (2018). (2017). 259T. Cope and S. Pirandola, Quant. Meas. Quant. Metr. 4, 44 (2017). 221R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Phys. Rev. X 260S. Ray, J. Schneeloch, C. C. Tison, and P. M. Alsing, Phys. Rev. A 100, 7, 041009 (2017). 012327 (2019). 222S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nat. Commun. 9, 78 (2018). 261G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 223E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. 150801 (2014). Lett. 112, 150802 (2014). 262S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 076001 224W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fröwis, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, (2013). 080801 (2014). 263B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015). 225M. A. Rubin and S. Kaushik, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053805 (2007). 264D. Layden, S. Zhou, P. Cappellaro, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 226G. Gilbert, M. Hamrick, and Y. S. Weinstein, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 1336 040502 (2019). (2008). 265F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Nat. Commun. 8, 227S. D. Huver, C. F. Wildfeuer, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 78, 063828 1822 (2017). (2008). 266T. Unden, P. Balasubramanian, D. Louzon, Y. Vinkler, M. B. Plenio, 228S. Knysh, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and G. A. Durkin, Phys. Rev. A 83, 021804 M. Markham, D. Twitchen, A. Stacey, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, et al., (2011). Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 230502 (2016). 229M. Kacprowicz, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, 267D. Layden and P. Cappellaro, NPJ Quantum Inf. 4, 30 (2018). and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Photon. 4, 357 (2010). 268W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss-Feig, Phys. 230J. Roffe, D. Headley, N. Chancellor, D. Horsman, and V. Kendon, Quant. Rev. Lett. 121, 043604 (2018). Sci. Tech. 3, 035010 (2018). 269T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 231B. J. Falaye, A. G. Adepoju, A. S. Aliyu, M. M. Melchor, M. S. Liman, 080501 (2018). O. J. Oluwadare, M. D. González-Ramírez, and K. J. Oyewumi, Sci. Rep. 270Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018). 7, 16622 (2017). 271H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008). 232G. Spedalieri, C. Lupo, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, Quant. Sci. 272N. H. Nickerson, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Nat. Commun. 4, 1756 (2013). Tech. 4, 015008 (2018). 273M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwara, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, 233Ying-Wang, L.-Y. Hu, Z.-M. Zhang, and C.-P. Wei, Opt. Commun. 427, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, A. Tanaka, et al., Opt. Express 19, 10387 250 (2018). (2011). 234D. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 277901 (2002). 274S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, 235F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 070402 (2003). Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, et al., Nature 549, 43 (2017). 236A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 170502 275T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, “Networked quantum (2011). sensing,” (2017), unpublished, arXiv:1702.04271. 237M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and 276M. Zwierz, C. A. Pérez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042112 A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 220403 (2011). (2012). 238A. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042304 (2001). 277N. Friis, D. Orsucci, M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, 239A. Fujiwara and H. Imai, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 8093 (2003). and W. Dür, New J. Phys. 19, 063044 (2017). 240A. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012317 (2004). 278R. Yousefjani, R. Nichols, S. Salimi, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. A 95, 241Z. Huang, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012101 062307 (2017). (2016). 279W. D. Pavel Sekatski, Sabine Wölk, “Optimal distributed sensing in noisy 242Z. Huang, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032333 environments,” (2019), unpublished, arXiv:1905.06765. (2018). 280J. Etesse, M. Bouillard, B. Kanseri, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 243K. Wang, X. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, J. Li, B. C. Sanders, and P. Xue, 114, 193602 (2015). Phys. Rev. A 97, 042112 (2018). 281P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. P. Cooling, and J. A. Dunningham, 244M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, L. Mancino, E. Roccia, Z. Huang, L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033859 (2016). C. Macchiavello, and M. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032305 (2018). 282F. Wolfgramm, C. Vitelli, F. A. Beduini, N. Godbout, and M. W. Mitchell, 245J. B. Altepeter, D. Branning, E. Jeffrey, T. C. Wei, P. G. Kwiat, R. T. Thew, Nat. Photon. 7, 28 (2013). J. L. O’Brien, M. A. Nielsen, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 193601 283M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H.-A. Bachor, and (2003). W. P. Bowen, Nat. Photon. 7, 229 (2013). 246M. Hotta, T. Karasawa, and M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052334 (2005). 284M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H.-A. Bachor, and 247M. Takeoka and M. M. Wilde, “Optimal estimation and discrimination W. P. Bowen, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011017 (2014). of excess noise in thermal and amplifier channels,” (2016), unpublished, 285L. M. Pham, D. L. Sage, P. L. Stanwix, T. K. Yeung, D. Glenn, A. Trifonov, arXiv:quant-ph/1611.09165. P. Cappellaro, P. R. Hemmer, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, A. Yacoby, and R. L. 248P. Papanastasiou, C. Lupo, C. Weedbrook, and S. Pirandola, Phys. Rev. A Walsworth, New J. Phys. 13, 045021 (2011). 98, 012340 (2018). 286N. Alfasi, S. Masis, O. Shtempluck, V. Kochetok, and E. Buks, AIP 249S. T. Flammia and J. J. Wallman, ArXiv (2019), arXiv:1907.12976 [quant- Advances 6, 075311 (2016). ph]. 287P. Kómár, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and 250C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, M. D. Lukin, Nature 10, 582 (2014). 3217 (1997). 288K. Qian, Z. Eldredge, W. Ge, G. Pagano, C. Monroe, J. V. Porto, 251S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Nat. Commun. 8, and A. V. Gorshkov, “Heisenberg-scaling measurement protocol for an- 15043 (2017). alytic functions with quantum sensor networks,” (2019), unpublished, 252C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. arXiv:1901.09042. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). 289J. A. Gross, “Estimating functions of multiple parameters,” (2019), blog 253S. Pirandola and C. Lupo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100502 (2017). post. 254S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Lupo, and J. L. Pereira, NPJ Quantum Inf. 290Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, 5, 50 (2019). Phys. Rev. A 97, 042337 (2018). 255S. Ishizaka and T. Hiroshima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 240501 (2008).