- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Applied

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Opportunities and Limitations in Broadband Sensing

Anthony M. Polloreno1,*, Jacob L. Beckey1, Joshua Levin1,2, Ariel Shlosberg1, James K. Thompson1, Michael Foss-Feig2, David Hayes2, and Graeme Smith1

  • 1JILA, NIST, and University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2Quantinuum, 303 S. Technology Ct., Broomfield, Colorado 80021, USA

  • *ampolloreno@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 014029 – Published 10 January, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.014029

Abstract

Detecting a signal at an unknown frequency is a common task, arising in settings from dark-matter detection to magnetometry. For any detection protocol, the precision achieved depends on the frequency of the signal and can be quantified by the quantum Fisher information (QFI). To study limitations in broadband sensing, we introduce the integrated quantum Fisher information and derive inequality bounds that embody fundamental trade-offs in any sensing protocol. Our inequalities show that sensitivity in one frequency range must come at the cost of reduced sensitivity elsewhere. For many protocols, including those with small phase accumulation and those consisting of π pulses, we find that the integrated quantum Fisher information scales linearly with T. We also find protocols with substantial phase accumulation that can have integrated QFI that grows quadratically with T and prove that this scaling is asymptotically optimal. These protocols may allow the very rapid detection of a signal with unknown frequency over a very wide bandwidth. We discuss the implications of these results for a wide variety of contexts, including dark-matter searches and dynamical decoupling. Thus we establish fundamental limitations on the broadband detection of signals and highlight their consequences.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. V. Giovannetti, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
  2. K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. Al Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. B. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux et al., A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions, Nature 590, 238 (2021).
  3. W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum Noise Limited and Entanglement-Assisted Magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 133601 (2010).
  4. I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuletić, Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 250801 (2010).
  5. B. K. Malia, J. Martínez-Rincón, Y. Wu, O. Hosten, and M. A. Kasevich, Free Space Ramsey Spectroscopy in Rubidium with Noise below the Quantum Projection Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043202 (2020).
  6. G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high-finesse cavity, Nature 610, 472 (2022).
  7. D. Leibfried, E. Knill, S. Seidelin, J. Britton, R. Brad Blakestad, J. Chiaverini, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, R. Reichle, and D. J. Wineland, Creation of a six-atom “Schrödinger cat” state, Nature 438, 639 (2005).
  8. T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, 14-Qubit Entanglement: Creation and Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011).
  9. B. J. Lawrie, P. D. Lett, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum sensing with squeezed light, ACS Photonics 6, 1307 (2019).
  10. R. C. Pooser, N. Savino, E. Batson, J. L. Beckey, J. Garcia, and B. J. Lawrie, Truncated Nonlinear Interferometry for Quantum-Enhanced Atomic Force Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230504 (2020).
  11. C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  12. C. W. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Phys. Lett. A 25, 101 (1967).
  13. A. Fujiwara and H. Nagaoka, Quantum Fisher metric and estimation for pure state models, Phys. Lett. A 201, 119 (1995).
  14. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical Distance and the Geometry of Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994).
  15. J. M. Weiner, K. C. Cox, J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, and J. K. Thompson, Superradiant Raman laser magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 261107 (2012).
  16. L. J. Fiderer, J. M. E. Fraïsse, and D. Braun, Maximal Quantum Fisher Information for Mixed States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250502 (2019).
  17. J. Clarke and A. I. Braginski, The SQUID Handbook (Wiley Online Library, Weinheim, Germany, 2004), Vol. 1.
  18. D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Nat. Phys. 3, 227 (2007).
  19. H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V. Romalis, Ultrahigh sensitivity magnetic field and magnetization measurements with an atomic magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 151110 (2010).
  20. C. L. Degen, Scanning magnetic field microscope with a diamond single-spin sensor, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 243111 (2008).
  21. O. Arcizet, V. Jacques, A. Siria, P. Poncharal, P. Vincent, and S. Seidelin, A single nitrogen-vacancy defect coupled to a nanomechanical oscillator, Nat. Phys. 7, 879 (2011).
  22. S. Kolkowitz, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, S. D. Bennett, P. Rabl, J. G. E. Harris, and M. D. Lukin, Coherent sensing of a mechanical resonator with a single-spin qubit, Science 335, 1603 (2012).
  23. M. Bal, C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. R. Ong, and A. Lupascu, Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom, Nat. Commun. 3, 1 (2012).
  24. W. D. Phillips, W. E. Cooke, and D. Kleppner, Magnetic moment of the proton in H2O in Bohr magnetons, Metrologia 13, 179 (1977).
  25. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999).
  26. L. Viola and E. Knill, Robust Dynamical Decoupling of Quantum Systems with Bounded Controls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 037901 (2003).
  27. K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Dynamical quantum error correction of unitary operations with bounded controls, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032314 (2009).
  28. L. F. Santos and L. Viola, Enhanced Convergence and Robust Performance of Randomized Dynamical Decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 150501 (2006).
  29. J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nat. Phys. 7, 565 (2011).
  30. S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified spin-echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times, Rev. sci. Instrum. 29, 688 (1958).
  31. H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, Phys. Rev. 94, 630 (1954).
  32. Ł. Cywiński, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 77, 174509 (2008).
  33. M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Fundamental Quantum Limit to Waveform Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011).
  34. S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nat. Commun. 8 (2017).
  35. Note that the integral in Eq. (5) always exists, since the QFI is bounded and asymptotically we have J(ρω)∼(∑i=0N−1Θi)2∼1/ω2.
  36. Consider a π rotation about the axis halfway between the X and Y axes, given by exp(−iπ22(X+Y)).
  37. M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric Detection of Optical Phase Shifts at the Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993).
  38. J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996).
  39. L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms (Courier Corporation, New York, 1987), Vol. 28.
  40. Z. Chen, J. G. Bohnet, J. M. Weiner, and J. K. Thompson, General formalism for evaluating the impact of phase noise on Bloch vector rotations, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032313 (2012).
  41. D. Poulin, A. Qarry, R. Somma, and F. Verstraete, Quantum Simulation of Time-Dependent Hamiltonians and the Convenient Illusion of Hilbert Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 170501 (2011).
  42. D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran, and A. O. Sushkov, Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr), Phys. Rev. X 4 (2014).
  43. N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: Design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296 (2005).
  44. J. Liu and H. Yuan, Quantum parameter estimation with optimal control, Phys. Rev. A 96 (2017).
  45. G. S. Uhrig, Keeping a Quantum Bit Alive by Optimized π-Pulse Sequences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100504 (2007).
  46. X. N. Feng and L. F. Wei, Quantifying quantum coherence with quantum Fisher information, Sci. Rep. 7, 1 (2017).
  47. G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys, A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014).
  48. J. Huyghebaert and H. De Raedt, Product formula methods for time-dependent Schrodinger problems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23, 5777 (1990).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 014029– Published 10 January, 2023
  • Received 18 April 2022
  • Revised 22 September 2022
  • Accepted 16 November 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation