0:15 the speaker today is M Paris he
0:18 associate professor at the department of
0:21 physics at the University of Milan and
0:23 he got his PhD in
0:28 94 uh the University of Pia he was then
0:31 for a couple of years the nonclassic
0:35 life group of the max Society in Berlin
0:41 and then back toia as a g dog and uh he
0:43 then moved to Milan and from one year
0:45 one year ago he was
0:48 a he
0:51 Associated um so he's working in Quantum
0:53 information and Quantum Optics he's
0:56 visiting us for almost one month he will
1:02 be here until the 9 of July so anyone
1:08 interest 10 days and thank you very much
1:12 and good afternoon thank you for being
1:16 here and you know already my name and
1:19 today I would like to give a brief
1:22 review of what is called local Quantum estimation
1:24 estimation
1:27 Theory and and then I will try to to
1:30 give some general results and then to
1:33 with some examples in compr examp
1:35 examp
1:39 and uh my title is quantum estimation
1:42 for Quantum technology because the
1:45 motivation for this line of research is
1:48 physically the fact that the quantum
1:51 mass of physical
1:54 systems is usually a resource to do
1:57 something better than without the
2:00 quantities and the examples are many
2:03 from from Quantum information to high
2:05 prision measurement and mography and
2:07 what they have in common all these
2:09 examples and then Quantum the quantum
2:13 feature are a resource and we need the
2:15 characterization the precise
2:17 characterization at the quantum level of
2:20 states and operations these are the
2:22 basic the general motivation of this
2:23 line of
2:27 research um what I'm going to speak is
2:30 something specific uh this is the
2:33 the general scheme I will deal with and
2:35 the idea is the following I have a
2:38 physical system which may be a single
2:42 Cub or a set of many illat and I assume
2:43 that this physical system may be
2:46 prepared in several different Quantum
2:49 States possible Quantum States and these
2:52 are here leled by by some parameter or
2:56 set of parameters L and the overall goal
2:59 of what I'm I'm going to speak about is
3:02 to find a way way to estimate the value
3:05 of this parameter which is the same to
3:07 discriminate which is the actual
3:09 preparation of myant system among the
3:11 possible different SE
3:16 prar and the this uh the proced is to
3:19 prepare several times and my system in
3:21 the same preparation and then to perform a
3:23 a
3:26 measure and Quantum estimation Theory
3:30 provides the the tool to individ way the
3:32 optimal measurement in a sense to be
3:35 specified in the following SL and in
3:38 turn to to say which is the which are
3:41 the ultimate bounds to Precision in the
3:43 estimation of this
3:47 paramet and the state the the fact that
3:49 my physical system is been prepared in
3:52 some state may be the result of the
3:55 preparation procedur so in this case I'm
3:57 dealing with the characterization of
4:01 quum states or may be the result of the
4:03 action of some device on a
4:07 fixed known initial St in this case I'm dealing
4:08 dealing
4:11 with operation the characterization of
4:13 operations but of course the two
4:17 problems may be M into each so this is
4:19 the the
4:21 basic the basic problem I would like to
4:23 estimate the value of the parameter
4:26 leling the state of a physical system
4:29 one may wonder that the answer to this
4:30 problem is already contained in the
4:33 postulat Quant mechanics after all we
4:36 have a physical quantity what we have
4:38 learned is to measure the corresponding
4:41 observ and the ultimate Precision in
4:44 measuring this observ is set by
4:47 relations and this is of course true but
4:50 then two remarks are in order and the
4:53 first is practical uh if you need to
4:56 measure energy from time to time your
4:57 physical system the energy is not
5:01 assessed so par reason because that kind
5:03 of measurement is not
5:06 implemented and the second remarks more
5:08 fundamental and there are several
5:10 quantities of
5:13 Interest which not even in principle May
5:16 correspond to an observ entropy fory
5:19 entanglement purity of quantum State all
5:22 these quantities are nonlinear functions
5:24 of the density of so not even in
5:28 principle they may correspond with
5:30 qu and other
5:49 back and other examples are time time is
5:51 not an
5:53 observ but it's not time observ there is
5:56 no phase of the quantum illat exception
5:59 no this examples even in principle I
6:01 cannot follow the standard procedure of
6:03 measuring the observable and then look
6:05 at the observative
6:08 relation so now again look at the same
6:11 problem perhaps it looks less Tri than
6:14 before so at least it is wor to to deal
6:16 with Quantum estimation with is adding
6:18 something to standard mechanics to
6:20 answer in the general case to this
6:22 problem of
6:24 estimating and to attack the problem
6:25 let's forget Quantum Mechanics for a
6:28 while and U and see what classical
6:32 statistics is telling us about this mod
6:35 so now I have no role is a physical
6:38 system no Quantum just a physical system
6:40 and for some reason I assume that I'm
6:42 interested in measuring some parameters
6:45 some quantity and I cannot assess by
6:47 direct measurement this one I have to
6:49 resort for some reason to an indir
6:52 measurement so I'm interested in Lambda
6:54 I'm measuring something
6:57 else the problem so I preper several
7:00 times my system in the same preparation
7:03 I perform uh the measurement I have an
7:05 experimental set different value of the
7:08 quantity X and from this experimental
7:10 sample I would like to estimate the
7:12 value of this problem the problem is
7:14 naturally splited in two parts the first
7:17 is the choice of the measurement you
7:19 estimate the quantity L and the second
7:21 is the way to
7:25 treat the the experiment so I have to
7:27 measure something I choose an observ and
7:29 then I can take the mean I can take the
7:32 sign of the mean I can take the cosine
7:36 of each value and then take the mean all
7:38 this function are called
7:40 sors so the problem is splitted in two
7:41 parts the first the choice of the
7:44 measurement the second the choice of the
7:46 SD there is a fundamental result in
7:49 classical statistics which is called the
7:52 cam B Cam theor and is saying that if I
7:56 have to estimate a quantity Lambda and I
8:00 the variance which express the Precision
8:02 of this estimat proced the variance of
8:05 any unbiased estimator is bounded by
8:08 this qu m is the number of measurement
8:12 which is just statistical S and F is the
8:16 So-Cal feature information which is buil
8:18 with the conditional distribution of
8:21 what I'm measuring X conditioning to the
8:23 true value of the T
8:26 T
8:29 so here we have the the answer to the
8:32 the problem on which is the best way to
8:33 estimate the
8:37 parameter um the optimal measurement is
8:40 the measurement which gives you the
8:42 maximum of the ficient information so if
8:44 you have to compare two different
8:45 measurement you have to choose the one
8:47 with the maximum fish information which
8:50 is quantifying the sensitivity of the
8:54 your distribution you have a given value
8:55 of the parameter you have a given
8:58 distribution if you move the value of
9:00 your parameter the icial information is
9:04 quantifying how far is set your
9:08 distribution and of course this is to
9:09 compare different measurements but then
9:10 this is an inequality
9:12 inequality
9:15 and there is a second part what is an
9:18 optimal estimator the optimal estimator
9:19 is the one
9:23 saturating the uh camera one so if you
9:25 have an estimation problem uh you have
9:27 first to choose the optimum measurement
9:31 maximum feure and there is no no way no
9:34 constructive way to to be in classical
9:36 physics to be the optimum measur and the
9:39 second is to find an optimal estimator
9:43 and again we have no theor to to find
9:45 the optimal estimator but at least we
9:47 have a couple of example
9:55 and and the first example is the biut
9:58 Once you have chosen a measurement and
10:00 then you have to choose the estimator
10:04 how to treat to process data and uh
10:07 hopefully with with the idea of
10:09 saturating the FR inequality and the
10:11 first estimator which at least in the
10:14 Astic region is always optimal which
10:17 means it saturates inquality is the bi
10:20 estimator if you measure the quantity
10:22 X conditioned to the value of the
10:25 parameter then you are interested in the
10:28 in the in the distribution of the
10:32 outcomes the experimental sample and you
10:35 follow the standard bian recipe and the
10:37 bian estimator is just the mean of the
10:40 posterior distribution there is a nice
10:42 theorem the plus theorem says that in
10:44 the asymptotic limit if you perform any
10:47 measurement the posterior distribution
10:50 is a gan a gaan with a variance which is
10:53 the saturation of the
10:56 camera so at least in the Astic region
10:59 there is always an an optimal
11:01 and there is another example which is
11:05 the maximum likelihood estimators and
11:08 again in the asymptotic region and you
11:10 have optimality in the sense of
11:14 saturation of the camer okay this is
11:17 what is known from classical
11:20 statistics you have to maximize the fish
11:24 information no no k no constructing way
11:26 to do this and then you have to find an
11:29 optimal estimator at least in thetic we
11:32 know that there
11:36 are now let's go one try to to reproduce
11:39 this result in the quantum and the
11:42 scheme is the same at the beginning but
11:46 now we have the B rule to to build the
11:48 conditional distribution we are
11:51 measuring an observable in general or
11:54 something general like a PM so people
11:59 know what the PM is and then we build
12:02 the probability density and
12:05 then we need to perform the derivative
12:07 in order to to build the deficient
12:10 information and this is usually done by
12:12 constructing the soal symmetric
12:14 logarithmic derivative which is a s
12:17 joint operate of the in this way with a
12:20 zero mean then you put everything in the
12:23 ficient information and you have thisch
12:26 in terms of the spectrum measure you are
12:31 performing on your system what is l l is
12:32 called a symmetric logarithmic
12:34 derivative is an operator defined
12:37 implicitly defined by this relation
12:45 of yes yes this what will be one
12:49 important one and the fact that it
12:54 depends on L give the name to local qu
12:56 estimation in I don't know if you know
12:58 something about this classical
13:00 estimation here we have two approach the
13:03 global looking for the best measurement
13:05 which is the optimal in average for all
13:07 the value of the parameters then you
13:10 have local Quantum estimation here and
13:12 then Quantum estimation here which is
13:15 looking for the op estimat for a given
13:18 value this appears to be a logical look
13:21 but I will speak about this okay and so
13:24 you will the the the ficial
13:31 bu by a set of inequalities which I will
13:34 skip immediately you arrive basically
13:37 the the CIS inequality in the in in the
13:42 space you having this nice very nice
13:46 inequality which say that the feature
13:49 information of any possible Quantum
13:52 measurement you may perform on a system
13:54 is bounded by this quantity which is
13:57 called the quantum fure
13:59 information so you have you know the
14:01 maximum of the effici the overall
14:03 maximum over the possible all all
14:04 possible measurements is given by this
14:08 quantity which depends only on the
14:10 family of quantum State you are
14:12 considering because broland is
14:15 explicitly there and the symmetric lar
14:18 derivative is built in
14:21 terms of the family of
14:24 ques so this is something which is
14:26 essentially Quantum because in classical
14:29 statistics there is no way
14:31 to find the maximum and there is not
14:34 even an indication of which is the
14:36 maximum in quantum mechanics there is a
14:38 way to find the maximum deficient
14:41 information and this is the maximum of
14:43 over all possible Quantum measurement you
14:44 you
14:48 make and so there is what is called
14:51 Quantum inequality the variance of any
14:55 Ed estimation is bounded by this one and
14:57 also there is a way to find the optimal
14:59 measurement achieving
15:02 this maximum and this is the
15:05 measurement for which the two
15:08 inequalities are saturated and I will
15:11 see the details if the measurement
15:14 satisfying this inequality in
15:17 terms the the unnown here the element of
15:20 the spectrum measure and you discover
15:22 that the optimal measurement is made of
15:25 the is the set of
15:27 projectors built with the alien state of
15:33 so over we have the answer you have the
15:35 family of quantum State you would like
15:37 to discriminate among these Quantum
15:40 States or which is the same to estimate
15:42 the parameter L the family of quantum
15:44 State and the answer is the optimal
15:48 measurement is the set of projectors
15:50 given by a state of the symmetric
15:52 logarithmic derivative and then this is
15:53 the measurement then you have to process
15:56 data but the processing of data is still
16:00 toxic the qu what we are quantizing is
16:02 just the measurement but then the the
16:06 post processing you may use uh whatever
16:09 uh estimator you you know is optimal in
16:12 this case at least we know that the B
16:15 estimator and the maximum life estimat
16:18 they are so this is the full solution uh
16:22 look for this then then we have model by
16:25 model uh we have to check if this is can
16:28 be implemented in practice but at least
16:30 we have the the complete
16:36 head and now as somebody was noticing
16:39 before the optimal measurement of the
16:43 quantity Lambda depends on Lambda itself
16:45 this appears to be a
16:48 logical and this is common is not it's
16:51 not essential Quantum is the point of
16:54 loc ofation Theory and how this can be
16:57 can be adapted the first is to perform
17:00 the feedback ass system measurement or
17:04 even simply more simply uh just
17:07 choose a measurement perhaps given by
17:11 the the measurement provided by global
17:13 Quantum estimation Theory have a rough
17:16 estimate of the parameter on a small
17:18 fraction of copy you have a disposal and
17:21 then perform the optimal measurement
17:23 because you have an idea or which is the
17:25 value of the parameter and then you may
17:29 implement the measurement of
17:32 given by this recipe of course you have
17:36 to be sure that this
17:39 iterative procedure is converging and
17:42 for this there are no differ and you
17:45 have to check model by mod and
17:47 fortunately enough all the examples that
17:51 we have investigated this convergence is
17:55 ur but for this we are not human and
17:57 then there was another a possible question
17:59 question
18:03 about um all this estimation procedure
18:07 is performed with the assumption that we
18:11 have several repeated preparations of
18:14 our Quantum State we perform sequential
18:16 measurements one may wonder whether
18:19 entangled measure on on a global
18:22 preparation may be more convenient at
18:25 least for cubits this is not true for
18:27 this we have a theor proved by g m in 2000
18:29 2000
18:32 that there is no gain in using a
18:34 time and so for the estimation of a
18:38 single parameter uh this is the global
18:39 Optimum even
18:42 considering uh enti
18:48 so
18:52 okay so how to solve an estimation
18:54 problem you have the family of quantum
18:57 State at first you have to solve this
19:00 equation to find the symmetric
19:03 logarithmic derivative and then plug
19:06 into the quantum FAL information this is
19:08 is telling you which is the best
19:10 measurement and this is telling you
19:12 which is the ultimate Precision to the
19:16 estimation of the these are operatorial
19:18 solution because this is a y like
19:21 equation but of course in practice you
19:24 almost never using this this
19:27 construction what you you use it force
19:28 it to do
19:31 is to diagonalize the family of quantum
19:35 State both the the value and the vectors
19:38 depends on the quantity Lambda and then
19:41 you plug this in the previous formula
19:43 you have General formulas for the
19:46 symmetric lari and the quantum fish
19:48 information this is this is nice because
19:50 you have two pieces
19:53 and the the idea is to maximize the
19:57 fishal information and this is called
20:00 the classical part of the quantum ficial
20:02 information this is called the quantum
20:05 part why because this is is measuring
20:09 how the a values of your of your state
20:13 depends on the quantity of L and this
20:16 is capturing the dependence on the
20:22 vectors now some example perhaps clarify
20:25 some some of the meaning of this so the
20:27 simplest example unitary family of
20:32 quantum State you have some known State
20:35 then you are pering the state with a
20:37 unitary peration this is the generator
20:39 of the perturbation this is the quantity
20:42 of interest if G is antonian this is
20:45 time if G is the number of photons this
20:48 is a phase and so on and so a shift a
20:49 general shift
20:52 parameter and the symmetric logarithm
20:55 derivative is covariant the problem is
20:57 covariant by definition and so this is
20:59 the General expression and this is the
21:01 general expression from the quantum F
21:05 information there is no classical part
21:07 because the peration is unitary and the
21:09 quantum Fusion information is
21:10 independent on the value of the
21:13 parameter because of the coal so you can
21:15 measure with the same Precision all the
21:18 possible value of the now let's write
21:23 the car bound uh and the first example
21:26 when the the initial state is view if
21:28 you perform the calculation when the
21:30 initial state is pure you end up with
21:33 the fact that the quantum ficial
21:35 information is four times the
21:38 fluctuations of the generator you plug
21:40 this into the camera around and you
21:42 arrive at this relation this is quite
21:44 appealing for a physicist because as a
21:47 firm of an uncertainty relation but this
21:49 is not an uncertainty relation this is
21:52 the cam this is an operator but this is
21:53 a general
21:57 parameter so um perhaps you have seen in
22:00 the literat some aristic uncertainty
22:03 relation for time or for phase and uh
22:06 they cannot be prop uncertainty relation
22:09 because they they are not observable and
22:13 what is uh doing for us the camer bound
22:16 is to go to give a firm statistical
22:20 ground to
22:23 thisis because this is very also when
22:26 Lambda is not does not correspond to an
22:32 Ober and when the initial state is mixed
22:34 we have two pieces this is the same as
22:38 before the this piece and then we have
22:41 something which depends on the F on the
22:43 fact that we are dealing with M also
22:46 this is nice this is not been pursued in
22:49 the literature but this is nice anyway
22:52 and because it is an answer to the long
22:54 standing debate about the origin of
22:57 noise in a measurement uh which is the
23:00 part of the noise depending on Quantum
23:02 fluctuation and which is the part of the
23:05 noise coming from classical fluctuation
23:07 here we have natural way to separate the
23:09 two contributions this is when the
23:12 initial sa is pure so this
23:15 is quantum Mon and this is the
23:18 statistical fluctuation in the
23:22 preparation okay then when you have a
23:24 your Quantum fure information you may be
23:27 the signal to no ration to to quantify
23:30 in way the estimability of the parameter
23:33 and this is the ratio between the value
23:36 of the parameter and the noise and of
23:39 course the signal to noise of any
23:41 possible measurement is bounded by what
23:45 we may call the quantum signal noise ra
23:47 and this you may be the several quantity
23:49 as the number of measurement to achieve
23:53 some some some even relative
23:56 combinations different figures of Merit
23:58 to to quantify
24:01 the estimability of the parameter and by
24:03 this you discover that for example if
24:09 you have a a unitary parameter and then
24:10 we have already discovered that the
24:13 quantum F information is independent on
24:16 the value of parameter and so the the
24:20 the quantum signal is is Vanishing for
24:23 Vanishing which means that three thing
24:26 if you have a parameter and the
24:28 Precision is constant
24:31 uh well not depending on whether the the
24:34 parameter is large or small then this
24:36 means that this parameter is
24:39 in badly estimated because when it is
24:43 small the error it remains large but
24:47 this is not a general is a feature of VI
24:50 T but it is not a general feature I have
24:52 an example and this is my first example of
24:53 of
24:56 applications and supposed to
24:59 have and illat which is modeling the
25:02 light a single model the ration field
25:08 and you put your uh your light beam in a
25:11 noisy Channel which means the the
25:13 dynamical equation is the master
25:15 equation you put your oscillator in
25:18 interaction with the bath of them
25:21 oscillator at zero temperature and theal
25:24 evolution is this master equation where
25:27 this is the relation with The Dumping of
25:30 the ch and this is the blood operator
25:32 and if you are interested in
25:35 characterizing the channel so in
25:38 estimating the loss parameter what you
25:42 can do is to prove to send some some
25:44 Pro State and then to perform
25:47 measurement on the output State this is
25:48 nice because this is a good model for
25:50 absorption of light beam and for
25:52 propagation with noise each at least
25:54 when the temperature is very low you
25:57 don't have teral contribution if you
25:59 apply the Machinery of quantum
26:02 estimation Theory you discover that the
26:06 variance of the optimal estimator which
26:09 is achieved when here you perform some
26:11 some photon number detection and some
26:16 gaan operation is bounded by this one
26:19 and this is nice because the cam bound
26:21 says that the variance is proportional
26:24 to the loss parameter itself so also
26:27 when the loss parameter is very small
26:28 you may hope
26:32 to estimate the L with high
26:35 position because the the the
26:39 noise is is going to zero together with
26:41 the value of the time this is not
26:44 countering think of the probability of
26:48 flipping a coin the variance of of
26:52 thean distribution and the variance of
26:55 the event is going to zero together with
26:59 probability is a similar to
27:02 this then another example and the
27:05 estimation of the phase in the presence
27:07 of pH diffusion here the
27:11 parameter is unitary again a single mode
27:14 radiation field and you interested in in
27:16 estimating the pH sheet perhaps coming
27:19 from from a different Optical path in
27:22 Teeter and you assume that uh there is
27:25 some noise phase diffusion gausian phase
27:28 diffusion here so that the measurement
27:30 scheme is the following you have an
27:32 initial State a know initial State then
27:34 you perform the phase shift your inter
27:37 meter here and then perhap some noise
27:39 before the measurement but you may
27:41 exchange this because the noise and and
27:43 the and the perturbation
27:47 they and when there is no noise the
27:49 maximum of the of the ficial information
27:52 is known to be achieved using here soal
27:54 squeeze State The Squeeze vacuum and is
27:56 proportional to the square of the energy
27:58 so the
28:01 the uncertainty in the in the estimation
28:04 of the phase may be May decrease one
28:07 over and square when n is the number the
28:11 mean number of What's happen when the
28:16 you have a phase phase diffusion and of
28:19 course from the form of the noisy
28:20 channel of the phase diffusion you
28:23 expect some dependence on on the square
28:25 root of En on the square of energy
28:27 multiplied by the noise parameter and
28:31 this is captured by by the analysis with
28:33 with efficient information because we
28:35 discover a scaling load for the fish
28:38 information and for the squeezing
28:42 fraction U when you have no
28:44 noise The Squeeze infrction is one
28:47 because the op squeeze vacuum and then
28:48 when you have noise you cannot
28:50 appreciate the advantages of squeezing
28:53 it so the squeeing fraction is
28:56 decreasing and and there other results you
28:58 you
29:00 discover with with a tool from Quantum
29:02 estimation Theory and to perform a Bine
29:05 detection measure the field quadrature
29:07 at the output is nearly optimal at least
29:10 when the noise is very small was very
29:13 high so in this case uh the optimal
29:15 measurement cannot be implemented but at
29:18 least you have a benchmark to judge what
29:21 can be done in qu which is detection
29:24 basically or or photo detection which in
29:28 this case is not is not use
29:31 now uh for the I mentioned at the
29:34 beginning that this may be applied also
29:36 when the set of
29:38 parameters when the states are led by a
29:41 set of parameters rather than a single
29:43 parameter so there is an extension to
29:46 the multiparameter case it's quite
29:48 straightforward instead of of the fure
29:50 information you have the quantum fish
29:53 information metrix and the elements are
29:56 buil uh with
29:58 building and a symmetric logarithmic
30:00 derivative for each
30:04 parameter and the analog of the bound is
30:07 given for the ciance of the estimator in
30:09 general this inequality is not
30:13 achievable is not ATT is a real is a
30:15 matrix inquality so cannot be achieved
30:18 in general but if you have a
30:20 multiparameter problem and you are
30:22 interested in the estimating a single
30:24 parameter and fixed value of the other
30:28 parameters then you have this
30:32 generalized PR and this is achievable in
30:34 and why I'm mentioning this because this
30:37 is the typical problem when you want to
30:39 estimate entanglement
30:41 of in general you you would like to
30:43 estimate entanglement but there are
30:46 other parameters governing States Other
30:50 M Elements which are relevant for the
30:52 preparation of your Quantum state so you
30:56 have just this this kind of problem and
30:58 to introduce the problem of estimation
31:00 entanglement just mentioned the simplest
31:04 case you have a pure State and we have
31:06 here we have a single parameter and the
31:10 entanglement is a monot with q and in
31:14 this case um you apply the Machinery of
31:17 quantum machine Theory and you arrive at
31:20 this expression for the the quantum
31:23 signal to no solution and the meaning of
31:28 this is uh is here
31:30 and the quantum fure information is
31:32 increasing with enang lement and
31:36 diverges for maximal which means that if
31:40 you have a family of sa then when theang
31:44 is very large close to one to Infinity
31:46 depending on the range of your measure
31:48 and then can be estimated with high
31:50 Precision this is a good news because if
31:52 you are interested in in a device
31:56 preparing a tangle thing then of course
31:58 you would like be a to be large because
32:01 the resource and so you have your device
32:03 preparing the state you would like to
32:06 check if you have prepared maximum St or
32:11 not your is large and you perform the optimal
32:12 optimal
32:15 measurement VI by by by Quantum
32:18 estimation Theory and you expect an
32:20 estimation very
32:24 precise and so you may improve your
32:26 generation scheme because the estimation
32:29 is very
32:34 conversely when the anang is low then
32:37 the quantum information is low and so
32:41 estimation of is inherently inent so the
32:44 error in estimating the value is very
32:47 large when theang is and this is quite
32:50 General feature depends on the dimension
32:53 of space whether you have Cubit cued or
32:55 continuous variables but the general
32:58 feature is that when the is larger can be
32:58 be
33:01 estimated very you know very that is
33:04 valid for any property this
33:06 green not only for
33:08 for
33:12 um estimation of a small values of anything
33:14 anything
33:19 is well not for for the unitary case
33:22 definitely but when I was speaking about
33:24 the the L parameter of the channel then
33:27 was the opposite the noise was scaling
33:29 the parameters so in that case that's not
33:30 not
33:33 true uh usually you have fixed the
33:35 variance of your exat SK set so of
33:39 course if the is more this is but this
33:41 is the was not granted from the very
33:42 beginning because this is linear
33:45 function of the so I would say this is a
33:47 result I see
33:50 unfortunately I would have preferred
33:53 another result when the can be estimated
33:55 in a good way the whole range but this
33:57 is not the case
33:59 and this is the experimental
34:02 implementation of this made at National
34:05 metrological Institute in in Torino they
34:08 are able to prepare this family of State
34:11 this is a maximally entang state of two
34:15 can be a maxim state of any any uh
34:18 superposition of two photons of vertical
34:21 andiz polarization so this is a the
34:25 polarization in States so they they can
34:27 tune uh both the
34:30 parameters the the balance of the two
34:32 components here and the mixing parameter
34:35 because what do you have in a
34:38 real device for preparing Timeless state
34:41 is something mixing the the ESS state
34:42 with a mixture
34:44 mixture
34:48 and what we had done is to look for an
34:51 estimator a real estimator built with
34:54 some some interference and visibility
34:56 measurement and what we have discovered
34:59 that optimal estimation is
35:01 possible and if you perform some
35:04 combination here of visibility
35:06 measurement you have an estimator and
35:09 this estimator is saturating the cam so
35:12 optimal estimation of anang is
35:15 possible and the result are here so here
35:17 is the estimated value versus the true
35:20 value of
35:23 entanglement obtained because the Peter
35:27 can be estimated independently and um
35:30 and in fact we have an error also on the
35:33 true value and the gray area is the
35:37 camera B and the blue points and line
35:40 are the the the experimental
35:43 determination together with the ARs so
35:45 the results is saying that optimal
35:47 estimation of entanglement is possible
35:50 but of course when the entanglement is
35:52 very large the estimation is very good
35:55 which means that the AR bars are small
35:58 and then when en is small the the the
36:03 estimation here bu very so but this is a
36:06 a property of entanglement so the good
36:08 news is that optimal estimation is
36:10 possible and the bad news that
36:12 entanglement is
36:14 inherent uh inefficiently
36:15 inefficiently
36:19 estimated then my few last
36:21 slides a connection with the quantum phase
36:23 phase Transitions
36:24 Transitions
36:29 and so in General the phase transitions
36:32 in a physical system is associated with
36:36 some strong change in some Rel Observer
36:39 so you connect the change the state of
36:40 the system with the change of some microscopic
36:42 microscopic
36:46 parameter and Quantum in Quantum phase
36:50 transition uh you expect that to have a strong
36:51 strong
36:54 departure from the initial Point density
36:57 mat so if you have the ground state of
37:00 the system and you say and you say that
37:03 this system is experiencing a Quantum
37:04 transition you expect the ground state
37:06 to change
37:09 very and you expect this to be
37:13 Quantified in term of some distance
37:15 between states in the
37:19 interace and uh this approach was
37:22 followed by by zalan who works at the
37:26 isi foundation few years ago to rephrase
37:29 to consider the problem of identifying
37:32 one to transition instead of
37:35 using a microscopic parameter use a
37:37 distance between
37:40 Quantum some kind of geometric approach to
37:41 to
37:45 Quantum and for example you may quantify
37:47 this by soal burus distance between
37:50 Quantum SES which is built in terms of
37:55 fidelity if you consider two uh ground
37:59 stes of a g even many body system and
38:01 you change the parameters of the
38:04 interaction of the preparation or the
38:07 temperature whatever then you may
38:08 quantify the distance between the two
38:10 different ground States infinitesimally
38:14 close ground states by by the tensor
38:17 metc of of the L
38:21 distance now why this is connected qu
38:25 estimation because this the answer is in this
38:28 this
38:30 and when you have a set of parameters
38:34 classical set of parameter you may IND
38:36 use a statistical
38:38 differential manifold by considering the
38:41 measurement to estimate the set of
38:44 parameter and the fure metric in the
38:46 multiparametric case I was mentioning is
38:50 providing a metric the fish Quantum
38:53 fure Matrix is providing a metric for
38:57 this statistical mag but the same can be
39:00 done if you map the set of parameter
39:03 into a family of qu St this was
39:06 our initial starting point to Define quantum
39:08 quantum
39:10 estimation and here in the manifold of
39:13 quantum State you have distances and the
39:15 connection in between the two approaches
39:19 is just the optimization if you optimize
39:21 of all possible Quantum measurement you
39:23 are performing here then you arrive at
39:27 the quantum fish metric and the result
39:29 is that the quantum fion metc is just
39:32 proportional to the Tens metc coming
39:35 from the distance
39:39 so yes just as calculation what is
39:42 saying is that the buis metric is the
39:44 among the different Matrix you may
39:47 Define on the manifold Quantum State the
39:50 BL Matrix is capturing the statistical
39:53 distinguishability the other distan is
39:55 perhaps capturing something else but the
39:57 statistical distinguish term of
40:00 measurement is captured by the
40:02 the
40:06 and this is telling you something which
40:09 is the role quite trivial that if you
40:10 have a parameter leveling the ground
40:13 state of a b body system then the
40:14 estimation of this parameter is very
40:17 effective at critical points this is
40:20 something it sounds but then we have
40:23 some some analytical proof of of this
40:27 intuition and in fact you May I'm
40:30 skipping details but you may perform
40:32 analysis on some super extensive
40:35 behavior of the of the of the quantum
40:38 ficient information U respect to the
40:41 size of the system of the temperature uh
40:43 say I mean quantify this this this
40:45 statement that estimation is very
40:47 affecting a critical point just an
40:50 example before before going to the end
40:52 take the the simplest example the easing
40:55 model with the transer transverse
41:00 field and suppose you would like to to
41:02 estimate the cing Conant you have a
41:05 chain of spins and you want to
41:07 characterize the system which means to
41:09 to estimate the value of the
41:13 C and what you discover that the quantum
41:14 Fusion information at zero temperature
41:18 is maximized at the P point for any this
41:21 is the result because for final size
41:23 this is not a critical point what is
41:26 called the critical points you have only
41:29 the teram but here the result is that
41:32 even when the size is fin the quantum
41:35 fishal information is maximized at a
41:38 same the critical point and you have a
41:41 super extensive behavior of the quantum
41:44 feure information and another nice
41:48 results I would say is that one may
41:51 Wonder but the the measurement achieving
41:54 this Quant ficial information is visible
41:58 in general no is a licated expression in
42:00 terms of the symmetric L derivative does
42:02 not correspond to something may be
42:04 implemented in practice what you can
42:07 measure on a spin chain is the the total
42:10 magnetization this can be measured and
42:12 what what you discover as from the the
42:14 ratio the fishal information of this
42:16 measurement to the quantum fishal
42:18 information then at least when the
42:22 coupling is not too small the ra is one
42:26 so also in this case in some regimes you
42:30 have that the C BS can be achieved so
42:33 optimal estimation can be can be
42:36 achieved so sumary
42:38 sumary
42:40 um let's make this
42:44 short um Quantum estimation is a tool
42:46 for Quantum technology because there are
42:49 several quantity of Interest which are
42:51 not corresponding to obser so we need
42:53 something more that hos quantum
42:57 mechanics to attack the problem
43:00 and the recipe is quite clear and you
43:03 have also benefit of being Quantum that
43:04 you know the maximum efficient
43:06 information and you know you have the
43:09 full recipe to arrive at the optimal
43:11 estimation and either to implement the
43:14 optimation scheme or to use it as a
43:17 benchmark to to judge what can be
43:19 implemented on your
43:22 system and and then there are few few
43:24 few more results about the theability of
43:26 the parameter
43:30 and about this is me not explored I have
43:33 no time to present result about the the
43:37 the classical and Quantum contribution
43:54 much a good measure of
43:56 this noise
44:01 ratio is the Mand parameter Factor
44:04 can you relate that to to the quantum
44:07 information some connection
44:09 connection
44:12 um at least yes well of course on a
44:15 restricted set of physical
44:19 system basically the radiation Fe yes
44:22 where the final Factor has an immediate
44:24 meaning in terms of classicality and
44:28 classicality yes in that case yes in
44:31 general uh in general no because the
44:32 final factor for a fin dimensional
44:35 system is not immediately related to any
44:39 Quantum so but for the radiation field
44:42 for the radiation field um yeah
44:45 definitely the answer is yes I don't
44:48 know the complete answer but I'm quite sure
44:54 they question
44:56 question
44:59 I like just at the very beginning just to
44:59 to
45:02 clarify you CH a physical meaning just
45:05 repeating you already told about this
45:09 inequality you pass okay about this F of
45:19 is okay the fish the fish this is a this
45:22 is the find
45:28 here yes with theal probab yes so the
45:31 ficial information can be written
45:33 evaluated once you have chosen a
45:36 measure I all the possible measurements
45:38 you may perform on a system you choose
45:43 one and then the uh the
45:45 Precision in the estimation of a given
45:48 parameter starting from that
45:51 sample measurement is ruled by the
45:54 camer you want to maximize
45:56 this and
45:59 the other inequality the quantum
46:01 inquality says
46:04 that choose one measurement and choose
46:06 another one you compare that but the
46:10 ficial information of any measurement
46:12 you may perform a Quantum system is
46:14 anyway bounded by this
46:19 qu so if you choose a measurement whose
46:21 FAL information is equal to the quantum
46:24 F information then you you cannot do
46:30 so it's just saying
46:34 that um this is nice
46:37 because basically the set of quantum
46:40 measurements is well
46:43 characterized you have S Spectrum
46:46 measure of
46:50 Po uh the set of classical measurements
46:52 performed on a physical system is not well
46:53 well
46:56 characterized how to what what is a a a
46:59 measurement in classical physics is a
47:01 distribution but then a distribution in which
47:02 which
47:05 space uh which constraints you put on on
47:08 your distribution to be physically
47:11 admissible it's not completely clear
47:13 there is no a classical theory of
47:16 measurement in this sense in quantum
47:17 mechanics we have quantum theory of
47:18 measurement and we have the full characterization
47:20 characterization
47:24 p and this fact um made possible to
47:27 write down two to obtain the the the the
47:31 ultimate maximum of deficient
47:38 consequence can I
47:41 have can you say something more about
47:57 yes of course
48:02 here of course uh this is Val for
48:13 is so this is the starting point and
48:18 then you ask about the contribution to
48:21 noise so when the state is pure
48:23 everything is quite clear and this is
48:27 what you obtain when the state is
48:29 it's nice because we have a
48:32 sum but it's bad
48:35 because this superator form is not easy
48:39 to enter this is why everybody is saying
48:41 very nice but then nobody's working with
48:44 this subject because nobody found a way
48:47 to deal with all this
48:50 operatorial and so on and so for so in
48:54 principle the answer is there but then
49:06 thank
49:09 you just the last you have shown this
49:19 you this you expect anything s for continu
49:24 variables just a very specific results
49:30 no yes and no we already um did on
49:35 paper the attack the problem we know we
49:38 know the bounds we know
49:41 everything but then in that case
49:45 the what can be done in a lab for the
49:49 moment is not achieving the
49:51 maximum so you have a way to estimate
49:54 entanglement is much more noisy than the
49:56 ultimate B
49:58 provided by by the
50:03 C so for the moment of course enang for
50:05 can be estimated but nobody found a way
50:12 Sate because the set of possible
50:15 measurements on the continuous variables
50:19 say are is restricted I mean you have an
50:20 infinite number of parameters and then
50:24 you may just count photons or measure of
50:27 the field no
50:36 they any other