Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

NMR Spectrometers: Resolution and Error Correction01:14

NMR Spectrometers: Resolution and Error Correction

787
When magnetic nuclei in a sample achieve resonance and undergo relaxation, the signal detected in NMR is an approximately exponential free induction decay. Fourier transform of an exponential decay yields a Lorentzian peak in the frequency domain. Lorentzian peaks in an NMR spectrum are defined by their amplitude, full width at half maximum, and position, where the peak width is governed by the spin-spin relaxation time alone. In real experiments, however, the applied magnetic field is rendered...
787
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.4K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.4K
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error01:10

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error

938
The atomic mass of an element varies due to the relative ratio of its isotopes. A sample's relative proportion of oxygen isotopes influences its average atomic mass. For instance, if we were to measure the atomic mass of oxygen from a sample, the mass would be a weighted average of the isotopic masses of oxygen in that sample. Since a single sample is not likely to perfectly reflect the true atomic mass of oxygen for all the molecules of oxygen on Earth, the mass we obtain from this...
938
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

3.0K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
3.0K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

12.8K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
12.8K
Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments02:46

Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments

47.2K
Counting is the type of measurement that is free from uncertainty, provided the number of objects being counted does not change during the process. Such measurements result in exact numbers. By counting the eggs in a carton, for instance, one can determine exactly how many eggs are there in the carton. Similarly, the numbers of defined quantities are also exact. For example, 1 foot is exactly 12 inches, 1 inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters, and 1 gram is exactly 0.001 kilograms. Quantities...
47.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A three-dimensional scanning trapped-ion probe.

Science advances·2026
Same author

Robust AC Vector Sensing at Zero Magnetic Field with Pentacene.

Nano letters·2026
Same author

Fieldoscopy at the quantum limit.

Light, science & applications·2026
Same author

Nonlinear Calcium King Plot Constrains New Bosons and Nuclear Properties.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Energy exchange statistics and fluctuation theorem for nonthermal asymptotic states.

Physical review. E·2025
Same author

Hyperfine-Enhanced Gyroscope Based on Solid-State Spins.

Physical review letters·2024
Same journal

Erratum: Bacterial Turbulence at Compressible Fluid Interfaces [Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 138301 (2026)].

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Unveiling Light-Quark Yukawa Flavor Structure via Dihadron Fragmentation at Lepton Colliders.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Adaptable Route to Fast Coherent State Transport via Bang-Bang-Bang Protocols.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Topological Transition and Emergence of Elasticity of Dislocation in Skyrmion Lattice: Beyond Kittel's Magnetic-Polar Analogy.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Pound-Drever-Hall Method for Superconducting-Qubit Readout.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Coupling a ^{73}Ge Nuclear Spin to an Electrostatically Defined Quantum Dot in Silicon.

Physical review letters·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 25, 2025

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

8.5K

Bias in Error-Corrected Quantum Sensing.

Ivan Rojkov1, David Layden2, Paola Cappellaro2

  • 1Institute for Quantum Electronics, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.

Physical Review Letters
|April 27, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Quantum error correction (QEC) improves quantum sensor sensitivity by reducing decoherence. However, QEC introduces bias, which can degrade experimental performance and theoretical signal detection if not properly addressed.

More Related Videos

Quantum State Engineering of Light with Continuous-wave Optical Parametric Oscillators
09:23

Quantum State Engineering of Light with Continuous-wave Optical Parametric Oscillators

Published on: May 30, 2014

14.7K
Gradient Echo Quantum Memory in Warm Atomic Vapor
10:00

Gradient Echo Quantum Memory in Warm Atomic Vapor

Published on: November 11, 2013

12.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 25, 2025

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

8.5K
Quantum State Engineering of Light with Continuous-wave Optical Parametric Oscillators
09:23

Quantum State Engineering of Light with Continuous-wave Optical Parametric Oscillators

Published on: May 30, 2014

14.7K
Gradient Echo Quantum Memory in Warm Atomic Vapor
10:00

Gradient Echo Quantum Memory in Warm Atomic Vapor

Published on: November 11, 2013

12.9K

Area of Science:

  • Quantum Sensing
  • Quantum Information Science
  • Metrology

Background:

  • Quantum sensor sensitivity is fundamentally limited by decoherence.
  • Quantum error correction (QEC) is a key technique to mitigate decoherence.
  • Realistic implementations of QEC can introduce systematic biases.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the impact of bias introduced by continuous-time QEC on quantum sensor performance.
  • To demonstrate how uncorrected bias can lead to experimental underperformance.
  • To highlight the necessity of accounting for QEC-induced bias in theoretical analyses.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of continuous-time quantum error correction (QEC) protocols.
  • Theoretical modeling of QEC-induced bias in quantum sensor output.
  • Evaluation of the impact of bias on experimental measurements and theoretical sensitivity.

Main Results:

  • Continuous-time QEC introduces a bias that can systematically reduce a quantum sensor's effective sensitivity.
  • Failure to account for this bias leads to inaccurate experimental results.
  • Theoretical minimum detectable signal values can be misleading if QEC bias is ignored.

Conclusions:

  • Addressing QEC-induced bias is crucial for accurate quantum sensing.
  • Methods to remedy the bias in continuous-time QEC are presented.
  • Proper consideration of bias is essential for reliable quantum sensor design and analysis.