Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum weak measurement parameter estimation vs Classical Estimation
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="tworitdash, post: 6626759, member: 220671"] I am not an expert in quantum theory. I want to carry out some parameter estimation on a set of data I have. I have a model for the data with the parameter(s) of interest as variable(s). The data available is sporadic, meaning non-statistical or techniques involving no prior knowledge on the parameter of interest may result in very bad estimate of the parameter. For example, a Doppler frequency estimator with DFT with very sparse data in time. So, we can call the bad estimates for the parameters as bad(weak) estimates. I am currently looking at Bayesian principles with Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques to estimate a probability distribution of parameters. However, I came across parameter estimation with quantum weak measurement recently. I am curious how can I translate what people use in the parameter estimation for the weak measurements in a classical setting. I found this paper for the same. Hofmann, H. F. (2011). On the estimation of interaction parameters in weak measurements. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1363(October 2011), 125–128. [URL]https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3630162[/URL]Here, they say that the estimation problem can be defined by this following equation. $$ \hat{E_m} = \sqrt{w_m}(\hat{1} + \epsilon k_m \hat A) $$ Where ##\hat{E_m}## is the quantum statistics of the measurements, ##w_m## are the output probabilities, ##\hat{A}## is the observable, ##k_m## is the correlation between the outcome and the effects, ##\epsilon## is an interaction parameter. How can I relate these quantities with a classical estimation problem. For example, my data are represented as ##z##, the model I have is ##s## and the parameter I want to estimate is ##\Theta##. So, $$ x = f(\Theta) $$ $$ z = f(\Theta) + noise $$ A bad estimate of ##\Theta## with a blind estimator (without any prior knowledge) can be named as ##\Gamma##. So, the likelihood of ##z## given ##\Theta## is represented as ##p(z|\Theta)##, the prior probability of ##\Theta## is represented as #p(\Theta)# and the joint probability of data and the parameter is $$ p(z, \Theta) = p(\Theta) p(z|\Theta) $$ There is also a joint probability mentioned in that paper, but I am confused. Is ##m## all the values permitted for the parameter? Or ##m## are the weak estimates for the parameters? If someone could look into the paper and give me some insight with some relationship with what I defined as a classical estimation problem, that would be great. Thanks! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum weak measurement parameter estimation vs Classical Estimation
Back
Top