Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence

Jason Alicea; Pablo Sala; Sara Murciano; Yinan Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Symmetry measurements saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound for critical-state sensors, and non-unitary deformation can push precision beyond the pristine critical state, approaching the Heisenberg limit.

desk verdict A practical symmetry-based readout recipe for critical-state sensors that mostly holds up, but the headline non-unitary enhancement rests on an imported correlator scaling that should be verified before full endorsement. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04364 v2 pith:XBW2R244 submitted 2026-01-07 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Yinan Chen , Sara Murciano , Pablo Sala , Jason Alicea This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords quantumsensingFisherinformationcriticalitysymmetry-informedmeasurementsdecoherencenon-unitarydeformationGHZstatesCramér-Raobound

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether many-body quantum critical states are practical resources for interferometric sensing—states that can be prepared, read out optimally, and survive noise. Its central claim is that the optimal readout is dictated by symmetry: when the phase-imprinting operator O has a definite charge under a symmetry generator A of the critical state (i.e., {A,O}=0), measuring A saturates the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, as demonstrated for the Ising chain and Rydberg-atom arrays. The paper then quantifies how imperfections affect the quantum Fisher information. Symmetry-preserving bit-flip noise only renormalizes the prefactor, keeping the QFI scaling; local dephasing pushes the critical state back to the standard quantum limit, but never worse, while GHZ states (superpositions of two macroscopically distinct configurations) decay exponentially; qubit loss still allows sub-SQL precision via subsystem parity measurements. Most notably, non-unitary deformations of a critical wavefunction—arising from weak measurements or imperfect teleportation—can make correlations decay more slowly, and with a decoding protocol the average QFI scales as L^{2[1−1/(4K)]}, exceeding the pristine state for K>1 and approaching Heisenberg scaling. If these claims hold, critical states offer a robust and increasingly feasible route to Heisenberg-limited sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum Fisher information F_Q[ρ]=2∑_{λ_i+λ_j>0}(λ_i−λ_j)²/(λ_i+λ_j)|⟨i|O|j⟩|², which for pure states reduces to 4Var(O). Two identities carry the argument. The anticommutation relation {A,O}=0 makes the symmetry generator A an optimal observable: it forces ⟨O⟩=0 and yields δθ=1/(2√Var(O)) + O(θ²), converting optimal measurement design into a symmetry-group classification problem. The decoded-correlator identity ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_d = Σ_s p_s ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_s s_{j+1}⋯s_k ∼ |j−k|^{−1/(2K)}, established through a non-local duality transformation, converts non-unitary deformation into slower correlation decay; from it the QFI scaling F_Q∼L^{2[1−1/(4K)]} follows directl

What would settle it

Compute exactly, for small system sizes, the decoded correlator ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_d on the non-unitarily deformed ladder state at K>1 and compare the extracted power-law exponent with −1/(2K); any deviation invalidates the predicted F_Q ∼ L^{2[1−1/(4K)]} enhancement. Alternatively, experimentally implement the projective-measurement decoding protocol U_j(θ)=e^{iθ s_1...s_j Z_{j,2}} and check whether the outcome-averaged QFI follows that scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is twofold. First, optimal readout of a critical-state sensor is a symmetry problem: if the imprinting operator O has a well-defined charge under a symmetry generator A of the critical state ({A,O}=0), then measuring A saturates the Cramér-Rao bound. For the Ising critical chain this is the parity operator A=∏_j X_j with O=Σ_j Z_j, giving δθ=1/(2√Var(O)) up to O(θ²); for Rydberg chains the same role is played by translation or bond-reflection, measurable through a Hadamard test. Second, non-unitary deformation can enhance rather than destroy sensing. In a ladder model that maps to two decoupled Luttinger liquids with parameter K, deforming with

Load-bearing premise

The enhancement result assumes the imported decoded-correlator scaling ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_d ∼ |j−k|^{−1/(2K)} for K>1, together with the assumption that averaging the QFI over measurement outcomes is the right operational figure of merit; if those fail, non-unitary deformation may not help, even though the symmetry-readout recipe stands on its own.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A universal readout recipe emerges: for any critical state with a discrete internal or spatial symmetry, the optimal measurement saturating the Cramér-Rao bound is the symmetry generator anticommuting with the imprinting operator, so optimal readout does not require constructing the symmetric logarithmic derivative.
Symmetry-preserving bit-flip channels do not destroy the sensing enhancement: at Ising criticality the QFI keeps its L^{7/4} scaling with only a prefactor reduction for p<1/2, and for ZZ channels the QFI is exactly unchanged.
Under local dephasing, critical states degrade to at most the SQL, whereas GHZ states acquire exponentially bad phase uncertainty; the same holds for global dephasing.
Partial qubit loss need not end the protocol: parity measurements on a subregion yield δθ_min ∼ L_sub^{−5/8} for Ising criticality and up to Heisenberg-like L_sub^{−1} for the XXZ chain near Δ→1, improving over the SQL within a finite phase window.
Non-unitary deformation with decoding can turn a corrupted critical wavefunction into a better sensor than the original, with outcome-averaged QFI F_Q ∼ L^{2[1−1/(4K)]} exceeding L^{3/2} for K>1 and approaching L²; this can be implemented with local imprinting operations after the deformation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension is to treat weak measurement as an engineered resource: if non-unitary deformation can slow correlation decay, then choosing the deformation strength and measurement basis could let one dial the QFI exponent continuously between the pristine and Heisenberg values, not just in the K>1 ladder model.
The symmetry-readout recipe is likely portable to non-critical symmetry-sector states as well, since it relies only on {A,O}=0 and A acting as an eigenoperator on the probe; topologically ordered states with nonlocal symmetry generators are an immediate candidate.
The paper's own caveat that its dephased-state results are lower bounds (except for bit flips) points to a concrete next step: compute the exact QFI under local dephasing for the Ising chain to confirm that the SQL scaling is not an artifact of the error-propagation bound.
If the decoded enhancement survives finite-size checks, the practical comparison with GHZ states should be redone including preparation cost: log-depth preparation of critical states plus robustness to loss may make them the better choice even when the ideal QFI of a GHZ state is larger.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The strongest, cleanest part is the symmetry-informed optimal measurement recipe. For internal symmetries it's rigorous (Appendix A), and the spatial-symmetry Hadamard-test extension is a genuinely useful trick for Rydberg systems. I buy the argument that parity/reflection/translation expectation values give essentially identical θ-dependence, and the bit-flip QFI (Eq. 26) is exact and numerically verified. The decoherence map — critical states fall back to SQL rather than dying like GHZ — is coherent and consistent with known no-go results.

The soft spot is Section IV. The non-unitary enhancement claim (Eq. 24) is the flashiest result but carries two unproven loads. First, the decoded-correlator scaling ⟨Z Z⟩_d ∼ |j−k|^{−1/(2K)} is imported from the same group's earlier paper; this manuscript gives no derivation or numerical check. That is a real gap. Second, the average QFI over outcomes is treated as the sensing resource without explicitly discussing the conditional estimation protocol. I think that is fixable, since outcome-dependent imprinting gives you a classical label, so the average of conditional QFIs is the right figure of merit. But the paper should say so.

The spatial-symmetry Fisher-information scaling is also asserted with a pointer to Appendix A, which only treats Hermitian parity. For translation (non-Hermitian), the Hadamard-test POVM needs its own derivation. Minor, but worth fixing.

The qubit-loss section is honest — they note the Ising window is mostly conceptual — and the power-counting is supported by iDMRG collapse.

Bottom line: this is a well-written, honest paper with several contributions that will survive scrutiny. The non-unitary enhancement is the one thing I'd want checked before promoting it. I'd send it to a good referee, and ask that referee to focus on Section IV and the spatial-symmetry derivation. Not a desk reject. I'd cite the symmetry-readout and decoherence parts.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops interferometric quantum sensing protocols based on critical many-body states. It proposes a symmetry-based algorithm for choosing optimal measurements: for internal symmetries, a symmetry generator anticommuting with the encoding operator saturates the quantum Cramér–Rao bound; for spatial symmetries, translation/reflection operators measured via Hadamard test are proposed. The paper then analyzes non-unitary deformed critical states, claiming that outcome-dependent decoding can enhance the QFI scaling beyond the pristine critical state (Eq. 24). Finally, it studies decoherence: local bit-flip channels (exact QFI formula, Eq. 26), local dephasing (SQL scaling), and qubit loss (sub-SQL precision from subsystem parity). The conclusions compare critical states favorably to GHZ states under realistic noise.

Significance. If correct, the results provide practical, symmetry-informed measurement strategies for critical-state sensors and identify a surprising non-unitary enhancement of QFI scaling. The exact bit-flip QFI formula (Eq. 26) and its numerical verification are clear strengths, as is the systematic comparison with GHZ and spin-squeezed states. However, the spatial-symmetry measurement claim lacks a supporting derivation, and the non-unitary enhancement relies on an imported correlator scaling and on an average of per-outcome QFIs whose operational meaning needs clarification.

major comments (3)

[§III.B / Appendix A] The claim that the Hadamard-test POVM for the translation operator T yields classical Fisher information scaling L^{2(1−Δ)} is not supported by Appendix A. Appendix A treats only Hermitian parity A with A^2=I and projective outcomes P±=(I±A)/2. For T (unitary, T^2≠I), the binary POVM has probabilities [1±Re⟨T⟩]/2; its Fisher information is (∂θ Re⟨T⟩)^2/(1−(Re⟨T⟩)^2), which is not covered by the appendix. Also, for odd-L reflection the anticommutation condition fails. A separate derivation or numerical verification is needed before claiming that spatial-symmetry measurements saturate the CR bound.
[§IV, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) writes F_Q[ρ]=Σ_s p_s F_s^Q, identifying the QFI of the averaged state with the Born-probability average of per-outcome QFIs. This equality is not generally true: by convexity, F_Q(Σ_s p_s |ψ_s⟩⟨ψ_s|) ≤ Σ_s p_s F_Q(|ψ_s⟩). If the protocol conditions on the known classical outcomes s, then the average is the relevant conditional Fisher information, but this operational interpretation must be stated explicitly. As written, Eq. (24) conflates the QFI of a mixture with the average of conditional QFIs and overstates what is proven.
[§IV, decoded correlator] The enhancement in Eq. (24) rests on the imported scaling ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_d ∼ |j−k|^{-1/(2K)} from Ref. [46]. The manuscript gives only a one-sentence Kennedy–Tasaki argument and no independent numerical check. Since this is the headline result of Sec. IV, please provide a self-contained derivation in an appendix or a numerical verification (e.g., DMRG for the relevant K values). Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the enhancement survives beyond the assumed correlator decay.

minor comments (6)

[§IV, Eq. (20)] s_j ∈ ±1 should be s_j ∈ {±1}.
[§IV after Eq. (24)] Specify the parity operator as A = ∏_j X_{j,2}.
[§Appendix E, Eq. (E3)] The text has an incomplete sentence: 'since we that the coefficients...' — presumably 'assume' or 'show' is missing.
[§III.B] For odd-L chains, 'we observe a similar scaling' is stated without data or derivation; add numerical details or a reference.
[§Appendix B] Eq. (B2) defines C(t) with an overline for ensemble average, but the notation is not explained; clarify.
[References] References [65] and [76] appear to refer to the same work by Chai and Yang; verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the non-unitary enhancement relies on a cited prior derivation but is not circular.

full rationale

The symmetry-informed measurement protocol in Sec. III is self-contained: Eqs. (8)-(11) show that a symmetry generator A anticommuting with the imprinter O saturates the CR bound for pure states because F_Q=4Var(O), and Appendix A proves that the parity POVM's classical Fisher information equals the error-propagation inverse variance. The decoherence results, especially Eq. (26) and Appendix D, sandwich the QFI between a parity-measurement variance and a convexity upper bound with no fitted parameters, and are checked by exact diagonalization. The only load-bearing imported ingredient is the decoded-correlator scaling <Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}>_d ~ |j-k|^{-1/(2K)} from Ref. [46], whose authors overlap with the present paper; Eq. (24) is the double sum of that scaling. However, the manuscript explicitly presents it as a result deduced under a Kennedy-Tasaki mapping in prior published work, and the symmetry-readout and decoherence claims do not depend on it. Citing a published derivation by the same group is not the same as defining the prediction as its own input, so this is a self-citation burden rather than a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; p, β, K, and θ are model parameters. The paper introduces no new particles, mediators, or entities. Four structural axioms are identified, with the decoded-correlator scaling and the c_{2n} subleading assumption being the most fragile.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Critical Ising correlator exponent Δ_Z=1/8 and QFI scaling L^{2(1−Δ)}.
Standard CFT result used throughout Secs III and V; referenced to Refs [12,20], not re-derived here.
standard math Kramers-Wannier duality and disorder-field representation of subsystem parity in Eq (E1).
Load-bearing for the qubit-loss analysis; standard duality but not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Decoded correlator scaling ⟨Z_{j,2}Z_{k,2}⟩_d ∼ |j−k|^{−1/(2K)} from Ref [46].
Central input for the non-unitary enhancement claim in Sec IV; taken from same-group prior work, not independently derived.
ad hoc to paper Coefficients c_{2n}(L_sub) in Eq (E3) have subleading L_sub dependence.
Supports the δθ_min ∼ L_sub^{−5/8} scaling; justified only by numerical collapse in Fig 7, not by an analytic proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBW2R244

@misc{pith2026260104364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum sensing with critical systems: impact of symmetry, imperfections, and decoherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBW2R244}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04364}
}

read the original abstract

Entangled many-body states enable high-precision quantum sensing beyond the standard quantum limit. We develop interferometric sensing protocols based on quantum critical wavefunctions and compare their performance with Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and spin-squeezed states. Building on the idea of symmetries as a metrological resource, we introduce a symmetry-based algorithm to identify optimal measurement strategies. We illustrate this algorithm both for magnetic systems with internal symmetries and Rydberg-atom arrays with spatial symmetries. We study the robustness of criticality for quantum sensing under non-unitary deformations, symmetry-preserving and symmetry-breaking decoherence, and qubit loss -- identifying regimes where critical systems outperform GHZ states and showing that non-unitary deformation can even enhance sensing precision. Combined with recent results on log-depth preparation of critical wavefunctions, interferometric sensing in this setting appears increasingly promising.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04364 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** allows one to also measure expectation values ⟨ψθ|Ij+1/2|ψθ⟩ for even-L open chains where translation symmetry is absent. (For odd-L chains, we observe a similar scaling of the precision using bond-reflection, even though the operator does not anticommute with O). To illustrate how different symmetry indicators respond to the parameter θ, we examine the expectation values of several global symmetry operators as a f… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. A generalized cluster-state with interchain-reflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Parity measurement of the subsystem. (a). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[46]

Y. Liu, S. Murciano, D. F. Mross, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023293 (2025)

2025
[1]

Frérot and T

I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260402 (2024)

2024
[2]

Wasilewski, K

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

2010
[3]

Wolfgramm, A

F. Wolfgramm, A. Cerè, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojević, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 053601 (2010)

2010
[4]

Aasiet al., Nat

J. Aasiet al., Nat. Photonics7, 613 (2013)

2013
[5]

Tseet al., Phys

M. Tseet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

2019
[6]

Kaubruegger, D

R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Ham- merer, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. X11, 041045 (2021)

2021
[7]

C. t. Casacio, Nature594, 201–206 (2021)

2021

Show all 80 references

[9]

Pezzé and A

L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100401 (2009)

2009
[10]

Tóth, Phys

G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

2012
[11]

Hyllus, W

P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

2012
[12]

Hauke, M

P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics12, 778 (2016)

2016
[13]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics5, 222 (2011)

2011
[14]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[15]

J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A54, R4649 (1996)

1996
[16]

T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506 (2011)

2011
[17]

Ma, Y.-x

J. Ma, Y.-x. Huang, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A84, 022302 (2011)

2011
[18]

Zanardi and N

P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Phys. Rev. E74, 031123 (2006)

2006
[19]

Invernizzi, M

C. Invernizzi, M. Korbman, L. Campos Venuti, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A78, 042106 (2008)

2008
[20]

Frérot and T

I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 020402 (2018)

2018
[21]

Montenegro, C

V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Physics Reports1134, 1 (2025), review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems

2025
[22]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 13 579 (2017)

2017
[23]

Keesling, A

A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature568, 207–211 (2019)

2019
[24]

Scholl, A

P. Scholl, A. L. Shaw, R. B.-S. Tsai, R. Finkelstein, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature622, 273–278 (2023)

2023
[25]

Campos Venuti and P

L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 095701 (2007)

2007
[26]

Zanardi, M

P. Zanardi, M. G. A. Paris, and L. Campos Venuti, Phys. Rev. A78, 042105 (2008)

2008
[27]

Schwandt, F

D. Schwandt, F. Alet, and S. Capponi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 170501 (2009)

2009
[28]

A. F. Albuquerque, F. Alet, C. Sire, and S. Capponi, Phys. Rev. B81, 064418 (2010)

2010
[29]

Salvatori, A

G. Salvatori, A. Mandarino, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A90, 022111 (2014)

2014
[30]

Skotiniotis, P

M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, and W. Dür, New Journal of Physics17, 073032 (2015)

2015
[31]

Mehboudi, M

M. Mehboudi, M. Moreno-Cardoner, G. D. Chiara, and A. Sanpera, New Journal of Physics17, 055020 (2015)

2015
[32]

Mehboudi, L

M. Mehboudi, L. A. Correa, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. A94, 042121 (2016)

2016
[33]

How- ever, such many-body interactions are generally more dif- ficult to implement in practice [75]

WhenOcontainsk-body terms, in one-dimensional sys- tems the best precision onδθcan even scale as1/Nk, go- ing beyond the Heisenberg limit fork≥2[73, 74]. How- ever, such many-body interactions are generally more dif- ficult to implement in practice [75]
[34]

Pezzè, A

L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[35]

G. D. Fresco, B. Spagnolo, D. Valenti, and A. Carollo, SciPost Phys.13, 077 (2022)

2022
[36]

Di Fresco, B

G. Di Fresco, B. Spagnolo, D. Valenti, and A. Carollo, Quantum8, 1326 (2024)

2024
[37]

S. P. Nolan, S. S. Szigeti, and S. A. Haine, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 193601 (2017)

2017
[38]

C. Chen, P. Wang, and R.-B. Liu, Phys. Rev. A104, L020601 (2021)

2021
[39]

Ilias, D

T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, PRX Quantum3, 010354 (2022)

2022
[40]

Haegeman, B

J. Haegeman, B. Swingle, M. Walter, J. Cotler, G. Even- bly, and V. B. Scholz, Phys. Rev. X8, 011003 (2018)

2018
[41]

T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, PRX Quantum3, 040337 (2022)

2022
[42]

Maskara, M

N. Maskara, M. Kalinowski, D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, and M. D. Lukin, Fast simulation of fermions with reconfig- urable qubits (2025), arXiv:2509.08898 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[43]

Montenegro, U

V. Montenegro, U. Mishra, and A. Bayat, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 200501 (2021)

2021
[44]

Mukhopadhyay and A

C. Mukhopadhyay and A. Bayat, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 120601 (2024)

2024
[45]

P. Sala, S. Murciano, Y. Liu, and J. Alicea, PRX Quan- tum5, 030307 (2024)

2024
[47]

S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. X13, 021026 (2023)

2023
[48]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[49]

C. C. Gerry and J. Mimih, Phys. Rev. A82, 013831 (2010)

2010
[50]

Shettell and D

N. Shettell and D. Markham, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110502 (2020)

2020
[51]

R. J. Birrittella, P. M. Alsing, and C. C. Gerry, AVS Quantum Sci.3, 014701 (2021)

2021
[52]

Zhang, Z

X. Zhang, Z. Hu, and Y.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 113402 (2024)

2024
[53]

Tóth and I

G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical47, 424006 (2014)

2014
[54]

J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, AVS Quantum Science2, 014701 (2020), https://pubs.aip.org/avs/aqs/article- pdf/doi/10.1116/1.5119961/16700179/014701_1_online.pdf

2020 doi
[55]

R. A. Campos, C. C. Gerry, and A. Benmoussa, Phys. Rev. A68, 023810 (2003)

2003
[56]

R. J. Birrittella, P. M. Alsing, and C. C. Gerry, AVS QuantumSci.3,014701(2021),arXiv:2008.08658[quant- ph]

2021 arXiv
[57]

Slagle, D

K. Slagle, D. Aasen, H. Pichler, R. S. K. Mong, P. Fend- ley, X. Chen, M. Endres, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. B 104, 235109 (2021)

2021
[58]

Fendley, K

P. Fendley, K. Sengupta, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 69, 075106 (2004)

2004
[59]

A.BrowaeysandT.Lahaye,NaturePhys.16,132(2020), arXiv:2002.07413 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2020 arXiv
[60]

Lamacraft and P

A. Lamacraft and P. Fendley, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 165706 (2008)

2008
[61]

Huang, M

J. Huang, M. Zhuang, and C. Lee, Applied Physics Re- views11, 031302 (2024)

2024
[62]

Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley, Phys. Rev. A80, 013825 (2009)

2009
[63]

Dorner, R

U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 040403 (2009)

2009
[64]

S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nature Communications9, 78 (2018)

2018
[65]

Chai and W

Q. Chai and W. Yang, Communications in Theoretical Physics77, 065106 (2025)

2025
[66]

Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. GuŢă, Nat. Commun.3, 1063 (2012)

2012
[67]

Ye and P

J. Ye and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 190001 (2024)

2024
[68]

Y. Li, Y. Castin, and A. Sinatra, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 210401 (2008)

2008
[69]

Ferro and M

F. Ferro and M. Fagotti, Kicking quantum fisher informa- tion out of equilibrium (2025), arXiv:2503.21905 [quant- ph]

2025 arXiv
[70]

M.KitagawaandM.Ueda,Phys.Rev.A47,5138(1993)

1993
[71]

G.-Y. Zhu, N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 200201 (2023)

2023
[72]

J. Y. Lee, W. Ji, Z. Bi, and M. P. A. Fisher, Decoding measurement-prepared quantum phases and transitions: from ising model to gauge theory, and beyond (2022), arXiv:2208.11699 [cond-mat.str-el]

2022 arXiv
[73]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 090401 (2007)

2007
[74]

S. B. Antu and S. Zhou, Quantum9, 1766 (2025)

2025
[75]

M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. X8, 021022 (2018)

2018
[76]

Chai and W

Q. Chai and W. Yang, Communications in Theoretical Physics (2024)

2024
[77]

We note that the action ofk† j,t is equivalent to the local dephasing channelE j[ρ] = (1−p)I+pZ jρZj by setting p= 1−e−χ(t) 2
[78]

A. Rath, C. Branciard, A. Minguzzi, and B. Vermersch, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 260501 (2021)

2021
[79]

J. Y. Lee, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, PRX Quantum4, 14 030317 (2023). [80] Y. Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094404 (2024). Appendix A: Mean square error and Fisher information In this appendix, we prove that for the parity measurementA=Q j Xj, the mean sq...

2023
[80]

(5) usingΠ sub = QLsub j=1 Xj

Ising universality class We start the analysis by computingδθin Eq. (5) usingΠ sub = QLsub j=1 Xj. The parity operator after the unitary rotation within the subsystem becomesΠ sub(θ) =U(θ)Π subU(θ) † = Π subU(θ) †2. At criticality, the Ising model 19 0 0.01 0.042 0.054 SQL (c)...
[81]

Explicitly, the subsystem parityΠsub [Eq

XXZ spin chain The argument for the subsystem metrology for the transverse-field Ising model can be naturally generalized to other critical systems via the Jordan-Wigner (JW) transformation. Explicitly, the subsystem parityΠsub [Eq. (29)] is replaced by the string in the JW tr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

Y. Liu, S. Murciano, D. F. Mross, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023293 (2025)

2025

[2] [1]

Frérot and T

I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260402 (2024)

2024

[3] [2]

Wasilewski, K

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

2010

[4] [3]

Wolfgramm, A

F. Wolfgramm, A. Cerè, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojević, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 053601 (2010)

2010

[5] [4]

Aasiet al., Nat

J. Aasiet al., Nat. Photonics7, 613 (2013)

2013

[6] [5]

Tseet al., Phys

M. Tseet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

2019

[7] [6]

Kaubruegger, D

R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Ham- merer, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. X11, 041045 (2021)

2021

[8] [7]

C. t. Casacio, Nature594, 201–206 (2021)

2021