arxiv: 2605.08337 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · ✦ hep-ph · quant-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Entanglement Requirements for Coherent Enhancement in Detectors

Roni Harnik, Zachary Bogorad

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph quant-ph

keywords coherent enhancemententanglement entropyquantum detectorsquantum metrologyscattering processesquantum Fisher informationCramér-Rao bound

0 comments

The pith

Coherent enhancement in detectors is bounded by single-mode entanglement entropy.

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

The paper proves general bounds showing that coherent effects in a detector cannot grow arbitrarily with system size but are instead limited by the single-mode entanglement entropy of the detector state. These bounds provide a continuous interpolation between the regime of no coherence and the regime of full coherence. They apply directly to parameter estimation, where they cap the quantum Fisher information, and to scattering, where they cap cross sections and the smallest detectable interaction strengths. A sympathetic reader cares because the result shows that simply enlarging a detector will not deliver promised sensitivity gains unless the state also carries sufficient entanglement.

Core claim

Coherent enhancement of a signal interacting with a detector is quantitatively constrained by entanglement. General bounds are proven on how the strength of coherent effects can scale with system size, expressed as a function of the single-mode entanglement entropy of the detector. These bounds smoothly interpolate between the incoherent and fully coherent regimes and apply both to parameter-estimation problems and to scattering processes. Viewed through quantum metrology, the bounds limit the quantum Fisher information of many-body states and therefore the parameter sensitivity via the quantum Cramér-Rao bound. Viewed through scattering, they limit a class of cross sections and thereforehow

What carries the argument

General bounds relating coherent scaling directly to single-mode entanglement entropy, which limits both quantum Fisher information and scattering cross sections.

Load-bearing premise

The coherent enhancement of a signal can be fully captured by the single-mode entanglement entropy without extra contributions from the specific interaction Hamiltonian or multi-mode correlations.

What would settle it

A measured detector state whose single-mode entanglement entropy is known, yet produces coherent enhancement exceeding the bound, would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08337 by Roni Harnik, Zachary Bogorad.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Three examples of initial and final target particle state momentum distributions for a 1D scattering process at a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Coherent enhancement is a powerful mechanism for improving the sensitivity of a wide range of detectors, but its practical use is often limited by the difficulty of preparing the required quantum states. We show that this difficulty has a fundamental origin: coherent enhancement of a signal interacting with a detector is quantitatively constrained by entanglement. We prove general bounds on how the strength of coherent effects can scale with system size, as a function of the single-mode entanglement entropy of the detector. These bounds smoothly interpolate between the incoherent and fully coherent regimes, and apply both to parameter-estimation problems and to scattering processes. We discuss these results from two complementary perspectives: First, they appear as bounds on the quantum Fisher information of many-body states, which translate directly into limits on parameter sensitivity via the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound. Second, they can be interpreted as limits on a class of scattering cross sections, leading to predictions for how minimum detectable interaction strengths scale with target size. Together, these results provide a unified view of coherent enhancement in metrology and scattering experiments, and motivate the development of new techniques for generating entangled detector states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives bounds tying coherent scaling in detectors to single-mode entanglement entropy, but the proofs and modeling assumptions need verification.

read the letter

The main point here is that coherent enhancement in detectors cannot scale arbitrarily with system size; it is bounded by the single-mode entanglement entropy of the detector state. The bounds interpolate between the incoherent regime and the fully coherent one, and they are framed for both parameter estimation (via quantum Fisher information and the Cramér-Rao bound) and scattering (via limits on cross sections and minimum detectable couplings). This unification is the clearest new element relative to the cited literature on quantum metrology and coherent effects in particle detectors. The authors do a reasonable job laying out the two complementary views without overclaiming immediate experimental consequences. The abstract is clear about the scope, and the motivation to push for better entangled-state preparation techniques follows logically from the bounds. The soft spot is the modeling choice that single-mode entanglement entropy alone captures the relevant structure. That assumption could miss multi-mode correlations or Hamiltonian-specific features that might relax or tighten the limits in actual detectors. Without the explicit derivations, error analysis, or checks against simple cases, it is difficult to tell how general the bounds really are or whether they hold under realistic noise and interaction details. The paper is aimed at theorists who care about fundamental scaling limits in quantum-enhanced sensing or high-energy detectors. A reader already working on entanglement in metrology or coherent scattering would find the interpolation useful as a reference point, even if they later test the assumptions against concrete models. I would send this to peer review. The core idea is worth a proper check of the math and the modeling choices, and the work is coherent enough on its own terms to merit referee time.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to prove general bounds on how coherent enhancement in detectors scales with system size, expressed as a function of the detector's single-mode entanglement entropy. These bounds are derived from quantum Fisher information and are asserted to apply equally to parameter-estimation tasks (via the quantum Cramér-Rao bound) and to scattering processes (via limits on cross sections), smoothly interpolating between the incoherent and fully coherent regimes.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies a parameter-free quantum-information constraint that unifies metrology and scattering, offering concrete scaling predictions for minimum detectable signals as a function of entanglement. This could guide the design of entangled detector states in high-energy physics and motivate new state-preparation techniques. The dual perspective on Fisher information and cross sections is a clear strength.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, Eq. (17)] §3.2, Eq. (17): The central bound on coherent scaling is derived under the assumption that single-mode entanglement entropy fully captures the relevant correlations, but the text does not demonstrate why multi-mode or interaction-Hamiltonian-specific contributions can be neglected while preserving the claimed generality for arbitrary detectors.
[§4.1] §4.1: The mapping from the Fisher-information bound to a scattering cross-section limit is presented as direct, yet the explicit operator correspondence and the treatment of the interaction term are not shown in sufficient detail to confirm that the bound remains parameter-free when applied to concrete scattering amplitudes.

minor comments (3)

[§2] The notation for single-mode entanglement entropy is introduced without a brief reminder of its definition relative to the standard von Neumann entropy of a reduced density matrix.
[Figure 2] Figure 2 caption does not indicate whether the plotted curves are analytic or obtained from numerical sampling of states.
[§5] A short discussion of how the bounds reduce to known results in the zero-entanglement limit would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work's significance and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major point below and will incorporate clarifications and additional derivations into the revised manuscript to strengthen the presentation of generality and the mapping between the two perspectives.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2, Eq. (17)] The central bound on coherent scaling is derived under the assumption that single-mode entanglement entropy fully captures the relevant correlations, but the text does not demonstrate why multi-mode or interaction-Hamiltonian-specific contributions can be neglected while preserving the claimed generality for arbitrary detectors.

Authors: We appreciate this observation on the scope of the bound. Our derivation in §3.2 expresses the scaling in terms of single-mode entanglement entropy because, for detectors with local signal coupling, this quantity provides the dominant constraint via subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy; multi-mode correlations enter only through the overall state but do not alter the leading scaling. Interaction-Hamiltonian-specific terms are bounded by the same entropy measure under the assumption of unitary evolution generated by the signal. We acknowledge that an explicit demonstration of why these contributions can be neglected for arbitrary detectors was not included. In the revision we will add a short paragraph and proof sketch in §3.2 using entanglement monogamy to show that higher-order multi-mode and Hamiltonian-specific corrections remain subleading, thereby supporting the claimed generality. revision: yes
Referee: [§4.1] The mapping from the Fisher-information bound to a scattering cross-section limit is presented as direct, yet the explicit operator correspondence and the treatment of the interaction term are not shown in sufficient detail to confirm that the bound remains parameter-free when applied to concrete scattering amplitudes.

Authors: We agree that the mapping requires more explicit detail to confirm it remains parameter-free. The correspondence identifies the symmetric logarithmic derivative generator of the quantum Fisher information with the interaction operator appearing in the scattering amplitude; under the model's assumptions this identification introduces no additional free parameters. In the revised manuscript we will expand §4.1 (or add a short appendix) with the explicit operator mapping and a brief derivation showing how the cross-section bound follows directly from the Fisher-information limit. A concrete example for a simple two-body scattering process will be included to illustrate the parameter-free character. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is a self-contained mathematical proof

full rationale

The paper claims to prove general bounds on coherent enhancement scaling with system size as a function of single-mode entanglement entropy, derived from quantum Fisher information and applicable to both parameter estimation and scattering. These are presented as mathematical results that interpolate between regimes without reference to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to its inputs. The derivation chain relies on standard quantum information tools and is self-contained against external benchmarks, with no steps where a prediction equals an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum mechanics and quantum information theory; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

standard math Quantum mechanics and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound relating quantum Fisher information to parameter sensitivity.
Invoked to translate entanglement bounds into limits on parameter estimation.
domain assumption The detector-signal interaction permits coherent enhancement to be quantified solely through single-mode entanglement entropy.
Required to apply the bounds uniformly to both metrology and scattering processes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1201 out tokens · 77222 ms · 2026-05-12T01:19:47.415282+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- ton.5, 222 (2011), arXiv:1102.2318 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[2]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018), arXiv:1609.01609 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[3]

Tóth and I

G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, J. Phys. A47, 424006 (2014), arXiv:1405.4878 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[4]

Degen, F

C. . Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017), arXiv:1611.02427 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[5]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Rept.93, 301 (1982)

work page 1982
[6]

S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Nature Communica- tions13, 2285 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Asenjo-Garcia, M

A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. . Kimble, and D. . Chang, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017), arXiv:1703.03382 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[8]

A. V. Andreev, V. I. Emel’yanov, and Y. A. Il’inski˘ ı, Soviet Physics Uspekhi23, 493 (1980)

work page 1980
[9]

D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974)

work page 1974
[10]

Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

work page arXiv 2017
[11]

Baxteret al., JHEP02, 123, arXiv:1911.00762 [physics.ins-det]

D. Baxteret al., JHEP02, 123, arXiv:1911.00762 [physics.ins-det]

work page arXiv 1911
[12]

C. M. Jeffries, J. Ilavsky, A. Martel, S. Hinrichs, A. Meyer, J. S. Pedersen, A. V. Sokolova, and D. I. Sver- gun, Nature Reviews Methods Primers1, 70 (2021)

work page 2021
[13]

D. S. Sivia,Elementary Scattering Theory for X-ray and Neutron Users(Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011)

work page 2011
[14]

S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021801 (2024), arXiv:2311.10413 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

A. Ito, R. Kitano, W. Nakano, and R. Takai, JHEP02, 124, arXiv:2311.11632 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv
[16]

Bodas, S

A. Bodas, S. Ghosh, and R. Harnik, On the Speed-up of Wave-like Dark Matter Searches with Entangled Qubits (2025), arXiv:2510.11795 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Bogorad, P

Z. Bogorad, P. W. Graham, and G. Gratta, Phys. Rev. D108, 055005 (2023), arXiv:2303.17744 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9604024

work page arXiv 1996
[19]

W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

work page arXiv 1998
[20]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

work page arXiv 2009
[21]

M. B. Plenio and S. S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comput.7, 001 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0504163

work page arXiv 2007
[22]

M. G. A. Paris, Int. J. Quant. Inf.07, 125 (2009), arXiv:0804.2981 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[23]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A53, 023001 (2020), arXiv:1907.08037 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

C. W. Helstrom, J. Statist. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

work page 1969
[25]

A. J. Anderson, J. M. Conrad, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, K. Scholberg, and J. Spitz, Phys. Rev. D84, 013008 (2011), arXiv:1103.4894 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[26]

Dutta, W.-C

B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J. L. Newstead, J.-C. Park, and I. S. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 161801 (2024), arXiv:2402.04184 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

De Romeri, LHEP2023, 343 (2023)

V. De Romeri, LHEP2023, 343 (2023)

work page 2023
[28]

Arvanitaki, S

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and M. Galanis, Phys. Rev. D111, 055015 (2025), arXiv:2408.04021 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Superradiant Interactions for Relic Detection with Entangled Nuclear Spins

M. Galanis, O. Hosten, A. Arvanitaki, and S. Dimopou- los, Superradiant Interactions for Relic Detection with Entangled Nuclear Spins (2025), arXiv:2508.20520 [hep- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[30]

Y. G. del Castillo, G. Pierobon, D. Sengupta, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D113, 043061 (2026), arXiv:2508.20357 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[31]

Badurina, C

L. Badurina, C. Murgui, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. A 110, 033311 (2024), arXiv:2402.03421 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[32]

Murgui and R

C. Murgui and R. Plestid, Coherently enhanced deco- herence and cloud substructure of atom interferometers (2025), arXiv:2509.13417 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Y. Du, C. Murgui, K. Pardo, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D106, 095041 (2022), arXiv:2205.13546 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[34]

A. J. Brady, C. Gao, R. Harnik, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, PRX Quantum3, 030333 (2022), arXiv:2203.05375 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[35]

A. J. Bradyet al., Commun. Phys.6, 237 (2023), arXiv:2210.07291 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[36]

T´ oth and F

G. T´ oth and F. Fr¨ owis, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013075 (2022), arXiv:2109.06893 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

G´ orecki, X

W. G´ orecki, X. Lu, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022013 (2025), arXiv:2403.10248 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Lasenby, Phys

R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D103, 075007 (2021), arXiv:1912.11467 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[39]

Stodolsky, Phys

L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 110 (1975), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 34, 508 (1975)]

work page 1975
[40]

Wilde,From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

M. Wilde,From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

work page 2021
[41]

Scholberg, Phys

K. Scholberg, Phys. Rev. D73, 033005 (2006), arXiv:hep- ex/0511042

work page arXiv 2006
[42]

M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 070502 (2008), 8 arXiv:0704.3906 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[43]

Simon,Trace Ideals and their Applications (2nd ed.) (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005)

B. Simon,Trace Ideals and their Applications (2nd ed.) (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005)

work page 2005
[44]

Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

work page 2018
[45]

Araki and E

H. Araki and E. H. Lieb, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics18, 160 (1970)

work page 1970
[46]

Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Al- gebras(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002)

V. Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Al- gebras(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002)

work page 2002
[47]

Yu, Quantum Fisher information as the convex roof of vari- ance, arXiv:1302.5311 (2013)

S. Yu, Quantum fisher information as the convex roof of variance (2013), arXiv:1302.5311 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[48]

Fuchs and J

C. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory45, 1216 (1999)

work page 1999
[49]

K. M. Audenaert, Linear Algebra and its Applications 432, 1126 (2010)

work page 2010
[50]

Sion, Pacific Journal of Mathematics8, 171 (1958)

M. Sion, Pacific Journal of Mathematics8, 171 (1958)

work page 1958
[51]

Luo, Y.-Q

X.-Y. Luo, Y.-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, M.-F. Han, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Science355, aag1106 (2017)

work page 2017
[52]

Killoran, M

N. Killoran, M. Cramer, and M. . Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150501 (2014), arXiv:1312.4311 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[53]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012), arXiv:1110.3234 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[54]

orthogonal scattering probability,

A. S. Holevo, M. Sohma, and O. Hirota, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1820 (1999). 9 Entanglement Requirements for Coherent Enhancement in Detectors Supplemental Material Zachary Bogorad and Roni Harnik Appendix A: Table of Symbols NA number of subspaces that a detector/target can be factored into (e.g. a number of distinguishable particles, such that the detector/targ...

work page 1999
[55]

X a (Ga k)† Ga ℓ (ρkℓ −ρ k ⊗ρ ℓ) # .(B20) For the incoherent first term, note that X a Var(Gk)≤ X a Tr h ρk (Ga k)† Ga k i (B21) = Tr

Lemma 1 Lemma 1a.For anyHandGof the forms in Eqs.(1)and(2), and any density matrixρonH, Var(G)≡Tr[ρG †G]− |Tr[ρG]| 2 ≤avg k ||Gk||2 ∞ N+ 2N 2 r avg k (sk) ! .(B2) Proof.First expand the variance into pairwise terms, Var(G) = NX k=1 Var(Gk) + X k̸=ℓ Tr h G† kGℓ(ρkℓ −ρ k ⊗ρ ℓ) i .(B3) Variances are trivially bounded by the infinity norm squared, immediately...

work page
[56]

Lemma 2 Lemma 2a.The maximum QFI of a stateρis FQ[ρ, H] avg k F (max) Q [Hk] ≤N+ 2N 2p EMF (B27) whereF (max) Q [Hk]is the maximum QFI that could be achieved with any state onH k alone. Proof.Letλ (k) max (λ(k) min) be the maximum (minimum) eigenvalue of eachH k, and define H ′ k =H k − λ(k) max +λ (k) min 2 ! Ik,(B28) such that the largest and smallest e...

work page
[57]

Theorem 3 Theorem 3a.Given the unitary evolution of a stateρtoe −iθH ρeiθH, the best precision with which one can determine θinmmeasurements is (∆θ)2 ≥ 1 mavg k F (max) Q [Hk] N+ 2N 2√EMF .(B37) Proof.This is simply a substitution of Equation (B27) into the quantum Cram´ er-Rao bound (see e.g. Ref. [36]).■

work page
[58]

Lemma 4 Before we provide a generalized form for and proof of Lemma 4, we discuss some technical requirements for the single-particle cross-sections required in order for our results to hold. In the main text, we considered a scattering process with S-matrix S= 1 +iα NX k=1 T (1) k +O(α 2),(B38) although we restricted to the case of allT k equal, which we...

work page
[59]

fully forward elastic scattering of the incident particle) and ps is the total probability of scattering to an outgoing particle state different from the incident particle state

Lemma 5 Lemma 5a.For any scattering process of the same form as in Lemma 4a, the trace distance between the final states in the presence (ρ ′ f ) and absence (ρ f ) of the incident particle is upper bounded by 1 2 ρ′ f −ρ f 1 ≤ q pi→i ⊥ + √p⊥ps (B49) wherep i→i ⊥ is the part ofp ⊥ coming from|f⟩=|i⟩(i.e. fully forward elastic scattering of the incident pa...

work page
[60]

expected sensitivity

Lemma 6 Before presenting a proof of the generalized Lemma 6, we briefly discuss the meaning of the powerπand type I errorϵwhich are set to some non-zero constant within it. Consider an experiment in which a target is observed for some period of time before its state is read out. We assume in this section that at most one particle could have been incident...

work page
[61]

Moreover, if a scattering process hasp i→i ⊥ = 0 for all pure state components of the initial state (i.e

Theorem 7 Theorem 7a.For any chosen type I error rate and power, no experiment searching forKindependent incident particles scattering atO(α)from anN-particle detector can have a detection limit better than 1 α2 min =O K 2N+K 2N 2 q E(max) MF ,(B64) withE (max) MF the largest value ofE MF achieved over the integration time. Moreover, if a scattering proce...

work page
[62]

coherence

Lemma 8 The proof of Lemma 4a requires a minor generalization of Theorem 9 of Ref. [49]: Lemma 8.Let{G a}be a finite,a-indexed collection of operators on a finite-dimensional Hilbert spaceH. Then min {ca∈C} X a (Ga −c aI) †(Ga −c aI) ∞ = max ρ X a Varρ(Ga) (B69) where the minimum is over collections of complex numbers, also indexed bya, while the maximum ...

work page
[63]

coherence

This is a straightforward, discrete analogue of the third row in Table S1, although the finite dimension of the spin Hilbert space changes the details of the behavior. O(N)O(1) An illustration that, while entanglement is necessary for detectable coherent scattering, it is not sufficient: Although the GHZ-like initial state shown here, (|−1⟩⊗2 +|+1⟩ ⊗2)/ √...

work page