Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 103 references

From dynamical to steady-state many-body metrology: Precision limits and their attainability with two-body interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Time-independent two-body interactions can drive many-body sensors to the fundamental Heisenberg-like precision bounds, both during coherent evolution and in steady states, starting from product states.

desk verdict The paper's diagonal-ensemble attainability claim (Result 6) is wrong: the explicit control in Eq. (59) gives F = (1/2)||HS||^2/E^2, not 3/2, and the proof has an internal contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02754 v2 pith:7HTURDR4 submitted 2024-12-03 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Ricard Puig , Pavel Sekatski , Paolo Andrea Erdman , Paolo Abiuso , John Calsamiglia , Martí Perarnau-Llobet This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 03.67.-a06.20.-f
keywords quantummetrologymany-bodysensingFisherinformationHeisenberglimittwo-bodyinteractionssteady-statediagonalensembleGibbs
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

This paper asks whether time-independent many-body interactions can replace pre-engineered entanglement in quantum sensing, and answers yes for a wide class of probes. It establishes that when an unknown parameter $\theta$ is encoded in a Hamiltonian term $H_S$ and a static control term $H_C$ is added, the quantum Fisher information is governed by the variance of the dephased (pinched) signal Hamiltonian, and that this variance can be made to saturate the fundamental Heisenberg-like bound up to a constant. For magnetic-field estimation with $N$ spin-$1/2$ particles, explicit two-body Hamiltonians are shown to reach $F = t^2\omega^2 (N+1)^2/4$ from a product initial state, the same $N^2$-scaling as entangled-probe protocols. For steady states, the paper derives new upper bounds on the quantum Fisher information of dephased (diagonal-ensemble) states and shows that the Gibbs-state bound is saturated by a collective two-body interaction. It also characterizes the transient dynamics, finding that interaction-enhanced sensitivity can be reached quickly under dephasing but only after an exponentially long time under thermalization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pinched (dephased) signal Hamiltonian $H_P = \sum_k \Pi_k H_S \Pi_k$, the block-diagonal part of $H_S$ in the eigenbasis of $H_\theta$. In the dynamical scenario, the effective generator of parameter information converges to $H_P$ and the quantum Fisher information is $4t^2 \mathrm{Var}(H_P)$ plus a correction controlled by the minimum spectral gap $\Delta_g$; choosing $H_C$ shapes this eigenbasis, and the constant $1/4$ in the saturating result comes from optimizing a two-level pinched Hamiltonian. For dephasing metrology, the analogous machinery is the generator $S = i \sum_{j\neq k} |\varphi_j\rangle\langle\varphi_j| H_S |\varphi_k\rangle\langle\varphi_k|/(E_k-E_j)$ of first-order eigenvector rotations, which splits the quantum Fisher information of the diagonal ensemble into an external rotation term and an internal probability term. The accompanying norm bound, built on the Gershgorin circle theorem, controls off-diagonal operator sums of this form and produces the $1/E^2$ scaling in the dephasing upper bound.

What would settle it

Prepare $N$ spin-$1/2$ particles in the central-spin state $|+\rangle|0\rangle^{\otimes (N-1)}$, evolve under $H_\theta = \theta\omega S_z + \alpha|0\rangle\langle0|\otimes\mathbb{1} + \beta|1\rangle\langle1|\otimes S_x^{(N-1)}$ for a controlled time $t$, and estimate $\theta$ from the conditional rotation of the outer spins: if the quantum Fisher information does not track $t^2\omega^2(N+1)^2/4$ to within the stated $O(t\omega^2N^2/\beta)$ corrections as $\beta t$ grows, the attainability claim fails. Alternatively, measure the quantum Fisher information of the Gibbs state of $H_C + \theta\omega S_z$ with $H_C = cS_z^2$; if it does not approach $\beta^2\omega^2N^2/4$ as $c \to \infty$, the Gibbs-saturation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's core is the observation that the long-time quantum Fisher information of a unitary evolution generated by $H_\theta = \theta H_S + H_C$ is, up to corrections, the variance of the pinched signal Hamiltonian $H_P = \sum_k \Pi_k H_S \Pi_k$ evaluated on the initial state, where $\Pi_k$ project onto the eigenspaces of $H_\theta$. Because $H_C$ can shape the eigenbasis of $H_\theta$, this variance can be maximized: when the probe starts in the ground state of $H_S$, a suitable $H_C$ produces $F = t^2 \|H_S\|^2/4 + O(t\|H_S\|^2/\Delta_g)$, attaining the general upper bound $F \le t^2 \|H_S\|^2$ up to the constant $1/4$. For magnetometry, a central-spin two-body model yields $F = t^2\omega^2 (N+1)^2/4$, Heisenberg scaling from a product state, and a one-axis-twisting collective interaction yields $F = t^2\omega^2 N^{3/2}/\sqrt{2\pi}$. For the diagonal ensemble the paper proves $F \le ((3+\pi^2)/3)\|H_S\|^2/E^2$ and constructs a control achieving $F = (3/2)\|H_S\|^2/E^2$; for the Gibbs ensemble it uses the bound $F \le \beta^2\|H_S\|^2/4$ and saturates it with $H_C = c S_z^2$, giving $F \approx \beta^2\omega^2 N^2/4$.

Load-bearing premise

The saturating controls in the generic results may depend on the true value of the parameter being estimated, so the constant-factor saturation is guaranteed only for pointwise local estimation rather than for a single fixed sensor operating without prior knowledge of $\theta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using only product initial states and time-independent two-body interactions, magnetic-field sensors can reach the same $N^2$ scaling as protocols that require preparing GHZ-type entangled states, shifting the resource cost from state preparation to engineered interactions.
  • The Gibbs-state bound $\beta^2\|H_S\|^2/4$ can be saturated by a collective $S_z^2$ interaction, so optimal thermal magnetometry is in principle realizable with all-to-all two-body couplings; the accompanying price is an exponentially long thermalization time for large $N$ and $c$.
  • The diagonal-ensemble upper bound $F \le ((3+\pi^2)/3)\|H_S\|^2/E^2$ is the steady-state analogue of the dynamical Heisenberg bound; with two-body spin interactions the best demonstrated scaling is $N^{3/2}$, leaving saturation of the $N^2$ bound open for this ensemble.
  • For dephasing-dominated probes, strengthening the interaction by a factor $\lambda$ multiplies the steady-state quantum Fisher information by $\lambda^2$ while only increasing the equilibration time by $\lambda$, so the sensitivity-per-time product grows linearly with $\lambda$.
  • Under global $S_x$ noise, adding one-axis twisting yields an $N^{1/2}$-fold enhancement of the classical Fisher information at the same equilibration time; under local noise the asymptotic quantum Fisher information scales superlinearly in $N$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the generic saturating controls in the paper's Results 2 and 6 are pointwise optimal and may depend on the true $\theta$, an implicit consequence is that these protocols should be read as adaptive two-stage schemes: estimate $\theta$ roughly, then apply the tailored $H_C$. Designing a sequential Bayesian estimator that nearly reproduces the pointwise quantum Fisher information would turn t
  • The contrast between the cheap dephasing enhancement (time grows linearly with $\lambda$) and the expensive thermalization enhancement (time grows exponentially with a free-energy barrier) suggests a general cost-geometry principle: sensitivity protected by an emergent energy barrier is paid for exponentially in the barrier height. The paper's rate-equation model offers a concrete testbed to quant
  • The $N^{3/2}$ diagonal-ensemble scaling for spin probes is demonstrated for one specific two-body geometry, and the paper leaves open whether any two-body graph reaches $N^2$. A natural next step is to search over interaction graphs using the paper's norm bound as an upper envelope; such a search could decide whether $N^2$ is attainable in the diagonal ensemble.
  • The pinched-Hamiltonian variance formula that powers the metrology results is also a parameter-estimation lens for many-body Hamiltonian learning: a probe with engineered $H_C$ saturating the quantum Fisher information bound provides, in principle, an estimator for $\theta$ with Heisenberg-limited variance, connecting these control constructions to Hamiltonian learning protocols.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum metrology for Hamiltonians Hθ=θHS+HC, asking whether time-independent many-body interactions can enhance the Quantum Fisher Information when the initial state is a product state, and what the ultimate limits are in steady-state scenarios. It derives a dynamical QFI formula (Result 1), shows that starting from a ground state of HS a suitable HC gives F=t^2||HS||^2/4+... (Result 2), and constructs two-body spin models (central spin, spin-squeezing) that reach Heisenberg scaling. For steady states, it proves a diagonal-ensemble bound F≤(3+π^2)/3||HS||^2/E^2 (Result 5), proposes a qutrit control that claims to attain 3/2 times this bound (Result 6), reports N^{3/2} scaling for a spin model (Result 7), and uses the known Gibbs bound β^2||HS||^2/4 (Result 8) with a two-body saturation claim (Result 9). The final section analyzes transient regimes under dephasing, thermalization, and global or local noise.

Significance. If corrected, the paper would provide a useful unified picture: explicit QFI bounds with controlled constants, constructive Hamiltonian protocols, and an exact central-spin solution. The Gershgorin-based operator bounds in Propositions 2 and 3 are a valuable technical contribution, and the one-axis-twisting analysis includes an analytic N^{3/2} scaling with a matching measurement construction. However, the claimed Gibbs saturation has a sign error as written, and the diagonal-ensemble attainability proof relies on an unstated numerical maximization and an improper division by zero; these issues need repair before the central tables can be relied on.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV B 1, Result 9 (Eq. (67))] The claim that taking c≫1 in HC=cS_z^2 produces a Gibbs state close to (|1...1⟩⟨1...1|+|0...0⟩⟨0...0|)/2 is incorrect: for positive c, e^{-βcS_z^2} is maximized at S_z=0, so the variance of S_z, and hence the QFI β^2Var(S_z), vanishes as c→+∞ rather than saturating β^2ω^2N^2/4. The construction works only for c→-∞ (or equivalently HC=-|c|S_z^2 with |c|≫1). Because this result underpins the Gibbs-ensemble entry of Table II and the discussion in Section V B, the proof and the numerical transient study in Figs. 6–7 must be corrected under a consistent sign convention.
  2. [Appendix E 2, Result 6] The proof of the claimed value F=3/2||HS||^2/E^2 is incomplete where Fint is evaluated. Equation (E16) is obtained by dividing by p_k, but for the reported maximizing vectors in Eq. (E21) one has p2=0. The contribution of k=2 is a finite limit (p2(θ)=O(θ^2), so (ṗ2)^2/p2→4||HS||∞^2/E^2), which is not what the written formula computes; moreover, the 'numerically maximize' step over Euler angles is not itself a proof. Please replace the numerical maximization by an analytic evaluation for the explicit HC in Eq. (59), or provide a complete derivation of the maximum.
  3. [II, Results 2 and 6] The generic optimal controls are allowed to depend on the true value of θ, as the paper explicitly notes. This means the constant-factor saturation claims for arbitrary HS are pointwise: implementing them requires either prior knowledge of θ or an adaptive two-stage scheme. The explicit spin models (Results 3 and 9) do not share this limitation, but the distinction should be made more prominently in the abstract and conclusions, where 'attainable' is otherwise read as referring to a single fixed protocol.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III B 2 and IV A 2] The spin-squeezing Heisenberg scaling in Result 3 and the N^{3/2} scaling with A≈1.34 in Result 7 are numerical observations rather than analytic proofs; please state this status explicitly in the Result statements themselves, not only in the surrounding text.
  2. [III B 1, Eq. (44)] The central-spin QFI is written as t^2ω^2(N+1)^2/4, whereas Result 3 quotes ν=1/4; an explicit 'for large N' or a matching expression for ν would remove an apparent discrepancy.
  3. [V B, Figs. 6–7] The legends use positive values of c while Result 9 requires a negative sign of c for Gibbs-state saturation; please harmonize the sign convention and rerun or redraw the numerics accordingly.
  4. [Appendix F and V D] There are typos such as 'Limbladian' in Appendix F and a duplicated sentence in Section V D ('the asymptotic QFI scales superlinearly in N' appears twice); a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's predictions are explicit Hamiltonian constructions and perturbative bounds, not fits renamed as results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for the claimed results. Result 1 (Eq. 21) is derived from the Pang-Brun integral representation of the derivative of the propagator and the Gershgorin-based Proposition 3, so the t^2 Var(H_P) leading term is not an assumed output. Result 2's 1/4 prefactor is obtained by explicit Pauli variance computation Var(H_P)_↓ = Δ_-^2/16 for the constructed control with the chosen eigenstates, not by fitting. Result 5 (Eq. 57) follows from the decomposition F = F_ext + F_int in Result 4, bounding F_ext by ||HS||_∞^2/E^2 and F_int by the Gershgorin bound π^2||HS||_∞^2/(3E^2); this is a first-principles derivation. Result 6 provides an explicit 3x3 control Hamiltonian (Eq. 59) and computes both contributions (E23)-(E25); whatever the arithmetic status of the numerical maximization, the claim is a construction, not a reduction of output to input. The magnetometry protocols are likewise explicit: the central-spin model is diagonalized exactly (Eqs. 40-44), and the one-axis-twisting N^{3/2} scaling is proved in Appendix D1. The Gibbs result (Result 9) is an explicit c≫1 variance calculation; although it uses the upper bound from the overlapping-author Ref. [4], that bound is parameter-free, stated for arbitrary HS, and does not contain the spin-probe construction, so it functions as independent external input rather than a circular premise. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction: numerical prefactors such as A≈1.34 and the fitted regression constants are reported as observations of the explicit models and are not used to define the claimed scalings. A possible numerical error in the optimization supporting Result 6 would be a correctness defect, not circularity, because it does not make the claimed result equivalent to its hypotheses by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. It relies on standard quantum mechanics and on control Hamiltonians that are explicit functions of spin operators. The free parameters listed are choices made in the protocols (couplings, control strengths) or numerical prefactors fitted to computed QFI values; none are used to define the central bounds, which are derived analytically from stated assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • spin-squeezing coupling b = 1/sqrt(N) = 1/sqrt(N)
    Chosen by hand in Result 3 to obtain the numerically observed Heisenberg scaling F ~ t^2 ω^2 N^2 for the spin-squeezing Hamiltonian (a,b,c) = (a,1/sqrt(N),0). This is a protocol parameter selected to achieve the claimed scaling.
  • one-axis twisting coupling a = a = 100 in numerics; asymptotic a >> θω
    The Hamiltonian HC = a Sx^2 requires a much larger than θω to enter the perturbative regime used for the analytic N^{3/2} result and the numerical N^2 result; the figures fix a = 100.
  • Euler-angle optimal vectors in Result 6 = v1=(1/2,1/sqrt(2),1/2), v2=(-1/sqrt(2),0,1/sqrt(2)), v3=(1/2,-1/sqrt(2),1/2)
    These vectors are obtained by numerical maximization of Fint over three Euler angles in Appendix E2; the claimed attainable constant 3/2 depends on the numerical optimum being global.
  • numerical prefactor A in Result 7 = A ≈ 1.34
    Fitted to the numerically observed QFI scaling F ≈ A ω^2 N^{3/2}/E^2 for the diagonal ensemble with (a,b,c) = (1,0,0), checked up to N = 30.
  • numerical prefactor ν in Result 3 = ν ∈ (0.14, 0.2)
    Asymptotic prefactor of the numerically observed Heisenberg scaling F = ν t^2 ω^2 N^2 for the spin-squeezing model; the reported range comes from regression fits in Fig. 2.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The encoding Hamiltonian is Hθ = θHS + HC with time-independent HS and HC (Eq. 1).
    Defines the estimation problem; standard in local Hamiltonian parameter estimation (Boixo et al. [3]).
  • domain assumption The optimal control HC may depend on the true value of θ (pointwise local estimation).
    Stated in Section II to justify the θ-dependent control constructions in Results 2 and 6; this is conventional in local quantum metrology but limits direct practical applicability.
  • domain assumption The initial probe state can be prepared as a product state that is an eigenstate of HS (e.g., |Φ↓> = |1>^⊗N or |−y>^⊗N).
    Used in Results 2, 3, 7 and Section V; assumes perfect state preparation with no initialization cost.
  • domain assumption For dephasing metrology, Hθ has a nondegenerate spectrum with minimum gap E.
    Results 5 and 7 require a gap E to bound the first-order perturbation expansion (Eq. 51) and to make the QFI finite.
  • domain assumption The steady states are exactly the diagonal ensemble (pinching) and the Gibbs state.
    Scenario 2 defines these as the long-time limits; other possible steady states of open dynamics are not addressed.
  • standard math Gershgorin circle theorem and first-order perturbation theory are valid for the bounds.
    Used in Propositions 1-3 and Appendix E to bound operator norms and eigenvector derivatives.
  • domain assumption The Gibbs-state upper bound F ≤ β^2 ||HS||^2/4 from Ref. [4] is taken as an input.
    Result 8 is cited from the authors' own companion paper (Abiuso et al. 2024); the present work builds on this bound for the spin-probe saturation result.
  • domain assumption The noise models (dephasing, thermalization, global Sx noise, local noise) accurately describe the open dynamics in the transient regime.
    Used in Section V to analyze finite-time QFI; the results depend on the specific Lindblad forms chosen.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From dynamical to steady-state many-body metrology: Precision limits and their attainability with two-body interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HTURDR4

@misc{pith2026241202754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From dynamical to steady-state many-body metrology: Precision limits and their attainability with two-body interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HTURDR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02754}
}
abstract

We consider the estimation of an unknown parameter $\theta$ via a many-body probe. The probe is initially prepared in a product state and many-body time-independent interactions enhance its $\theta$-sensitivity during the dynamics and/or in the steady state. We present bounds on the Quantum Fisher Information, and corresponding optimal interacting Hamiltonians, for two paradigmatic scenarios for encoding~$\theta$: (i)~via unitary Hamiltonian dynamics (dynamical metrology), and (ii)~in the Gibbs and diagonal ensembles (time-averaged dephased state), two ubiquitous steady states of many-body open dynamics. We then move to the specific problem of estimating the strength of a magnetic field via interacting spins and derive two-body interacting Hamiltonians that can approach the fundamental precision bounds. In this case, we additionally analyze the transient regime leading to the steady states and characterize tradeoffs between equilibration times and measurement precision. Overall, our results provide a comprehensive picture of the potential of many-body control in quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02754 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. In this figure we illustrate the process of encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Representation of the different relations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Representation of the different relations of the normalized QFI ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. QFI, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. QFI, as a function of time, for the three values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energy and Fisher information respectively as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. QFI, as a function of time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ratio between the QFI in the interacting and non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Log-log plot of the asymptotic (long-time) value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    asymptotic

    Interacting spin probe As in the previous sections, we now focus on the es- timation of the strength of a magnetic field ( HS = 1 2 PN i=1 σ(i) z ) via an interacting spin probe with two-body control as given in Eq. (4), which is now prepared in a Gibbs state as in Eq. (62). Our main result is to show that the upper bound in Eq. (65) can be easily saturat...

  2. [2]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum limits in optical interfer- ometry, Progress in Optics 60, 345 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Generalized limits for single-parameter quantum estima- tion, Physical Review Letters 98, 090401 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. Sekatski, J. Calsamiglia, and M. Perarnau- Llobet, Fundamental limits of metrology at thermal equi- librium, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06582 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Quan- tum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15323 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Gut ¸˘ a, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garra- han, Dynamical phase transitions as a resource for quan- tum enhanced metrology, Physical Review A 93, 022103 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Hotter, H

    C. Hotter, H. Ritsch, and K. Gietka, Combining critical and quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060801 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Baak and U

    J.-G. Baak and U. R. Fischer, Self-consistent many-body metrology, Physical Review Letters 132, 240803 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    H. Zhou, J. Choi, S. Choi, R. Landig, A. M. Douglas, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, P. Cappellaro, et al., Quantum metrology with strongly interacting spin systems, Physical review X 10, 031003 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Tsang, Quantum transition-edge detectors, Physical Review A 88, 021801 (2013)

    M. Tsang, Quantum transition-edge detectors, Physical Review A 88, 021801 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Y. Chu, S. Zhang, B. Yu, and J. Cai, Dynamic frame- work for criticality-enhanced quantum sensing, Physical Review Letters 126, 010502 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Guan and R

    Q. Guan and R. J. Lewis-Swan, Identifying and harness- ing dynamical phase transitions for quantum-enhanced sensing, Physical Review Research 3, 033199 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Shi, X.-W

    H.-L. Shi, X.-W. Guan, and J. Yang, Universal shot- noise limit for quantum metrology with local hamilto- nians, Physical Review Letters 132, 100803 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    X. He, R. Yousefjani, and A. Bayat, Stark localization as a resource for weak-field sensing with super-heisenberg precision, Physical Review Letters 131, 010801 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Manshouri, M

    H. Manshouri, M. Zarei, M. Abdi, S. Bose, and A. Bayat, Quantum enhanced sensitivity through many-body bloch oscillations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13921 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Sahoo, U

    A. Sahoo, U. Mishra, and D. Rakshit, Localization-driven quantum sensing, Physical Review A 109, L030601 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Garbe, M

    L. Garbe, M. Bina, A. Keller, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Felicetti, Critical quantum metrology with a finite- component quantum phase transition, Physical Review Letters 124, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Garbe, O

    L. Garbe, O. Abah, S. Felicetti, and R. Puebla, Critical quantum metrology with fully-connected models: from heisenberg to kibble–zurek scaling, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 035010 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality-enhanced quantum sensing via continuous measurement, PRX Quantum 3, 010354 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Gietka, L

    K. Gietka, L. Ruks, and T. Busch, Understanding and improving critical metrology. quenching superradiant light-matter systems beyond the critical point, Quantum 6, 700 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    G´ orecki, F

    W. G´ orecki, F. Albarelli, S. Felicetti, R. Di Candia, and L. Maccone, Interplay between time and energy in bosonic noisy quantum metrology, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18791 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alushi, W

    U. Alushi, W. G´ orecki, S. Felicetti, and R. Di Candia, Optimality and noise resilience of critical quantum sens- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 040801 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y. Chu, X. Li, and J. Cai, Strong quantum metrological limit from many-body physics, Physical Review Letters 130, 170801 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zanardi, M

    P. Zanardi, M. G. A. Paris, and L. C. Venuti, Quantum criticality as a resource for quantum estimation, Physical Review A 78, 042105 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Banchi, P

    L. Banchi, P. Giorda, and P. Zanardi, Quantum information-geometry of dissipative quantum phase tran- sitions, Physical Review E 89, 022102 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, At the limits of criticality-based quantum metrology: Apparent super-heisenberg scaling revisited, Physical Review X 8, 021022 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gietka, F

    K. Gietka, F. Metz, T. Keller, and J. Li, Adiabatic criti- cal quantum metrology cannot reach the Heisenberg limit even when shortcuts to adiabaticity are applied, Quan- tum 5, 489 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Invernizzi, M

    C. Invernizzi, M. Korbman, L. Campos Venuti, and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal quantum estimation in spin sys- tems at criticality, Physical Review A 78, 042106 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Sarkar, C

    S. Sarkar, C. Mukhopadhyay, A. Alase, and A. Bayat, Free-fermionic topological quantum sensors, Physical Re- view Letters 129, 090503 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Salvia, M

    R. Salvia, M. Mehboudi, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Crit- ical quantum metrology assisted by real-time feedback control, Physical Review Letters 130, 240803 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mukhopadhyay and A

    C. Mukhopadhyay and A. Bayat, Modular many-body quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 120601 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zanardi, H

    P. Zanardi, H. T. Quan, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun, Mixed- state fidelity and quantum criticality at finite tempera- ture, Physical Review A 75, 032109 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Phase transitions and heisenberg limited metrology in an ising chain interacting with a single-mode cavity field, New Journal of Physics 13, 053035 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Mehboudi, L

    M. Mehboudi, L. A. Correa, and A. Sanpera, Achiev- ing sub-shot-noise sensing at finite temperatures, Physi- cal Review A 94, 042121 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermom- etry in the quantum regime: recent theoretical progress, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 303001 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. A. Erdman, M. Ronen, F. No´ e, G. Haack, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal thermometers with spin networks, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035008 (2024). 18

    2024

  31. [39]

    M. Yu, H. C. Nguyen, and S. Nimmrichter, Criticality- enhanced precision in phase thermometry, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043094 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Ostermann and K

    L. Ostermann and K. Gietka, Temperature-enhanced critical quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 109, L050601 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Fern´ andez-Lorenzo and D

    S. Fern´ andez-Lorenzo and D. Porras, Quantum sensing close to a dissipative phase transition: Symmetry break- ing and criticality as metrological resources, Physical Re- view A 96, 013817 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Fern´ andez-Lorenzo, J

    S. Fern´ andez-Lorenzo, J. A. Dunningham, and D. Porras, Heisenberg scaling with classical long-range correlations, Physical Review A 97, 023843 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Marzolino and T

    U. Marzolino and T. Prosen, Fisher information approach to nonequilibrium phase transitions in a quantum xxz spin chain with boundary noise, Physical Review B 96, 104402 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Raghunandan, J

    M. Raghunandan, J. Wrachtrup, and H. Weimer, High- density quantum sensing with dissipative first order tran- sitions, Physical Review Letters 120, 150501 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Di Candia, F

    R. Di Candia, F. Minganti, K. Petrovnin, G. Paraoanu, and S. Felicetti, Critical parametric quantum sensing, npj Quantum Information 9, 23 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality-enhanced electric field gradient sensor with single trapped ions, npj Quantum Information 10, 36 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technol- ogy, arXiv preprint arXiv:0804.2981 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature 452, 854–858 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Kollar and M

    M. Kollar and M. Eckstein, Relaxation of a one- dimensional mott insulator after an interaction quench, Physical Review A 78, 013626 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    A. C. Cassidy, C. W. Clark, and M. Rigol, Generalized thermalization in an integrable lattice system, Physical Review Letters 106, 140405 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Physics 11, 124–130 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Baamara, A

    Y. Baamara, A. Sinatra, and M. Gessner, Squeezing of nonlinear spin observables by one axis twisting in the presence of decoherence: An analytical study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01786 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chalopin, C

    T. Chalopin, C. Bouazza, A. Evrard, V. Makhalov, D. Dreon, J. Dalibard, L. A. Sidorenkov, and S. Nascim- bene, Quantum-enhanced sensing using non-classical spin states of a highly magnetic atom, Nature communications 9, 4955 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature 464, 1165–1169 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    M. F. Riedel, P. B¨ ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H¨ ansch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of entan- glement for quantum metrology, Nature 464, 1170–1173 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  49. [57]

    V. D. Barnett, Evaluation of the maximum-likelihood es- timator where the likelihood equation has multiple roots, Biometrika 53, 151 (1966)

    1966

  50. [58]

    Y. Li, L. Pezz` e, M. Gessner, Z. Ren, W. Li, and A. Smerzi, Frequentist and bayesian quantum phase es- timation, Entropy 20, 628 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Pang and T

    S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Quantum metrology for a general hamiltonian parameter, Physical Review A 90, 022117 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Physical review letters 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    A. J. Hayes, S. Dooley, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and J. Dunningham, Making the most of time in quantum metrology: concurrent state preparation and sensing, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 035007 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Zhou, C.-L

    S. Zhou, C.-L. Zou, and L. Jiang, Saturating the quan- tum cram´ er–rao bound using locc, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 025005 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Gaudin, M., Diagonalisation d’une classe d’hamiltoniens de spin, J. Phys. France 37, 1087 (1976)

    1976

  57. [65]

    Breuer, D

    H.-P. Breuer, D. Burgarth, and F. Petruccione, Non- markovian dynamics in a spin star system: Exact so- lution and approximation techniques, Physical Review B 70, 045323 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    Hutton and S

    A. Hutton and S. Bose, Mediated entanglement and cor- relations in a star network of interacting spins, Physical Review A 69, 042312 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    Bortz and J

    M. Bortz and J. Stolze, Exact dynamics in the inhomoge- neous central-spin model, Physical Review B 76, 014304 (2007)

    2007

  60. [68]

    Schliemann, A

    J. Schliemann, A. Khaetskii, and D. Loss, Electron spin dynamics in quantum dots and related nanostruc- tures due to hyperfine interaction with nuclei, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 15, R1809 (2003)

    2003

  61. [69]

    M. G. Dutt, L. Childress, L. Jiang, E. Togan, J. Maze, F. Jelezko, A. Zibrov, P. Hemmer, and M. Lukin, Quan- tum register based on individual electronic and nuclear spin qubits in diamond, Science 316, 1312 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Arenz, G

    C. Arenz, G. Gualdi, and D. Burgarth, Control of open quantum systems: case study of the central spin model, New Journal of Physics 16, 065023 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    E. V. Denning, D. A. Gangloff, M. Atat¨ ure, J. Mørk, and C. Le Gall, Collective quantum memory activated by a driven central spin, Physical Review Letters 123, 140502 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Liu, H.-L

    J.-X. Liu, H.-L. Shi, Y.-H. Shi, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Entanglement and work extraction in the central- spin quantum battery, Physical Review B 104, 245418 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Rolandi, P

    A. Rolandi, P. Abiuso, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Collec- tive advantages in finite-time thermodynamics, Physical Review Letters 131, 210401 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Zanardi, L

    P. Zanardi, L. Campos Venuti, and P. Giorda, Bures met- ric over thermal state manifolds and quantum criticality, Physical Review A 76, 062318 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    Scandi, P

    M. Scandi, P. Abiuso, J. Surace, and D. De Santis, Quan- tum fisher information and its dynamical nature, Reports on Progress in Physics (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Anto-Sztrikacs, H

    N. Anto-Sztrikacs, H. J. D. Miller, A. Nazir, and D. Se- gal, Bypassing thermalization timescales in temperature estimation using prethermal probes, Physical Review A 109, L060201 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Tr´ enyi, ´A

    R. Tr´ enyi, ´A. Luk´ acs, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, T. V´ ertesi, and G. T´ oth, Activation of metrologically 19 useful genuine multipartite entanglement, New Journal of Physics 26, 023034 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Mihailescu, S

    G. Mihailescu, S. Campbell, and K. Gietka, Uncertain quantum critical metrology: From single to multi param- eter sensing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19917 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mihailescu, A

    G. Mihailescu, A. Bayat, S. Campbell, and A. K. Mitchell, Multiparameter critical quantum metrology with impurity probes, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035033 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    G. D. Fresco, B. Spagnolo, D. Valenti, and A. Car- ollo, Multiparameter quantum critical metrology, SciPost Phys. 13, 077 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Montenegro, M

    V. Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. Paris, Quantum metrology with boundary time crystals, Communications Physics 6, 304 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, Z. Chen, A. N. Jordan, and A. del Campo, Variational principle for optimal quantum con- trols in quantum metrology, Physical Review Letters 128, 160505 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, A. del Campo, and A. N. Jordan, Super-heisenberg scaling in hamiltonian parameter esti- mation in the long-range kitaev chain, Physical Review Research 4, 013133 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Y. Ban, J. Casanova, and R. Puebla, Neural networks for bayesian quantum many-body magnetometry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12058 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bai and J.-H

    S.-Y. Bai and J.-H. An, Floquet engineering to overcome no-go theorem of noisy quantum metrology, Physical Re- view Letters 131, 050801 (2023)

    2023

  78. [86]

    Ansel, E

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, and D. Sugny, Optimal control strategies for parameter estimation of quantum systems, SciPost Phys. 16, 013 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Huang, Y

    H.-Y. Huang, Y. Tong, D. Fang, and Y. Su, Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg-limited scaling, Physical Review Letters 130, 200403 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Dutkiewicz, T

    A. Dutkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, and T. Schuster, The ad- vantage of quantum control in many-body hamiltonian learning, Quantum 8, 1537 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    R. M. Wilcox, Exponential Operators and Parameter Dif- ferentiation in Quantum Physics, J. Math. Phys. 8, 962 (1967)

    1967

  82. [90]

    Binney and D

    J. Binney and D. Skinner, The Physics of Quantum Mechanics (OUP Oxford, 2013)

    2013

  83. [91]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  84. [92]

    A. A. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quan- tum information: A beginner’s tutorial, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024). 20 Appendix A: Preliminaries In this section, we provide a concise overview of key analytical tools and concepts that will be referenced throughout the subse...

    2024

  85. [93]

    We refer the reader to Ref

    Derivative of the exponential operator Here we briefly summarize how to take the derivative of the exponential of a Hamiltonian that depends on a parameter x. We refer the reader to Ref. [88] for further details. Assume we have a Hamiltonian H that depends on a parameter x, i....

  86. [94]

    For a more in-depth analysis check Ref

    Time-independent perturbation theory Here we explain the basic concepts necessary to understand how perturbation theory is used in this paper to derive results. For a more in-depth analysis check Ref. [89]. We start by tackling the non-degenerate case. Let us consider a physic...

  87. [95]

    The Dicke states are eigenvectors of Sz and S2

    T ensor product of N spin- 1 2 systems as a linear combination of Dicke states We first define a Dicke state. The Dicke states are eigenvectors of Sz and S2. Recall that Sz = 1 2 X i σ(i) z , (A6) 21 where σ(i) z represents the Pauli matrix z acting in the i-th particle. Furth...

  88. [96]

    For a more in-depth review please refer to Ref

    V ectorization formalism Here we will cover the basics of the vectorization formalism that are useful to understanding this manuscript. For a more in-depth review please refer to Ref. [91]. Vectorization is a linear map defined as follows vec : L Cd → Cd ⊗ Cd A = Pd i,j Ai,j |...

  89. [97]

    Proposition 1

    Gershgorin circle theorem and its implication on operator eigenvalues We present a simplified version of Gershgorin circle theorem [59] that we use in order to upper bound the eigenvalues of an hermitian matrix. Proposition 1. Consider a n × n Hermitian matrix M with zeroes on...

  90. [98]

    Permutational Invariant Quantum Solver (PIQS)

    Simulations of local noise. The simulations of Figs. 8, 9, 10 have been done with QuTip and the “Permutational Invariant Quantum Solver (PIQS)”. For numerical reasons we do this analysis in a rotated (but equivalent) frame: it is more convenient to have a dissipator that depen...

  91. [99]

    Proof of Eq. (49) We devote this section to prove that having a one-axis twisting Hamiltonian (HC = S2 x) as a control term is enough to have a quantum advantage when the signal is a magnetic field in the z direction (HS = Sz). Namely, assuming the following system: Hθ = θSz +...

  92. [100]

    Comment on the measurement for the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian Here we prove that under the QFI of Appendix D 1 can be attained by measuring Sx, the x component of the spin. Proof. We start the proof by recalling some notation. We consider the setting Hθ = θSz + aS2 x. As in...

  93. [101]

    For any input state ψ let ρθ = DHθ (ψ) be the state resulting from the application of the dephasing Eq

    Proof of the upper bound (Result 5) Result 5. For any input state ψ let ρθ = DHθ (ψ) be the state resulting from the application of the dephasing Eq. (50) with a nondegenerate Hamiltonian Hθ = HC + θHS with all energies gapped by at least E. The QFI of the state ρθ is upper-bo...

  94. [102]

    Proof of the attainable value (Result 6) Result 6. For any signal Hamiltonian HS with extremal eigenvalues λS min and λS max and the initial state ψ satisfying HS |ψ⟩ = λS min+λS max 2 |ψ⟩, there exists a control Hamiltonian HC such that the QFI of the dephased state ρθ = DHθ ...

  95. [103]

    (77) and (78) We devote this section to proving the claims in Section V C

    Proof of Eqs. (77) and (78) We devote this section to proving the claims in Section V C. We consider a global noiseSx with a parameter strength γ. That is, in Eq. (20), Lθ,i = Sx and γi = γ such that the differential equation that governs the dynamics of our system is ˙ψθ(t) =...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.