Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Precision bounds for multiple currents in open quantum systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using two-parameter Fisher information, this paper derives multidimensional quantum KUR and TUR for pairs of currents that are tighter than single-observable bounds and can saturate.

desk verdict The multidimensional KUR/TUR idea is natural and the F12 quantum signature is interesting, but the central D-optimality step misuses the Cramér-Rao bound and the claimed bound fails in a simple classical two-state process. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09088 v3 pith:CGC72OIK submitted 2024-11-13 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Saulo V. Moreira , Marco Radaelli , Alessandro Candeloro , Felix C. Binder , Mark T. Mitchison This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords openquantumsystemskineticuncertaintyrelationthermodynamictrajectoriesFisherinformationparameterestimationcurrentfluctuationsMarkoviandynamics
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 sets out to extend the quantum kinetic and thermodynamic uncertainty relations from one counting observable to two observables measured simultaneously along the trajectory of a Markovian open quantum system. The authors show that the product of the two relative fluctuations, minus the squared correlation between the currents, is bounded from below by a quantity built from each channel's dynamical activity, a quantum correction, and the off-diagonal element of the Fisher information matrix. Because that off-diagonal Fisher information vanishes for classical rate equations, the tightened bound is a genuinely quantum effect and is tighter than multiplying two single-observable bounds. The same construction yields a multidimensional TUR for heat currents under local detailed balance. If correct, these bounds state a fundamental trade-off: squeezing the fluctuations of several currents at once costs activity or entropy production, and the cost is exactly modified by how correlated the currents are.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound with its D-optimality determinant scalarisation, applied to the measurement record of a continuously monitored quantum system. Two control parameters $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are imprinted on the dynamics by scaling the Hamiltonian with $1+\phi_1+\phi_2$ and each jump operator in channel subset $S_\alpha$ by $\sqrt{1+\phi_\alpha}$; the resulting Fisher information matrix has diagonal elements $A_\alpha+Q_\alpha$ and off-diagonal element $F_{12}$, which measures how the two parameter biases are correlated in the likelihood of trajectories. The determinant inequality converts the covariance matrix of the two estimators into a single scalar bound. The monitoring-operator formalism supplies the numerical route to the Fisher information on individual trajectories.

What would settle it

Evaluate both sides of Eq. (23) for a minimal two-state model in which the two jump channels are simultaneously perturbed and the state is driven by both parameters; if the left-hand side falls below the right-hand side while the covariance matrix remains positive semidefinite, the diagonal-response assumption behind the bound is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any Markovian open quantum system with two counting observables $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$, the scalar multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound gives $$\frac{\det(\Xi)}{\langle\Phi_1\$rangle^{2}$\langle\Phi_2\$rangle^{2}$}=\frac{\mathrm{Var}(\Phi_1)\mathrm{Var}(\Phi_2)}{\langle\Phi_1\$rangle^{2}$\langle\Phi_2\$rangle^{2}$}-\frac{\mathrm{Cov}(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)^2}{\langle\Phi_1\$rangle^{2}$\langle\Phi_2\$rangle^{2}$}\ge \frac{(1+\varphi_1)^2(1+\varphi_2)^2}{(A_1+Q_1)(A_2+Q_2)-F_{12}^2},$$ with an analogous inequality for heat currents. The new term is $F_{12}$, the off-diagonal element of the Fisher information matrix, which enters in the denominator and always makes the bound larger; the authors prove that $F_{12}$ vanishes for classical stochastic dynamics, so a nonzero value is a quantum signature. The paper further demonstrates that the multidimensional KUR can be essentially saturated in the three-level maser, where the two heat currents are proportional to the same underlying stochastic variable.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the average of each current responds only to its own perturbation parameter, rather than also responding to the other parameter through the changed steady state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any pair of counting observables in a Markovian open quantum system, the product of relative fluctuations corrected by the covariance term is constrained by Eq. (23), and the heat-current version by Eq. (29).
  • The bound is tighter than the product of the two single-observable quantum KURs whenever $F_{12}\neq 0$; for classical rate processes $F_{12}=0$, so the classical analogue of this tightening is absent.
  • The multidimensional KUR can be saturated when the two currents are perfectly correlated, as in the three-level maser example, meaning the underlying multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound is asymptotically attainable in that setting.
  • The same approach extends to three or more observables, as the authors state, at the cost of more complicated expressions; pairwise bounds can therefore be combined into multi-current trade-offs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because only $F_{12}^2$ enters the denominator, the sign of the quantum correlation is lost; a natural follow-up is to seek a signed witness built from the off-diagonal Fisher information or the covariance itself, possibly connected to measurement invasiveness.
  • An implicit assumption in the derivation is that the average of each current responds only to its own perturbation parameter; if cross-responses are substantial, the determinant of the full response matrix should replace the product of diagonal entries, which is a testable modification.
  • The same multiparameter Cramér-Rao logic with different scalarisation criteria, such as A-optimality or E-optimality, would produce alternative scalar bounds in which $F_{12}$ appears in a matrix combination rather than only as a squared term, potentially giving different tightness for unequal-precision currents.
  • One concrete experimental direction is to extract $F_{12}$ from the monitored record of a driven qubit and check that the bound tightens precisely in the parameter regime where the two counting channels are most correlated.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives multidimensional kinetic and thermodynamic uncertainty relations for pairs of counting observables in Markovian open quantum systems. The authors imprint two perturbation parameters on the Hamiltonian and on the jump operators, apply a scalar D-optimal version of the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound, and express the resulting bounds in terms of dynamical activities, entropy production, and the off-diagonal Fisher information. They illustrate the claimed KUR on a coherently driven qubit and a three-level maser by numerical trajectory simulation, arguing that the new bounds are tighter than products of single-observable bounds because they incorporate correlations, and that the off-diagonal Fisher information is a genuinely quantum signature that vanishes for classical rate equations.

Significance. The intended contribution is valuable if correct: a multiparameter KUR/TUR for open quantum systems that is tighter than products of single-observable bounds, with a quantum marker encoded in the off-diagonal Fisher information, would extend a substantial literature and give a practical tool for precision thermometry and current estimation. The paper also usefully connects the monitoring-operator formalism to precision bounds and gives a clean classical Fisher-matrix analysis in Appendix C. However, the central inequality is not a valid consequence of the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound as stated, and a simple classical two-state process violates the claimed bound. The examples and numerical simulations cannot compensate for this, because the claimed universal bound is false within the paper's own stated domain.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (11)] The scalar D-optimal bound is stated incorrectly. Taking the determinant of the matrix inequality (9) gives det(J)^2/det(Ξ) ≤ det(F), i.e. det(Ξ) ≥ det(J)^2/det(F), where J_ij = ∂_{φ_j}⟨Φ_i⟩. Equation (11) instead uses [∂_{φ1}⟨Φ1⟩]^2 [∂_{φ2}⟨Φ2⟩]^2 in place of det(J)^2. These two quantities agree only when J is diagonal. For the parameter imprinting of Eqs. (21)-(22), each parameter changes the Liouvillian and therefore the stationary state and both mean currents, so the cross derivatives ∂_{φ2}⟨Φ1⟩ and ∂_{φ1}⟨Φ2⟩ are generically nonzero. The manuscript gives no argument that J is diagonal. Consequently, Eqs. (23) and (29) do not follow from Eq. (9).
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A12)-(A25)] The derivation computes only the diagonal derivatives ∂_{φ1}⟨Φ1⟩ and ∂_{φ2}⟨Φ2⟩ and then applies Eq. (11) as if J were diagonal. The cross derivatives are never computed. This is not a minor omission: in the classical two-state process with S1 = {0→1} (rate a) and S2 = {1→0} (rate b), one finds ⟨Φ1⟩ = ⟨Φ2⟩ = τab/(a+b) and J has two identical rows, so det(J) = 0. The correct Cramér-Rao consequence is only det(Ξ) ≥ 0. The paper's Eq. (23), with F12 = 0, Qα = 0, and φ1 = φ2 = 0, gives the positive right-hand side (a+b)^2/(a^2 b^2 τ^2). But since N1 and N2 differ by at most 1 in this process, Var(N1)Var(N2) − Cov(N1,N2)^2 = O(τ), so the left side of Eq. (23) is O(τ^{−3}) and is smaller than the O(τ^{−2}) right-hand side for sufficiently large τ. Thus Eq. (23) is violated in exactly the classically Markovian setting that the paper claims to cover.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The expression for the off-diagonal Fisher information omits two terms. Since ln p = N1 ln(1+φ1) + N2 ln(1+φ2) + ln q, the product ∂_{φ1} ln p ∂_{φ2} ln p at φ = 0 contains N1 ∂_{φ2} ln q + N2 ∂_{φ1} ln q in addition to N1N2 and ∂_{φ1} ln q ∂_{φ2} ln q. Equation (A6) drops these two cross terms. They are not generally zero, and in the classical two-state example the full F12 must vanish (as Appendix C states), which requires the omitted terms to cancel the remaining contributions. The truncated expression in Eq. (A6) therefore does not give the correct F12, and any bound whose denominator uses this F12 is not justified.
  4. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B7) and (29)] The numerical factors in the multidimensional TUR do not follow from the preceding equations. With Fαα = (1/2)Σα + Q′α, the determinant relation gives det(Ξ)/(⟨Θ1⟩^2⟨Θ2⟩^2) ≥ 4(1+ϑ1)^2(1+ϑ2)^2 / [(Σ1+2Q′1)(Σ2+2Q′2) − 4F12^2], not the factor 2 and 2F12^2 appearing in Eq. (29). Since the derivation uses an inequality in Eq. (B9) in the direction Fαα ≤ Σα/2 + Q′α, the bound would be loosened, not tightened, relative to this expression. Unless an additional inequality is invoked that is not stated, Eq. (29) is not a consequence of Eq. (11) and Eq. (B7). This is independent of the Jacobian issue raised above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, after Eq. (20)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (12) uses weights w_k, while Eq. (20) introduces ω_k and writes 'ωkj = ωk'; these should use a single symbol throughout.
  2. [Section V.B, text after Eq. (30)] The sentence 'the diagonal elements of the Fisher information matrix are now lower bounded by the components of the entropy production, Fαα ≤ Σα + Q′α' contains two typographical errors: the inequality direction should be 'upper bounded', and the correct bound from Appendix B is Fαα ≤ Σα/2 + Q′α, not Σα + Q′α.
  3. [Appendix B, after Eq. (B17)] The definition 'ϑ1 ≡ ⟨Θ1⟩/⟨Θ⋆1⟩' is inverted relative to the main-text definition ϑ1 = ⟨Θ⋆1⟩/⟨Θ1⟩; as written it would give ∂θ1⟨Θ1⟩ = (1 + 1/ϑ1)⟨Θ1⟩, contradicting Eq. (B17).
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A25)] The inequality in Eq. (A25) moves the covariance term to the right-hand side; this is equivalent to Eq. (23), but the sign of the covariance term changes between the two displays, which may confuse readers who do not track the rearrangement carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multidimensional bounds follow from the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound with explicit parameter imprinting, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is derived by applying the multiparameter Cramér-Rao bound (Eq. 9) to an explicitly constructed virtual parameter imprinting (Eqs. 21-22 for the KUR and 27-28 for the TUR). The Fisher information matrix elements Fαα and F12 are computed from the trajectory probability distribution via the monitoring-operator formalism (Appendix D), and the Jacobian factors (1+φα) are obtained by solving the first-order perturbation equations for the deformed Liouvillian (Appendix A). No parameter is fitted to the quantities being bounded; the bound's right-hand side is a function of dynamical activities, entropy-production components, and Fisher information, all computed from the unperturbed dynamics. The off-diagonal F12 is presented as an additional computed contribution, not as an assumed input. The paper's numerical validation uses independent trajectory simulations rather than feeding the bounds back into themselves. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [52] for the simulation technique) are not load-bearing for the analytic derivation. A possible mathematical concern about replacing the full Jacobian determinant by the product of diagonal elements in Eq. (11) is a correctness issue, not an instance of circularity, since it does not involve defining the output in terms of the input or fitting a parameter and then renaming it a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on the standard Cramér-Rao bound and a specific virtual parameter perturbation. The critical unstated assumption is the diagonal Jacobian, which is not justified and is likely false in general. No physical parameters are fitted; the examples use fixed physical inputs. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar D-optimal Cramér-Rao bound Eq. (11) can be applied with a diagonal Jacobian det(J)=∏∂ϕi⟨Φi⟩
    Used to pass from Eq. (11) to Eq. (A25); off-diagonal Jacobian elements are non-zero in general and were never computed.
  • domain assumption The Liouvillian has a unique steady state and a spectral decomposition with a Drazin inverse in the long-time limit
    Standard for Markovian open quantum systems; used in Appendix A to derive the long-time forms of the correction terms.
  • domain assumption Local detailed balance and the component-wise entropy production inequality Fαα ≤ Σα/2 + Q'α
    Used in Appendix B for the multidimensional TUR; the proof of the component-wise inequality is not fully given in the text.
  • domain assumption Each jump channel is driven by a unique reservoir so that the classical Fisher information matrix is diagonal
    Used in Appendix C to show F12=0 for classical dynamics.
  • domain assumption The monitoring unravelling with Kraus operators M0, Mk is the relevant measurement scheme
    The bounds are specific to this jump unravelling, not to arbitrary unravellings of the master equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision bounds for multiple currents in open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGC72OIK

@misc{pith2026241109088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision bounds for multiple currents in open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGC72OIK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09088}
}
read the original abstract

Thermodynamic (TUR) and kinetic (KUR) uncertainty relations are fundamental bounds constraining the fluctuations of current observables in classical, non-equilibrium systems. Several works have verified, however, violations of these classical bounds in open quantum systems, motivating the derivation of new quantum TURs and KURs that account for the role of quantum coherence. Here, we go one step further by deriving multidimensional KUR and TUR for multiple observables in open quantum systems undergoing Markovian dynamics. Our derivation exploits a multi-parameter metrology approach, in which the Fisher information matrix plays a central role. Crucially, our bounds are tighter than previously derived quantum TURs and KURs for single observables, precisely because they incorporate correlations between multiple observables. We also find an intriguing quantum signature of correlations that is captured by the off-diagonal element of the Fisher information matrix, which vanishes for classical stochastic dynamics. By considering two examples, namely a coherently driven qubit system and the three-level maser, we demonstrate that the multidimensional quantum KUR bound can even be saturated when the observables are perfectly correlated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09088 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots of the product of the relative fluctuation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Plots of the product of the relative fluctuation of the heat currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relations for Coherent Transport

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A universal inequality (S/J) sinh[sigma/(2 k_B J)] >= 1 is derived for time-reversal-symmetric coherent fermionic transport, with a weakened factor for broken time-reversal symmetry.

  2. Fundamental bounds on precision and response for quantum trajectory observables

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New quantum uncertainty relations bound current fluctuations and response by entropy production, dynamical activity, and the symmetrized Liouvillian spectral gap.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    + O(ϕ2 2). (A9) Collecting the first order terms inϕ1 and ϕ2, we get thatζ1 and ζ2 can be obtained via the following equations, ˙ζ1 = −i[H, ρ(t) + ζ1] + X k∈S1 (D[Lk]ρ(t) + D[Lk]ζ1) + X k∈S2 D[Lk]ζ1 = L1(ρ(t)) + L(ζ1), (A10) ˙ζ2 = −i[H, ρ(t) + ζ2] + X k∈S2 (D[Lk]ρ(t) + D[Lk]ζ2) + X k∈S1 D[Lk]ζ2 = L2(ρ(t)) + L(ζ2), (A11) where Lα(ρ) ≡ −i[H, ρ] + P k∈Sα D[L...

    work page

  2. [2]

    engine cycles

    − 2F 2 12 . (29) where Q′ 1 and Q′ 2 are contributions associated with the quantum evolution, given byQα = −⟨∂2 θα ln q⃗θ⟩|⃗θ=⃗0, with q⃗θ ≡ |Uθ1,θ2 (τ, tN ) QN j=1 Lkj Uθ1,θ2 (tj, tj−1)|ψ0⟩|2. The components of the entropy productionΣ1 and Σ2, which satisfy Σ ≡ Σ1 + Σ2, are given by Σα ≡ Z τ 0 dt X k∈Sα tr{Lkρ(t)(∆skL† k −[L† k, ln ρ(t)])}. (30) By expre...

    work page

  3. [3]

    + O(θ2 2). (B14) Collecting the first order terms inθ1 and θ2, we get thatξ1 and ξ2 should satisfy ˙ξ1 = −i[H, ρ(t) + ξ1(t)] + X k∈S1 lk(t)D[Lk]ρ(t) + X k∈S1 D[Lk]ξ1(t) + X k∈S2 D[Lk]ξ1(t) = L1[ρ(t)]ρ(t) + Lξ1(t), (B15) ˙ξ2 = −i[H, ρ(t) + ξ2(t)] + X k∈S2 lk(t)D[Lk]ρ(t) + X k∈S2 D[Lk]ξ2(t) + X k∈S1 D[Lk]ξ2(t) = L2[ρ(t)]ρ(t) + Lξ2(t). (B16) In the equations...

    work page

  4. [4]

    − 2F 2 12 + Cov(Θ1, Θ2)2 ⟨Θ1⟩2⟨Θ2⟩2 . (B25) Appendix C: Multi-parameter Fisher information in classical Markovian systems Wenowshowthatthemulti-parameterFisherinforma- tion matrix for a classical master equation in the multi- bath case is diagonal. We consider a scenario where the system density matrix is diagonal at all times in a given preferredbasisofo...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic tra- jectory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Phys

    U. Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic tra- jectory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040602 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    G.T.LandiandM.Paternostro,Irreversibleentropypro- duction: From classical to quantum, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Maes, Frenetic bounds on the entropy production, Phys

    C. Maes, Frenetic bounds on the entropy production, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 160601 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    I. D. Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 02LT03 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Maes, Frenesy: Time-symmetric dynamical activity in nonequilibria, Phys

    C. Maes, Frenesy: Time-symmetric dynamical activity in nonequilibria, Phys. Rep.850, 1 (2020). 16

    2020

  2. [10]

    G. N. Bochkov and Y. E. Kuzovlev, Nonlinear fluctuation-dissipation relations and stochastic mod- els in nonequilibrium thermodynamics: I. generalized fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Physica A 106, 443 (1981)

    1981

  3. [11]

    G. N. Bochkov and Y. E. Kuzovlev, Nonlinear fluctuation-dissipation relations and stochastic models in nonequilibrium thermodynamics: II. kinetic potential and variational principles for nonlinear irreversible pro- cesses, Physica A106, 480 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    G. E. Crooks, Nonequilibrium measurements of free en- ergy differences for microscopically reversible Markovian systems, J. Stat. Phys.90, 1481 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    G. E. Crooks, Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy dif- ferences, Phys. Rev. E60, 2721 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Seifert, Fluctuation theorem for birth–death or chemi- cal master equations with time-dependent rates, J

    U. Seifert, Fluctuation theorem for birth–death or chemi- cal master equations with time-dependent rates, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.37, L517 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Jarzynski, Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation ap- proach, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation ap- proach, Phys. Rev. E56, 5018 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Dissipation bounds all steady-state current fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120601 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    J. P. Garrahan, Simple bounds on fluctuations and un- certainty relations for first-passage times of counting ob- servables, Phys. Rev. E95, 032134 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Dechant, Multidimensional thermodynamic uncer- tainty relations, J

    A. Dechant, Multidimensional thermodynamic uncer- tainty relations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 035001 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Uncertainty relations in stochastic processes: An information inequality ap- proach, Phys. Rev. E99, 062126 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Shiraishi, Optimal Thermodynamic Uncertainty Re- lation in Markov Jump Processes, Journal of Statistical Physics 185, 19 (2021)

    N. Shiraishi, Optimal Thermodynamic Uncertainty Re- lation in Markov Jump Processes, Journal of Statistical Physics 185, 19 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Process- ing, Volume I: Estimation Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993)

    1993

  16. [24]

    Dechant and S

    A. Dechant and S. Sasa, Improving thermodynamic bounds using correlations, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041061 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Van Vu and Y

    T. Van Vu and Y. Hasegawa, Uncertainty relations for underdamped langevin dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032130 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Dechant and S.-i

    A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Fluctuation–response in- equality out of equilibrium, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 6430 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hiura and S.-i

    K. Hiura and S.-i. Sasa, Kinetic uncertainty relation on first-passage time for accumulated current, Phys. Rev. E 103, L050103 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    A.Pal, S.Reuveni,andS.Rahav,Thermodynamicuncer- tainty relation for first-passage times on markov chains, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L032034 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Prech, G

    K. Prech, G. T. Landi, F. Meier, N. Nurgalieva, P. P. Potts, R. Silva, and M. T. Mitchison, Optimal time esti- mation and the clock uncertainty relation for stochastic processes (2024), arXiv:2406.19450 [cond-mat]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ptaszyński, Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator, Phys

    K. Ptaszyński, Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator, Phys. Rev. B98, 085425 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    B. K. Agarwalla and D. Segal, Assessing the validity of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B98, 155438 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Liu and D

    J. Liu and D. Segal, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum thermoelectric junctions, Phys. Rev. E99, 062141 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. Johansson, E. Nyholm, G. T. Landi, C. Ver- dozzi, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Entanglement and thermokinetic uncertainty relations in coherent meso- scopic transport, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023155 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts, Violating thethermodynamicuncertaintyrelationinthethree-level maser, Phys. Rev. E104, L012103 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Rignon-Bret, G

    A. Rignon-Bret, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and M. T. Mitchison, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nanomachines, Phys. Rev. E103, 012133 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Guarnieri, G

    G. Guarnieri, G. T. Landi, S. R. Clark, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nonequilib- rium steady states, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033021 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation for continuous measurement, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation for continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 050601 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Van Vu and K

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Thermodynamics of precision in markovian open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140602 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Role of Quan- tum Coherence in Kinetic Uncertainty Relations (2024), arXiv:2407.14147

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum sys- tems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quan- tum 5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Quantum mechanics ver- sus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 857 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Ruskov, A

    R. Ruskov, A. N. Korotkov, and A. Mizel, Signatures of quantum behavior in single-qubit weak measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 200404 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Bednorz, W

    A. Bednorz, W. Belzig, and A. Nitzan, Nonclassical time correlation functions in continuous quantum measure- ment, New Journal of Physics14, 013009 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    S. V. Moreira, A. Keller, T. Coudreau, and P. Milman, Modeling leggett-garg-inequality violation, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062132 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    G. C. Knee, K. Kakuyanagi, M.-C. Yeh, Y. Matsuzaki, H. Toida, H. Yamaguchi, S. Saito, A. J. Leggett, and W. J. Munro, A strict experimental test of macroscopic realism in a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Commu- nications 7, 13253 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    L. P. García-Pintos and J. Dressel, Probing quantum- ness with joint continuous measurements of noncommut- ing qubit observables, Phys. Rev. A94, 062119 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  40. [48]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level sys- tems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  41. [49]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump ap- proach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998). 17

    1998

  42. [50]

    J. M. Horowitz and J. M. R. Parrondo, Entropy produc- tion along nonequilibrium quantum jump trajectories, New J. Phys.15, 085028 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Manzano, R

    G. Manzano, R. Fazio, and E. Roldán, Quantum mar- tingale theory and entropy production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 220602 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynam- ics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, AVS Quantum Sci.4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Tsang, H

    M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Fundamen- tal quantum limit to waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090401 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Fisher information and the Quantum Cramér-Rao sensitivity limit of continuous measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    H. I. Nurdin and M. Guţˇ a, Parameter estimation and system identification for continuously-observed quantum systems, Annu. Rev. Control54, 295 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Radaelli, J

    M. Radaelli, J. A. Smiga, G. T. Landi, and F. C. Binder, Parameter estimation for quantum jump unrav- eling (2024), arXiv:2402.06556 [quant-ph]

    2024

  49. [57]

    R. A. Fisher and E. J. Russell, On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 222, 309 (1922)

    1922

  50. [58]

    Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Prince- ton University Press, 1946)

    H. Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Prince- ton University Press, 1946)

    1946

  51. [59]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Bayesian parameter in- ference from continuously monitored quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A87, 032115 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. A. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Restoring Heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment, Quantum2, 110 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Pukelsheim, Optimal Design of Experiments (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2006)

    F. Pukelsheim, Optimal Design of Experiments (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    Suzuki, Quantum-state estimation problem via op- timal design of experiments, Int

    J. Suzuki, Quantum-state estimation problem via op- timal design of experiments, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 19, 2040007 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Three-level masers as heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 262 (1959)

    1959

  56. [64]

    Geva and R

    E. Geva and R. Kosloff, Three-level quantum amplifier as a heat engine: A study in finite-time thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E49, 3903 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    A. S. Hegde, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Time-resolved Stochastic Dynamics of Quantum Thermal Machines (2024), arXiv:2408.00694

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kofler and C

    J. Kofler and C. Brukner, Condition for macroscopic re- alism beyond the Leggett-Garg inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052115 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    S. V. Moreira, G. Adesso, L. A. Correa, T. Coudreau, A. Keller, and P. Milman, Connecting measurement in- vasiveness to optimal metrological scenarios, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012110 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    S. V. Moreira and M. T. Cunha, Quantifying quantum invasiveness, Phys. Rev. A99, 022124 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.