Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Vacuum quantum Fisher information for mass scales as m to the d-minus-2 for free Klein–Gordon fields, stays flat in two spatial dimensions, and changes under quartic interactions and for Dirac fields.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 17:01 UTC pith:7FBA7562

load-bearing objection Solid explicit mass-QFI formulas for free KG, O(λ) φ⁴ and free Dirac vacua; incremental but clean, with the usual Euclidean-dictionary caveat. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26919 v1 pith:7FBA7562 submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th quant-ph

Quantum Fisher information of the Klein--Gordon, φ⁴, and Dirac vacua

Preslav Asenov , Alessio Serafini This is my paper
classification hep-th quant-ph
keywords quantum Fisher informationquantum geometric tensorKlein-Gordon vacuumphi-four theoryDirac vacuumEuclidean quantum field theorymass parameter estimationholographic duality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper computes how much information the vacuum of three quantum field theories carries about the mass parameter that appears in their Lagrangians. Working in Euclidean spacetime of various dimensions, it evaluates the quantum Fisher information for a free scalar field, the same field with a weak quartic self-interaction, and a free Dirac field. For the free scalar the information scales as a power of the mass set by the spatial dimension, becoming mass-independent precisely when the theory is conformal in two spatial dimensions, matching a known holographic expectation. A quartic interaction at first order makes the information diverge in three spatial dimensions and lowers it in zero spatial dimensions, while the Dirac vacuum yields ultraviolet divergences in higher dimensions, a simple mass dependence in one dimension, and zero information in zero dimensions. The results give concrete precision bounds on any attempt to estimate mass from vacuum measurements and show how interactions and statistics reshape that bound.

Core claim

For the free Klein–Gordon vacuum the mass quantum Fisher information is proportional to m to the power d-minus-2 (explicit finite expressions involving spatial volume for d equals 1, 2, 3), hence independent of mass when d equals 2; a first-order quartic interaction produces a divergent correction in d equals 3 and reduces the information in d equals 0; the free Dirac vacuum mass quantum Fisher information is ultraviolet-divergent for d equals 2 and 3, equals a constant over m times volume for d equals 1, and vanishes for d equals 0.

What carries the argument

The Euclidean path-integral expansion of vacuum fidelity under a mass deformation (the Miyaji-style formula that equates the second-order overlap loss to the quantum geometric tensor, hence to four times the quantum Fisher information), evaluated via Wick contractions and propagator integrals.

Load-bearing premise

That the Euclidean path-integral fidelity formula really equals the ordinary Hilbert-space quantum Fisher information of the Minkowski vacuum for these non-conformal free and weakly interacting theories, even after infinite-volume integrals and an ad-hoc short-distance cutoff.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the mass quantum Fisher information of a free scalar vacuum in two spatial dimensions (or the equivalent quantum-harmonic-oscillator ground state in zero dimensions) by an independent method—relative-entropy variation, real-time path integral, or direct estimation on a lattice or cavity mode—and check whether it matches the reported mass-independent (or 1 over 2 m squared) value.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any mass estimator based on free Klein–Gordon vacuum measurements is bounded by a quantum Cramér–Rao limit that vanishes as spatial volume goes to infinity and that scales as m to the 2-minus-d.
  • In two spatial dimensions the free scalar vacuum mass quantum Fisher information remains finite and mass-independent even in the conformal limit, consistent with its proposed duality to an AdS spatial-slice volume.
  • Turning on a weak quartic coupling in three spatial dimensions drives the mass quantum Fisher information to infinity, collapsing the corresponding Cramér–Rao bound to zero at this order.
  • In zero spatial dimensions a quartic potential strictly lowers the ground-state mass quantum Fisher information relative to the pure harmonic oscillator, raising the ultimate lower bound on mass variance.
  • The free Dirac vacuum carries no mass information in zero dimensions and only a simple inverse-mass amount in one dimension, while higher dimensions require an ultraviolet cutoff.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same path-integral engine could be run on excited states or on mixed thermal states to test whether mass sensitivity is vacuum-specific or grows with energy density.
  • Comparing the reported free-field bounds against concrete laboratory estimators (Lamb shift, cavity spectroscopy, or lattice correlators) would turn the abstract Cramér–Rao statements into practical falsification tests of the underlying field theory.
  • The dimension-dependent power m to the d-minus-2 suggests a general scaling rule for relevant deformations that could be checked for other masses or couplings without recomputing every Feynman integral from scratch.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the vacuum quantum Fisher information (QFI) with respect to the mass parameter for three Euclidean (d+1)-dimensional QFTs—free Klein–Gordon, ϕ⁴ at first order in λ, and free Dirac—using the path-integral fidelity expansion of Miyaji et al. For free KG it obtains I^(KG)_{m,d+1} ∝ m^{d-2} (explicit closed forms for d=0,1,2,3), hence mass-independent for d=2; the O(λ) ϕ⁴ correction diverges in d=3 and reduces the QFI in d=0; the free Dirac mass QFI is UV-divergent for d=2,3, finite and ∝1/m for d=1, and identically zero for d=0. The results are framed as precision bounds (QCRLB) on mass estimation from the vacuum and as a non-conformal extension of holographic QFI ideas.

Significance. If the identification of the Euclidean fidelity expansion with the Hilbert-space QFI is accepted, the work supplies the first explicit mass-QFI formulae for free and weakly interacting non-conformal QFTs, including a clean d=0 reduction to the quantum harmonic oscillator metric and a d=2 mass-independent KG result that matches the expected holographic scaling. The calculations are standard correlator evaluations (Wick, Euclidean propagators, radial integrals) with appendices that make the radial measure, KG convolution and Dirac propagator reproducible. The m^{d-2} scaling, the sign of the O(λ) correction in d=0, and the pattern of UV divergences are concrete, falsifiable outputs that quantify how much information about mass is encoded in each vacuum.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section I B, Eq. (26)] Section I B and Eq. (26): the entire computation rests on equating the Miyaji et al. Euclidean path-integral fidelity expansion to the Hilbert-space quantum geometric tensor/QFI of the Minkowski vacuum under a Lagrangian mass deformation. The paper imports this dictionary from the CFT/holography literature and applies it without additional justification to massive free and perturbatively interacting theories, after Wick rotation and infinite-volume spatial integrals. A short, explicit discussion of the conditions under which the identification survives (or of the renormalization/measurement-theory caveats that remain) is needed for the central claim to be load-bearing outside the CFT setting.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (40), (68), (86)–(88)] Section II A–C and Eqs. (40), (68), (86)–(88): every reported QFI is proportional to the infinite spatial volume V_d (and, for Dirac d≥2, to an ad-hoc short-distance cutoff k). The paper correctly notes that the formal QCRLB then vanishes, yet still interprets the finite m- and λ-dependence as physical. The manuscript should state more sharply what is being claimed once the regulators are removed—e.g., QFI density, or the coefficient of the leading divergence—and whether the O(λ) divergence of I^(ϕ⁴)_{m,3+1} (driven by Δ(0)) is an artifact of the unrenormalized expansion or a genuine signal that the mass becomes infinitely well estimable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III] Conclusion, first paragraph: typographical error “dual to he volume” should read “dual to the volume”.
  2. [Section II A] Eq. (34) and surrounding text: the conversion I_m = 4 m² I_{m²} is used repeatedly; a one-line reminder that this follows from the pure-state reparametrization rule (16) would help readers who skip Section I A.
  3. [Section II B] Figure 1 caption and Eq. (45): the O(λ) diagrams are clear, but the text never states whether the vacuum bubbles that cancel in the connected correlator have been subtracted; a brief remark would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Section II C] Section II C, Eq. (89): the d=0 Dirac result is identically zero by K_{1/2}=K_{-1/2}; noting that this is a direct consequence of the Euclidean Clifford algebra (rather than a dynamical cancellation) would clarify the contrast with the scalar case.
  5. [Section I] References: the real-time path-integral QFI papers (Refs. [61,62]) are cited but not contrasted with the Euclidean method used here; a sentence on why the Euclidean route is preferred for vacuum mass deformations would strengthen the methodological discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: mass QFI results are explicit correlator integrals under an imported path-integral dictionary, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper evaluates vacuum QFI w.r.t. mass by substituting the mass deformation operator into the Miyaji et al. Euclidean fidelity/QGT formula (Eq. 26), then reducing connected two-point functions of ϕ² or ψ̄ψ via Wick’s theorem and evaluating the resulting Bessel/momentum integrals (Eqs. 35–42, 47–74, 82–89). Those integrals are parameter-free once the Lagrangian and dimension are fixed; nothing is fitted to data, and the reported m^{d−2} scaling, d=2 mass independence, O(λ) corrections, and Dirac UV structure are outputs of the integrals, not inputs. The d=2 holographic remark is an after-the-fact comparison to Ref. [37], not an assumption used to obtain I^{(KG)}_{m,2+1}. Methodological reliance on Miyaji/Alvarez-Jimenez is ordinary external citation of a computational engine, not author self-citation that seals the algebra. The d=0 KG match to a known QHO metric [83] is consistency checking, not renaming. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction in the sense of the circularity taxonomy.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a calculation within standard Euclidean QFT plus the Miyaji et al. fidelity-to-QGT map. No empirical fits. Load-bearing non-standard piece is that map applied to non-conformal mass deformations; everything else is textbook propagators, Wick theorem, and perturbative expansion in λ.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Second-order expansion of the Euclidean vacuum fidelity under a Lagrangian deformation equals the quantum geometric tensor (Miyaji et al. formula, Eq. 26).
    Used as the sole computational definition of G_ab throughout §I.B–II; validity for non-conformal KG/ϕ⁴/Dirac mass deformations is assumed by citation, not re-proved.
  • domain assumption Wick rotation maps the relevant Minkowski vacuum correlation structure to Euclidean Schwinger functions for the purpose of QFI.
    Stated in the preamble to §II; QFI is a real-time Hilbert-space quantity while all integrals are Euclidean.
  • standard math Wick’s theorem and free Euclidean propagators (Bessel form) correctly give the connected correlators of ϕ² and ψ-barψ.
    Standard free-field QFT; used in Eqs. 31–32, 45, 79–81.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation in λ captures the leading interaction correction to the vacuum mass QFI.
    §II.B truncates at O(λ); no control on higher orders or non-perturbative effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial volume V_d and (for Dirac, d≥2) a short-distance cutoff k are admissible regulators; physical content is the finite m- and λ-dependence.
    V_d is left explicit; Dirac UV cutoff is introduced by hand in §II.C without a renormalization scheme tied to a physical observable.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 27807 in / 3347 out tokens · 76308 ms · 2026-07-30T17:01:11.973335+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The quantum Fisher information (QFI) of the vacuum of three quantum field theories is evaluated with respect to the mass parameter of each theory. All field theories are considered on a $(d+1)$-dimensional Euclidean spacetime. We consider the Klein-Gordon field, a quartic interaction ($\phi^4$) field theory, and the free Dirac field. In the case of the quartic interaction theory, the QFI is given perturbatively to first order in the interaction constant. For the free KG case, we find a $m^{d-2}$ dependence of the QFI, and thus no dependence for $d=2$, in agreement with the holographic duality characterizing the theory. The introduction of a quartic interaction is shown to lead to a QFI divergence in $d=3$ and to reduce the available information in the $d=0$ system. The vacuum QFI with respect to the free Dirac field mass is shown to be UV-divergent for $d=2$ and $d=3$, mass-dependent for $d=1$, and zero for $d=0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26919 by Alessio Serafini, Preslav Asenov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The map Ψ :M → H θ7→ |Ψ(θ)⟩(3) can be used to induce the pullback of the Fubini-Study metric onP(H) to a Riemannian metric onM[16], called the quantum information metric (QIM). The QIM is given byg (Ψ) ab = Re[G(Ψ) ab ], whereG (Ψ) ab is the quantum geometric tensor (QGT) onMgiven by [17] G(Ψ) ab (θ) =⟨∂ aΨ(θ)|∂bΨ(θ)⟩ − ⟨∂aΨ(θ)|Ψ(θ)⟩⟨Ψ(θ)|∂ bΨ(θ)⟩.(4) Her...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Classical Fisher Information Here we introduce the concept of classical Fisher in- formation (CFI) in classical estimation theory (CET). Consider a classical probability distribution with a joint probability density function (PDF)p(y) =p(y|θ), de- scribing the probability that a vector of random variables Y= (Y 1, Y2, . . . , Yn) [63] is physically observ...

  3. [3]

    In QET, we describe our system by the density operator ρ(θ) onHrather than the PDFp(y|θ) [25]

    Quantum Fisher Information The following description of QET is adapted from [26]. In QET, we describe our system by the density operator ρ(θ) onHrather than the PDFp(y|θ) [25]. The two are related by the Born rulep(y|θ)dy= Tr [dΠ yρ(θ)], where dΠy are positive operator-valued measure (POVM) el- ements satisfying R dΠy =1. In QET, the (classical) score fun...

  4. [4]

    M. W. Kalinowski, The program of geometrization of physics: Some philosophical remarks, Synthese , 129 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    Einstein, Die grundlagen der allgemeinen, Relat

    A. Einstein, Die grundlagen der allgemeinen, Relat. Teorie Ann. Phys49, 769 (1916)

    1916

  6. [6]

    Ghaboussi, Geometrization of classical mechanics, Journal of mathematical physics34, 4000 (1993)

    F. Ghaboussi, Geometrization of classical mechanics, Journal of mathematical physics34, 4000 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    V. I. Arnold, K. Vogtmann, and A. Weinstein,Mathe- matical methods of classical mechanics, Vol. 60 (Springer, 1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    T. W. Kibble, Geometrization of quantum mechan- ics, Communications in Mathematical Physics65, 189 (1979)

    1979

  9. [9]

    H. D. A. Gomes, Gauge theory and the geometrization of physics, American history1861(1945)

    1945

  10. [10]

    J. L. Alonso, C. Bouthelier-Madre, J. Clemente-Gallardo, and D. Mart ´ ınez-Crespo, Geometric flavours of quantum field theory on a cauchy hypersurface. part ii: Methods of quantization and evolution, Journal of Geometry and Physics203, 105265 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Geometric quan- tum mechanics, Journal of geometry and physics38, 19 (2001)

    2001

  12. [12]

    Gibbons, Typical states and density matrices, Journal of Geometry and Physics8, 147 (1992)

    G. Gibbons, Typical states and density matrices, Journal of Geometry and Physics8, 147 (1992)

    1992

  13. [13]

    D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Statistical geometry in quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences454, 2445 (1998)

    1998

  14. [14]

    Minic and C.-H

    D. Minic and C.-H. Tze, Background independent quan- tum mechanics and gravity, Physical Review D68, 061501 (2003)

    2003

  15. [15]

    Fubini,Sulle metriche definite da una forma hermi- tiana: nota(Office graf

    G. Fubini,Sulle metriche definite da una forma hermi- tiana: nota(Office graf. C. Ferrari, 1904)

    1904

  16. [16]

    Study, K¨ urzeste wege im komplexen gebiet, Mathema- tische Annalen60, 321 (1905)

    E. Study, K¨ urzeste wege im komplexen gebiet, Mathema- tische Annalen60, 321 (1905)

    1905

  17. [17]

    Chru´ sci´ nski and A

    D. Chru´ sci´ nski and A. Jamio lkowski,Geometric phases in classical and quantum mechanics(Springer, 2004)

    2004

  18. [18]

    Ashtekar and T

    A. Ashtekar and T. A. Schilling, Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics, inOn Einstein ’s Path: essays in honor of Engelbert Schucking(Springer, 1999) pp. 23–65

    1999

  19. [19]

    Campos Venuti and P

    L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Quantum critical scal- ing of the geometric tensors, Physical Review Letters99, 10.1103/physrevlett.99.095701 (2007)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.095701 2007

  20. [20]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian Structure on Manifolds of Quantum States, Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  21. [21]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  22. [22]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Physical Review Letters58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  23. [23]

    Zanardi, P

    P. Zanardi, P. Giorda, and M. Cozzini, Information- theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase tran- sitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 100603 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    GU, Fidelity approach to quantum phase transi- tions, International Journal of Modern Physics B24, 4371–4458 (2010)

    S.-J. GU, Fidelity approach to quantum phase transi- tions, International Journal of Modern Physics B24, 4371–4458 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Stokes, J

    J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natural gradient, Quantum4, 269 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    A. Gao, N. Nagaosa, N. Ni, and S.-Y. Xu, Quantum ge- ometry phenomena in condensed matter systems (2025), arXiv:2508.00469 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum materi- als, npj Quantum Materials10, 101 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of Statistical Physics1, 231–252 (1969)

    1969

  29. [29]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology (2009), arXiv:0804.2981 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Dell’Anna, S

    F. Dell’Anna, S. Pradhan, C. D. E. Boschi, and E. Erco- lessi, Quantum fisher information and multipartite en- tanglement in spin-1 chains, Physical Review B108, 10.1103/physrevb.108.144414 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.144414 2023

  32. [32]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Steffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen, Quantum fisher information in a strange metal (2024), arXiv:2403.12779 [cond-mat.str-el]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    G´ omez and R

    C. G´ omez and R. Jimenez, Cosmology from quan- tum information, Physical Review D102, 10.1103/phys- revd.102.063511 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  34. [34]

    Chen and J

    L. Chen and J. Feng, Quantum fisher information of a cosmic qubit undergoing non-markovian de sit- ter evolution, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 10.1007/jhep06(2025)029 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2025)029 2025

  35. [35]

    Piotrak, T

    M. Piotrak, T. Colas, A. Alonso-Serrano, and A. Serafini, Quantum estimation of cosmological parameters (2025), arXiv:2507.12228 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Y. R. Zhang, G. R. Jin, J. P. Cao, W. M. Liu, and H. Fan, Unbounded quantum fisher information in two- path interferometry with finite photon number, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 035302 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Tsang, Resolving starlight: a quantum perspective, Contemporary Physics60, 279–298 (2019)

    M. Tsang, Resolving starlight: a quantum perspective, Contemporary Physics60, 279–298 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Hradil, J

    Z. Hradil, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, L. S´ anchez-Soto, and B.-G. En- glert, Quantum fisher information with coherence, Op- tica6, 1437 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Ammon and J

    M. Ammon and J. Erdmenger,Gauge/gravity dual- ity: Foundations and applications(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Miyaji, T

    M. Miyaji, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, T. Takayanagi, and K. Watanabe, Distance between quantum states and gauge-gravity duality, Physical Review Letters115, 10.1103/physrevlett.115.261602 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.261602 2015

  41. [41]

    Dimov, I

    H. Dimov, I. Iliev, M. Radomirov, R. Rashkov, and T. Vetsov, Holographic fisher information metric in schr¨ odinger spacetime, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Trivella, Holographic computations of the quantum information metric, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 105003 (2017)

    A. Trivella, Holographic computations of the quantum information metric, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 105003 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Moosa and I

    M. Moosa and I. Shehzad, Is volume the holo- graphic dual of fidelity susceptibility?, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10169 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Belin, A

    A. Belin, A. Lewkowycz, and G. S´ arosi, Complexity and the bulk volume, a new york time story, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 1 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Bak, Information metric and euclidean janus corre- spondence, Physics Letters B756, 200–204 (2016)

    D. Bak, Information metric and euclidean janus corre- spondence, Physics Letters B756, 200–204 (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    Banerjee, J

    S. Banerjee, J. Erdmenger, and D. Sarkar, Connecting fisher information to bulk entanglement in holography, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 1 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Erdmenger, K

    J. Erdmenger, K. Grosvenor, and R. Jefferson, Informa- tion geometry in quantum field theory: lessons from sim- ple examples, SciPost Physics8, 073 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    Alvarez-Jimenez, A

    J. Alvarez-Jimenez, A. Dector, and J. D. Vergara, Quan- tum information metric and berry curvature from a lagrangian approach, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 10.1007/jhep03(2017)044 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2017)044 2017

  49. [49]

    Faulkner, T

    T. Faulkner, T. Hartman, M. Headrick, M. Rangamani, and B. Swingle, Snowmass white paper: Quantum in- formation in quantum field theory and quantum gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07117 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. E. Bruschi, C. Sab ´ ın, G. Adesso, and I. Fuentes, Relativistic quantum metrology: Exploiting relativity to improve quantum measurement technolo- gies, Scientific reports4, 4996 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. E. Bruschi, and I. Fuentes, Quantum metrology for relativistic quantum fields, Physical Re- view D89, 065028 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Lindkvist, C

    J. Lindkvist, C. Sab ´ ın, G. Johansson, and I. Fuentes, Motion and gravity effects in the precision of quantum clocks, Scientific reports5, 10070 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    ˇSafr´ anek, J

    D. ˇSafr´ anek, J. Kohlrus, D. E. Bruschi, A. R. Lee, and I. Fuentes, Ultimate precision: Gaussian parameter es- timation in flat and curved spacetime, arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.03905 (2015)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Sab ´ ın, D

    C. Sab ´ ın, D. E. Bruschi, M. Ahmadi, and I. Fuentes, Phonon creation by gravitational waves, New Journal of Physics16, 085003 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    Aspachs, G

    M. Aspachs, G. Adesso, and I. Fuentes, Optimal quantum estimation of the unruh-hawking effect, Physical review letters105, 151301 (2010)

    2010

  56. [56]

    J. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Jing, and H. Fan, Quantum metrol- ogy and estimation of unruh effect, Scientific reports4, 7195 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, X.-g. Wang, and C.-p. Sun, Quantum fisher information in noninertial frames, Phys- ical Review A89, 042336 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    Z. Tian, J. Wang, H. Fan, and J. Jing, Relativistic quan- tum metrology in open system dynamics, Scientific re- ports5, 7946 (2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    Feng and J.-J

    J. Feng and J.-J. Zhang, Quantum fisher information as a probe for unruh thermality, Physics Letters B827, 136992 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    D. R. Junior and L. E. Oxman, Geometry of the shannon mutual information in continuum qft, Physical Review D 95, 10.1103/physrevd.95.125005 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.125005 2017

  61. [61]

    Asenov, W

    P. Asenov, W. Zhang, and A. Serafini, Quantum estima- tion in qed scattering, Physical Review D113, 016015 (2026)

    2026

  62. [62]

    Ignoti, C

    M. Ignoti, C. Frugiuele, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, Is the large uncertainty ofδ CP fundamen- tally encoded in the neutrino quantum state? (2025), arXiv:2511.20148 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Lashkari and M

    N. Lashkari and M. Van Raamsdonk, Canonical energy is quantum fisher information, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    F. J. Headley, M. RouhbakhshNabati, H. Harper- Gardner, D. Braun, H. Schomerus, and E. K¨ ose, Path integral approach to quantum fisher information, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.12763 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality-enhanced quantum sensing via continuous measurement, PRX Quantum3, 010354 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    J. L. Devore,Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, 8th ed. (Brooks/Cole, Boston, 2011) Chap. 6, iSBN-13: 978-0-538-73352-6

    2011

  67. [67]

    Zieli´ nski, Theory of parameter estimation, Banach Center Publications41, 209 (1997)

    R. Zieli´ nski, Theory of parameter estimation, Banach Center Publications41, 209 (1997)

    1997

  68. [68]

    A. Ly, M. Marsman, J. Verhagen, R. Grasman, and E.-J. Wagenmakers, A tutorial on fisher information (2017), arXiv:1705.01064 [math.ST]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Pickles,An Introduction to Likelihood Analysis, Con- cepts and techniques in modern geography (Geo Books, Norwich, 1985)

    A. Pickles,An Introduction to Likelihood Analysis, Con- cepts and techniques in modern geography (Geo Books, Norwich, 1985)

    1985

  70. [70]

    S. M. Kay,Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: estimation theory(Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, 1993)

    1993

  71. [71]

    Wasserman, Parametric inference, inAll of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference(Springer New York, New York, NY, 2004) pp

    L. Wasserman, Parametric inference, inAll of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference(Springer New York, New York, NY, 2004) pp. 119–148

    2004

  72. [72]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 13 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phe- nomena, Vol

    J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phe- nomena, Vol. 171 (Oxford university press, 2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    A. S. Wightman, Quantum field theory in terms of vacuum expectation values, Physical Review101, 860 (1956)

    1956

  75. [75]

    Schwinger, On the euclidean structure of relativistic field theory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences44, 956 (1958)

    J. Schwinger, On the euclidean structure of relativistic field theory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences44, 956 (1958)

    1958

  76. [76]

    Osterwalder and R

    K. Osterwalder and R. Schrader, Axioms for euclidean green’s functions, Commun. math. Phys.31, 83 (1973)

    1973

  77. [77]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Westview Press, 1995)

    1995

  78. [78]

    Wick, Properties of bethe-salpeter wave functions, Physical Review96, 1124 (1954)

    G.-C. Wick, Properties of bethe-salpeter wave functions, Physical Review96, 1124 (1954)

    1954

  79. [79]

    Wick, The evaluation of the collision matrix, Phys- ical review80, 268 (1950)

    G.-C. Wick, The evaluation of the collision matrix, Phys- ical review80, 268 (1950)

    1950

  80. [80]

    Curiel, F

    E. Curiel, F. Finster, and J. M. Isidro, Summing over spacetime dimensions in quantum gravity, Symmetry12, 138 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.