pith. sign in

arxiv: 2401.02923 · v1 · submitted 2024-01-05 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.bio-ph

On the optimality of the radical-pair quantum compass

Luke D. Smith , Jonas Glatthard , Farhan T. Chowdhury , Daniel R. Kattnig This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 04:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.bio-ph
keywords radical pairquantum compasscryptochromequantum Fisher informationmagnetoreceptionrecombination yieldCramér-Rao boundspin dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radical-pair recombination yields approach but fall short of the quantum Fisher information bound by one or two orders of magnitude in cryptochrome models.

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

The paper investigates the fundamental precision limits of a radical-pair chemical compass for detecting the geomagnetic field. It calculates how accurately direction can be inferred from the angular dependence of recombination yields and compares that to the ultimate precision allowed by the quantum Fisher information of the underlying spin system under steady-state conditions. Models of increasing complexity, incorporating multiple hyperfine couplings and asymmetric kinetics typical of cryptochrome, are examined to see how close the yield-based inference gets to the theoretical bound. The comparison reveals that yield measurements approach optimality with greater model realism yet remain one or two orders of magnitude below the quantum limit.

Core claim

The inference of compass orientation from radical-pair recombination yields approaches optimality in the limits of complexity, yet plateaus short of the theoretical optimal precision bounds by up to one or two orders of magnitude, thus underscoring the potential for improving on design principles inherent to natural systems.

What carries the argument

Comparison of directional dependence of radical-pair recombination yields against the quantum Fisher information and associated Cramér-Rao bound applied to spin models of cryptochrome with inter-radical interactions, multiple hyperfine couplings, and asymmetric recombination kinetics.

If this is right

  • More complex radical-pair models with additional hyperfine interactions and realistic kinetics yield higher directional precision from recombination yields.
  • Asymmetric recombination rates improve the closeness of yield-based inference to the quantum limit compared to symmetric cases.
  • Nature's use of reaction yields rather than full quantum state readout imposes a persistent precision gap even in optimised models.
  • The gap narrows systematically as the number of nuclear spins and interaction terms increases toward biological realism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Artificial sensors could close the remaining gap by extracting more information than recombination yields alone provide.
  • The identified plateau suggests a design trade-off in biological systems between achievable precision and the constraints of operating at physiological temperatures with chemical readouts.
  • Testing whether additional radical-pair partners or environmental couplings in vivo further reduce the gap would directly extend the model's predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum Fisher information under steady-state conditions represents the ultimate precision realisable by a quantum measurement on the spin system, and that the models accurately capture the magnetosensory protein cryptochrome.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of the actual angular resolution achieved by a living cryptochrome-based compass that exceeds the calculated yield-derived precision while staying below the quantum Fisher bound, or a model extension that allows yield measurements to surpass the steady-state quantum bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2401.02923 by Daniel R. Kattnig, Farhan T. Chowdhury, Jonas Glatthard, Luke D. Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Avian cryptochrome structure [43] with highlighted FAD cofactor and the four tryptophan residues labelled WA,WB,WC, and WD) that form the tryptophan tetrad. Photo-excitation of FAD initi￾ates sequential electron transfer reactions along the tetrad forming a radical-pair of the form [FAD•−,W•+]. Specifically, we consider the well-separated radical-pairs (b) [FAD•−,WC •+], (c) [FAD•−,WD •+], (d) and a co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Singlet yield anisotropies Γ for radical-pairs as the number of hyperfine coupled nuclei is increased [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantum Fisher information Fθ, and variance in magnetic field parameter θ arising from a yield-based measurement 1/(N∆2 θ), are shown at the value of θ that minimises the variance and for the best ϕ axis. Here, we use equivalent models to figure 2. Reference-probe [FAD•−, Z • ] radical-pairs are considered without EED in (a) and including EED interactions in (b). FAD/tryptophan [FAD•−,W•+] radical-pairs ar… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Singlet yield ΦS, quantum Fisher information Fθ, variance in magnetic field parameter θ arising from a yield-based measurement 1/(N∆2 θ) , and the product (NFθ · ∆2 θ) −1 , are shown over θ and ϕ parameters of the magnetic field for select examples of [FAD•−, Z • ] radical-pairs. (a) ErC with NIˆ = 10 nuclei neglecting EED. (b) ErC with NIˆ = 10 (top), and ErD with NIˆ = 8 (bottom) nuclei including EED int… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Singlet yield ΦS, quantum Fisher information Fθ, variance in magnetic field parameter θ arising from a yield-based measurement 1/(N∆2 θ) , and the product (NFθ · ∆2 θ) −1 , are shown over θ and ϕ parameters of the magnetic field for select examples of [FAD•−,W•+] radical-pairs. (a) ErC with NIˆ = 8 nuclei (top) and ErC/ErD with NIˆ nuclei (bottom) neglecting EED. (b) ErC with NIˆ = 10 nuclei (top), and ErC… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distance from orthogonality between Sˆ2 and the optimal estimator for varying number of nuclei. Here, we use equivalent models to figure 2. Reference-probe [FAD•−, Z • ] radical-pairs are considered without EED in (a) and including EED interactions in (b). FAD/tryptophan [FAD•−,W•+] radical-pairs are considered without EED in (c) and including EED interactions in (d). Fθ. This is expected as, in genera… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fθ, and the distance from orthogonality between Sˆ2 and the optimal estimator for select cases of radical-pairs with NIˆ = 10 nuclei against θ. Specifically, we consider reference-probe [FAD•−, Z • ] radical￾pairs are shown in (a) for ErC neglecting EED interactions and in (b) ErC including EED interactions. [FAD•−,W•+] radical-pairs are shown in (c) for ErC including EED interactions and in (d) for AtC in… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum sensing enables the ultimate precision attainable in parameter estimation. Circumstantial evidence suggests that certain organisms, most notably migratory songbirds, also harness quantum-enhanced magnetic field sensing via a radical-pair-based chemical compass for the precise detection of the weak geomagnetic field. However, what underpins the acuity of such a compass operating in a noisy biological setting, at physiological temperatures, remains an open question. Here, we address the fundamental limits of inferring geomagnetic field directions from radical-pair spin dynamics. Specifically, we compare the compass precision, as derived from the directional dependence of the radical-pair recombination yield, to the ultimate precision potentially realisable by a quantum measurement on the spin system under steady-state conditions. To this end, we probe the quantum Fisher information and associated Cram\'er--Rao bound in spin models of realistic complexity, accounting for complex inter-radical interactions, a multitude of hyperfine couplings, and asymmetric recombination kinetics, as characteristic for the magnetosensory protein cryptochrome. We compare several models implicated in cryptochrome magnetoreception and unveil their optimality through the precision of measurements ostensibly accessible to nature. Overall, the comparison provides insight into processes honed by nature to realise optimality whilst constrained to operating with mere reaction yields. Generally, the inference of compass orientation from recombination yields approaches optimality in the limits of complexity, yet plateaus short of the theoretical optimal precision bounds by up to one or two orders of magnitude, thus underscoring the potential for improving on design principles inherent to natural systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the directional precision of geomagnetic field inference from radical-pair recombination yields (in models of cryptochrome with increasing numbers of hyperfine couplings, inter-radical interactions, and asymmetric kinetics) against the Cramér-Rao bound set by the steady-state quantum Fisher information, concluding that yield-based inference approaches but remains 1-2 orders of magnitude short of optimality in the most complex models.

Significance. If the steady-state QFI benchmark is appropriate, the work supplies a concrete, model-based assessment of how close biological radical-pair compasses come to quantum limits when restricted to reaction-yield observables, crediting the systematic increase in model complexity and the explicit comparison to an external quantum bound.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and § on quantum Fisher information: the central gap claim equates recombination-yield precision to a bound derived from steady-state QFI, yet the radical-pair lifetime is finite (~1-10 μs) and the state evolves coherently under the geomagnetic field plus hyperfine and relaxation terms; the appropriate figure of merit is therefore the time-dependent QFI integrated against the survival probability, not the steady-state value. This directly affects the reported 1-2 order magnitude shortfall.
  2. [Models] § on cryptochrome models: the Hamiltonians (hyperfine tensors, asymmetric recombination rates) are taken as given; any systematic mismatch between these parameters and the actual magnetosensory protein would rescale the entire optimality gap, yet no sensitivity analysis to these inputs is reported.
minor comments (2)
  1. Define the recombination yield observable explicitly (e.g., singlet vs. triplet branching) and state how it is extracted from the density-matrix evolution before comparing to the QFI bound.
  2. Clarify whether the reported precision is an average over field directions or the worst-case directional uncertainty; the optimality statement depends on this choice.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § on quantum Fisher information: the central gap claim equates recombination-yield precision to a bound derived from steady-state QFI, yet the radical-pair lifetime is finite (~1-10 μs) and the state evolves coherently under the geomagnetic field plus hyperfine and relaxation terms; the appropriate figure of merit is therefore the time-dependent QFI integrated against the survival probability, not the steady-state value. This directly affects the reported 1-2 order magnitude shortfall.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation regarding the distinction between steady-state and time-dependent QFI. Our choice of the steady-state QFI was motivated by its provision of an ultimate upper bound on precision for the spin system in the long-time limit, which is relevant for assessing the optimality of the compass mechanism. For the finite lifetimes in our models (on the order of microseconds), the coherent evolution is accounted for in the yield calculation, but the QFI benchmark is taken at steady state to represent the best possible quantum measurement. We have checked that the time to reach steady state is shorter than the recombination time for the parameters considered. To strengthen the manuscript, we will include a brief discussion and, if feasible, a comparison showing that using a time-integrated QFI does not alter the order-of-magnitude conclusion on the optimality gap. This constitutes a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Models] § on cryptochrome models: the Hamiltonians (hyperfine tensors, asymmetric recombination rates) are taken as given; any systematic mismatch between these parameters and the actual magnetosensory protein would rescale the entire optimality gap, yet no sensitivity analysis to these inputs is reported.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the model parameters are drawn from existing literature on cryptochrome. To address potential concerns about parameter sensitivity, we will add a sensitivity analysis in a revised version of the manuscript. This will involve varying the hyperfine coupling strengths and recombination rate ratios within biologically plausible ranges and demonstrating that the reported optimality gap remains consistent in magnitude. We believe this will confirm the robustness of our findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives the directional precision attainable from recombination yields by direct integration of the radical-pair master equation under the given Hamiltonians and kinetics, then separately computes the steady-state quantum Fisher information for the same spin system; these are two distinct observables evaluated on identical models, with the QFI serving as an external mathematical benchmark (Cramér-Rao) rather than a quantity fitted or redefined from the yield data. No equation reduces one quantity to the other by construction, no parameter is fitted on a subset and relabeled a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The reported gap of 1-2 orders is therefore an independent comparison, not a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum information theory and domain assumptions about the biological system; no free parameters or invented entities mentioned in abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics governs the spin dynamics of radical pairs
    Used throughout for modeling spin evolution.
  • domain assumption The models represent realistic cryptochrome
    Assumed for the comparison to be relevant to biology.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5807 in / 1271 out tokens · 21283 ms · 2026-05-24T04:37:24.602709+00:00 · methodology

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

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    On the optimality of the radical-pair quantum compass

    Introduction Quantum magnetometers [1] offer the ability to detect weak magnetic fields with unprece- dented sensitivity [2]. These sensors have numerous established, developing, and proposed uses, including: biomedical applications [3], research into fundamental physics [4], and navigational systems [5]. Remarkably, a promising hypothesis and circumstant...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Methods To accommodate for the complexity and variability inherent in nature, we consider radical- pair models emulating cryptochrome 4a from the European robin ( Erithacus rubecula; ErCry4a) and cryptochrome 1 from the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana; AtCry1). Our models incorporate up to 10 nuclear spins; the hyperfine interactions of which have been ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The symmetric logarithmic derivative determines the optimal measurement basis, but leaves open the question of constructing an estimator which saturates the Cram´ er–Rao bound

    (17) If ˆρθ is invertible, Fθ given by [69] can furthermore be obtained from Fθ = vec (∂θ ˆρθ)† vec(ˆLθ), (18) where vec(·) denotes vectorisation of a matrix and vec ˆLθ = 2 ˆρθ ⊗ 111 + 111 ⊗ ˆρθ −1 vec (∂θ ˆρθ) , (19) where ·† and · stand for Hermitian transpose and complex conjugation. The symmetric logarithmic derivative determines the optimal measurem...

    work page

  4. [4]

    All cases are considered both with and without the inclusion of EED interactions; the former is a popular abstraction, while the latter case is representative of the true system

    Results We consider the contrast in yields, and precision in estimating parameter θ of the magnetic field for the four radical-pair systems ErC, ErD, ErC/ErD and AtC introduced in section 2 for a [FAD•−, W•+] model where both radicals are coupled to nuclei through hyperfine interactions, and the reference-probe model [FAD•−, Z•], where only the FAD radica...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Discussion We aimed to quantify the precision of the radical-pair compass and evaluate how optimal it is in the limits of biological complexity, characterised by a large number of hyperfine coupled nuclei and presence of electron-electron dipolar coupling. Utilising the quantum Fisher information to set a bound on the ultimate limits of precision, via the...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Conclusions Quantum metrology establishes fundamental bounds on the precision with which a parame- ter can be inferred through measurements on a quantum system. Avian magnetoreception and several related magnetosensitive traits of various animals are thought to rely on spin dynamics in a protein, suggesting the existence of a quantum magnetometer in biolo...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

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

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330–1336 (2004)

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications , Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157–169 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    S. J. Asztalos et al., SQUID-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 041301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    X. Wang, W. Li, B. Moran, B. C. Gibson, L. T. Hall, D. A. Simpson, A. N. Kealy, A. D. Greentree, W. Li, and A. N. Kealy, Quantum diamond magnetometry for navigation in GNSS denied environ- ments (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    J. Shaw, A. Boyd, M. House, R. Woodward, F. Mathes, G. Cowin, M. Saunders, and B. Baer, Magnetic particle-mediated magnetoreception, J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150499 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    P. J. Hore and H. Mouritsen, The radical-pair mechanism of magnetoreception, Annu. Rev. Biophys. 45, 299–344 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    C. T. Rodgers and P. J. Hore, Chemical magnetoreception in birds: The radical pair mechanism, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 353–360 (2009)

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    Schulten, C

    K. Schulten, C. E. Swenberg, and A. Weiler, A biomagnetic sensory mechanism based on magnetic field modulated coherent electron spin motion , Z Phys. Chem. 111, 1–5 (1978)

    work page 1978

  16. [16]

    Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals , Nature 558, 50–59 (2018)

    H. Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals , Nature 558, 50–59 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    K. J. Lohmann, Magnetic-field perception, Nature 464, 1140–1142 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Wiltschko and W

    R. Wiltschko and W. Wiltschko, Magnetoreception in birds, J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20190295 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    G. C. Nordmann, T. Hochstoeger, and D. A. Keays, Magnetoreception—A sense without a receptor , PLOS Biol. 15, 1–10 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Wiltschko, K

    R. Wiltschko, K. Stapput, P. Thalau, and W. Wiltschko, Directional orientation of birds by the magnetic field under different light conditions , J. R. Soc. Interface 7, S163–S177 (2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    Wiltschko and R

    W. Wiltschko and R. Wiltschko, Light-dependent magnetoreception in birds: The behaviour of Euro- pean robinss, Erithacus rubecula, under monochromatic light of various wavelengths and intensities , J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3295–3302 (2001)

    work page 2001

  22. [22]

    Wiltschko and R

    W. Wiltschko and R. Wiltschko, Migratory orientation of European robinss is affected by the wave- length of light as well as by a magnetic pulse , J. Comp. Physiol. A 177, 363–369 (1995)

    work page 1995

  23. [23]

    Stapput, O

    K. Stapput, O. G¨ unt¨ urk¨ un, K. P. Hoffmann, R. Wiltschko, and W. Wiltschko,Magnetoreception of directional information in birds requires nondegraded vision , Curr. Biol. 20, 1259–1262 (2010)

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    G¨ unther, A

    A. G¨ unther, A. Einwich, E. Sjulstok, R. Feederle, P. Bolte, K. W. Koch, I. A. Solov’yov, and 28 H. Mouritsen, Double-cone localization and seasonal expression pattern suggest a role in magnetore- ception for European robins cryptochrome 4 , Curr. Biol. 28, 211–223.e4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    T. Ritz, S. Adem, and K. Schulten, A model for photoreceptor-based magnetoreception in birds , Bio- phys. J. 78, 707–718 (2000)

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    Xu et al., Magnetic sensitivity of cryptochrome 4 from a migratory songbird , Nature 594, 535–540 (2021)

    J. Xu et al., Magnetic sensitivity of cryptochrome 4 from a migratory songbird , Nature 594, 535–540 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Hochstoeger et al

    T. Hochstoeger et al. , The biophysical, molecular, and anatomical landscape of pigeon CRY4: A candidate light-based quantal magnetosensor , Sci. Adv. 6, 9110–9122 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Kerpal, S

    C. Kerpal, S. Richert, J. G. Storey, S. Pillai, P. A. Liddell, D. Gust, S. R. Mackenzie, P. J. Hore, and C. R. Timmel, Chemical compass behaviour at microtesla magnetic fields strengthens the radical pair hypothesis of avian magnetoreception, Nat. Commun. 10, 1–7 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Maeda, K

    K. Maeda, K. B. Henbest, F. Cintolesi, I. Kuprov, C. T. Rodgers, P. A. Liddell, D. Gust, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Chemical compass model of avian magnetoreception , Nature 453, 387–390 (2008)

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    C. R. Timmel, U. Till, B. Brocklehurst, K. A. Mclauchlan, and P. J. Hore, Effects of weak magnetic fields on free radical recombination reactions, Mol. Phys. 95, 71–89 (1998)

    work page 1998

  31. [31]

    Procopio and T

    M. Procopio and T. Ritz, The reference-probe model for a robust and optimal radical-pair-based mag- netic compass sensor, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 065104 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    J. Cai, F. Caruso, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum limits for the magnetic sensitivity of a chemical compass, Phys. Rev. A 85, 040304 (2012)

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    E. M. Gauger, E. Rieper, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, and V. Vedral,Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass , Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 040503 (2011)

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    T. Ritz, M. Ahmad, H. Mouritsen, R. Wiltschko, and W. Wiltschko, Photoreceptor-based magnetore- ception: Optimal design of receptor molecules, cells, and neuronal processing , J. R. Soc. Interface 7, S135–S146 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    C. R. Timmel, F. Cintolesi, B. Brocklehurst, and P. J. Hore,Model calculations of magnetic field effects on the recombination reactions of radicals with anisotropic hyperfine interactions , Chem. Phys. Lett. 334, 387–395 (2001)

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    A. A. Lee, J. C. S. Lau, H. J. Hogben, T. Biskup, D. R. Kattnig, and P. J. Hore, Alternative radical pairs for cryptochrome-based magnetoreception, J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20131063 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Pooam, L

    M. Pooam, L. D. Arthaut, D. Burdick, J. Link, C. F. Martino, and M. Ahmad, Magnetic sensitivity mediated by the Arabidopsis blue-light receptor cryptochrome occurs during flavin reoxidation in the dark, Planta 249, 319–332 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Wiltschko, M

    R. Wiltschko, M. Ahmad, C. Nießner, D. Gehring, and W. Wiltschko, Light-dependent magnetore- ception in birds: The crucial step occurs in the dark , J. R. Soc. Interface 13, 20151010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    I. A. Solov’yov and K. Schulten, Magnetoreception through cryptochrome may involve superoxide , Biophys. J. 96, 4804–4813 (2009). 29

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    T. Ritz, R. Wiltschko, P. J. Hore, C. T. Rodgers, K. Stapput, P. Thalau, C. R. Timmel, and W. Wiltschko, Magnetic compass of birds is based on a molecule with optimal directional sensitiv- ity, Biophys. J. 96, 3451–3457 (2009)

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    Mondal and M

    P. Mondal and M. Huix-Rotllant, Theoretical insights into the formation and stability of radical oxygen species in cryptochromes, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21, 8874–8882 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    M¨ uller and M

    P. M¨ uller and M. Ahmad, Light-activated cryptochrome reacts with molecular oxygen to form a flavin–superoxide radical pair consistent with magnetoreception , J. Biol. Chem. 286, 21033–21040 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    H. J. Hogben, O. Efimova, N. Wagner-Rundell, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Possible involvement of superoxide and dioxygen with cryptochrome in avian magnetoreception: Origin of Zeeman resonances observed by in vivo EPR spectroscopy , Chem. Phys. Lett. 480, 118–122 (2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    N. S. Babcock and D. R. Kattnig, Radical scavenging could answer the challenge posed by elec- tron–electron dipolar interactions in the cryptochrome compass model, JACS Au 1, 2033–2046 (2021)

    work page 2033

  45. [45]

    R. H. Keens, S. Bedkihal, and D. R. Kattnig, Magnetosensitivity in dipolarly coupled three-spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 096001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    N. S. Babcock and D. R. Kattnig, Electron–electron dipolar interaction poses a challenge to the radical pair mechanism of magnetoreception, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 2414–2421 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    D. R. Kattnig and P. J. Hore, The sensitivity of a radical pair compass magnetoreceptor can be significantly amplified by radical scavengers, Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    D. R. Kattnig, Radical-pair-based magnetoreception amplified by radical scavenging: Resilience to spin relaxation, J. Phys. Chem. B 121, 10215–10227 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Schuhmann, D

    F. Schuhmann, D. R. Kattnig, and I. A. Solov’yov, Exploring post-activation conformational changes in pigeon cryptochrome 4 , J. Phys. Chem. B 125, 9652–9659 (2021)

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Bart¨ olke, H

    R. Bart¨ olke, H. Behrmann, K. G¨ ortemaker, C. Yee, J. Xu, E. Behrmann, and K. W. Koch, The secrets of cryptochromes: Photoreceptors, clock proteins, and magnetic sensors , Neuroforum 27, 151– 157 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Liedvogel and H

    M. Liedvogel and H. Mouritsen, Cryptochromes—a potential magnetoreceptor: What do we know and what do we want to know? , J. R. Soc. Interface 7, S147–S162 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    A. R. Cashmore, J. A. Jarillo, Y. J. Wu, and D. Liu, Cryptochromes: blue light receptors for plants and animals, Science 284, 760–765 (1999)

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states , Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  54. [54]

    Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory (Edizioni della Normale Pisa, 2011)

    A. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory (Edizioni della Normale Pisa, 2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    R. A. Fisher, Theory of Statistical Estimation , Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 22, 700–725 (1925)

    work page 1925

  56. [56]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9) (Princeton University Press, 1946)

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9) (Princeton University Press, 1946)

    work page 1946

  57. [57]

    H. G. Hiscock, T. W. Hiscock, D. R. Kattnig, T. Scrivener, A. M. Lewis, D. E. Manolopoulos, and 30 P. J. Hore, Navigating at night: Fundamental limits on the sensitivity of radical pair magnetoreception under dim light , Q. Rev. Biophys. 52, e9 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    I. K. Kominis, Physiological search for quantum biological sensing effects based on the Wigner–Yanase connection between coherence and uncertainty, Adv. Quantum Technol., 2300292 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Tiwari and V

    Y. Tiwari and V. S. Poonia, Quantum coherence enhancement by the chirality-induced spin selectivity effect in the radical-pair mechanism , Phys. Rev. A 107, 052406 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    R. Jain, V. S. Poonia, K. Saha, D. Saha, and S. Ganguly, The avian compass can be sensitive even without sustained electron spin coherence, Proc. R. Soc. A 477, 20200778 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    I. K. Kominis, Quantum relative entropy shows singlet-triplet coherence is a resource in the radical- pair mechanism of biological magnetic sensing , Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023206 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    T. P. Le and A. Olaya-Castro, Basis-independent system-environment coherence is necessary to detect magnetic field direction in an avian-inspired quantum magnetic sensor , arXiv: 2011.15016 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Cai and M

    J. Cai and M. B. Plenio, Chemical compass model for avian magnetoreception as a quantum coherent device, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230503 (2013)

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    H. J. Hogben, T. Biskup, and P. J. Hore, Entanglement and sources of magnetic anisotropy in radical pair-based avian magnetoreceptors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 220501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    L. D. Smith, J. Deviers, and D. R. Kattnig, Observations about utilitarian coherence in the avian compass, Sci. Rep. 12, 1–10 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Atkins, K

    C. Atkins, K. Bajpai, J. Rumball, and D. R. Kattnig, On the optimal relative orientation of radicals in the cryptochrome magnetic compass , J. Chem. Phys. 151, 065103 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    K. M. Vitalis and I. K. Kominis, Quantum-limited biochemical magnetometers designed using the Fisher information and quantum reaction control , Phys. Rev. A 95, 032129 (2017)

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    L. S. Guo, B. M. Xu, J. Zou, and B. Shao, Quantifying magnetic sensitivity of radical pair based compass by quantum Fisher information , Sci. Rep. 7, 1–8 (2017)

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    Gr¨ uning, S

    G. Gr¨ uning, S. Y. Wong, L. Gerhards, F. Schuhmann, D. R. Kattnig, P. J. Hore, and I. A. Solov’yov, Effects of dynamical degrees of freedom on magnetic compass sensitivity: A comparison of plant and avian cryptochromes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 22902–22914 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    S. Y. Wong, Y. Wei, H. Mouritsen, I. A. Solov’yov, and P. J. Hore, Cryptochrome magnetoreception: four tryptophans could be better than three , J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    S. Y. Wong, I. A. Solov’yov, P. J. Hore, and D. R. Kattnig, Nuclear polarization effects in cryptochrome-based magnetoreception, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 035102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology , Int. J. Quantum Inf. 7, 125–137 (2009)

    work page 2009

  73. [73]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory , J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231–252 (1969)

    work page 1969

  74. [74]

    Bhatia and P

    R. Bhatia and P. Rosenthal, How and Why to Solve the Operator Equation AX-XB = Y , Bull. London Math. Soc. 29, 1–21 (1997)

    work page 1997

  75. [75]

    ˇSafr´ anek,Simple expression for the quantum Fisher information matrix , Phys

    D. ˇSafr´ anek,Simple expression for the quantum Fisher information matrix , Phys. Rev. A 97, 042322 (2018). 31

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum parameter estimation, AVS Quantum Sci. 2, 014701 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    D. R. Kattnig, I. A. Solov’yov, and P. J. Hore, Electron spin relaxation in cryptochrome-based mag- netoreception, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 12443–12456 (2016)

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    Ramsay and D

    J. Ramsay and D. R. Kattnig, Radical triads, not pairs, may explain effects of hypomagnetic fields on neurogenesis, PLOS Comput. Biol. 18, e1010519 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    A. T. Dellis and I. K. Kominis, The quantum Zeno effect immunizes the avian compass against the deleterious effects of exchange and dipolar interactions , Biosystems 107, 153–157 (2012)

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    I. K. Kominis, Quantum Zeno effect explains magnetic-sensitive radical-ion-pair reactions, Phys. Rev. E 80, 056115 (2009)

    work page 2009

Showing first 80 references.