Enhanced quantum sensing with hybrid exceptional-diabolic singularities

Adam Miranowicz; Javid Naikoo; Ravindra W. Chhajlany

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Enhanced quantum sensing with hybrid exceptional-diabolic singularities

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At hybrid exceptional-diabolic points, a four-mode bosonic sensor estimates a frequency shift with error scaling as θ², twice as fast as at ordinary singular points.

desk verdict The four-mode HED model is real and the pole-order calculation is careful, but the claimed theta^-4 QFI scaling does not follow from the paper's own equations — it looks like an inherited error from Ref. [24]. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03780 v2 pith:YXB3RAYZ submitted 2025-02-06 quant-ph

Javid Naikoo , Ravindra W. Chhajlany , Adam Miranowicz This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumsensingexceptionalpointsdiabolichybridexceptional-diabolicsingularitiesFisherinformationnon-HermitiansystemsGaussianstateestimationheterodynedetection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a four-mode bosonic cavity with balanced gain and loss can estimate a small linear perturbation with an error that shrinks quadratically in the perturbation strength, provided the system is tuned to a hybrid exceptional-diabolic (HED) point—the parameter point where an exceptional curve meets a diabolic plane and the dynamical generator becomes singular. At such a point, the response function develops a pole of order two, which the authors translate, through the quantum Fisher information, into a $\theta^{-4}$ divergence of the Fisher information and a $\delta\theta\propto\theta^{2}$ estimation error. Away from HED points, the same singular generator gives only a first-order pole and a linear $\delta\theta\propto\theta$ error, so the HED point doubles the scaling exponent. The paper also shows that heterodyne detection reproduces this optimal scaling, making the enhancement accessible to a standard continuous-variable measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resonant response function, the symplectic representation of $(\theta n-H)^{-1}$: all $\theta$-dependence of the output amplitude and covariance matrix enters through this matrix, so its pole structure controls the Fisher information. The authors expand the inverse of the singular matrix $\theta n-H$ with the Sain-Massey method, which fixes the pole order $s$ by a rank condition on augmented matrices and provides the coefficients $X_0,X_1,\ldots$; at the HED point these are $X_0=H|_{g=\gamma}$ and $X_1=I$, giving $s=2$. A scaling law from the earlier two-mode analysis, $F_{\theta}=\theta^{-2s}[b_0+O(\theta)]$, then converts the pole order into the estimation error. The HED point is the parameter point $g=\gamma$, $J=0$ where the exceptional-plane condition, the diabolic-plane condition, and the singularity-surface condition coincide.

What would settle it

Compute the exact quantum Fisher information in Eq. (29) for the four-mode model at $g=\gamma$, $J=0$, $n=I$ over a range of small $\theta$, using the full response matrix rather than its truncated Laurent expansion. If the log-log slope of $\delta\theta$ versus $\theta$ near the HED point is 2, the claim stands; if the slope is 1, the pole-order scaling law is not transferring to the hybrid point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central discovery is that hybrid exceptional-diabolic singularities are a distinct and stronger resource for singularity-enhanced quantum sensing than ordinary exceptional or diabolic points. For their Hamiltonian with balanced gain and loss, the singular surface $J=\sqrt{g^{2}-\gamma^{2}}$ contains the HED point $g=\gamma$, $J=0$ as well as non-HED points such as $g=\sqrt{2}\gamma$. Using the Sain-Massey expansion of the resonant response function with perturbation matrix $n=I$, they find a second-order pole at the HED point, $G_{\theta}=\theta^{-2}(H|_{g=\gamma}+\theta I)$ in the symplectic representation, and only a first-order pole away from it. Feeding this expansion into the Gaussian-state quantum Fisher information gives $F_{\theta}=\theta^{-4}[b'_0+O(\theta)]$ at the HED point, hence $\delta\theta\propto\theta^{2}$, while at the non-HED singular point it gives $F_{\theta}=\theta^{-2}[b''_0+O(\theta)]$, hence $\delta\theta\propto\theta$. The same two scalings are obtained for the classical Fisher information under heterodyne detection.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the earlier result that a response pole of order $s$ makes the quantum Fisher information diverge as $F_{\theta}=\theta^{-2s}$; if that result fails at the hybrid point, the claimed $\delta\theta\propto\theta^{2}$ error scaling does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A sensor tuned to the HED point $(g,J)=(\gamma,0)$ estimates the common-mode frequency shift with error $\delta\theta\propto\theta^{2}$, so precision improves quadratically as the perturbation shrinks.
The quadratic scaling survives the presence of the second-order diabolic subspace: the orthogonal subspace co-existing with the exceptional point does not reduce the pole order.
Heterodyne detection reaches the same scaling as the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, so the predicted enhancement is attainable with a standard measurement rather than an idealized optimal one.
The pole-order criterion implies that simultaneous satisfaction of the exceptional, diabolic, and singularity conditions is needed for the twofold scaling gain; breaking any one condition lowers the enhancement.
The result carries the two-mode singularity-enhanced sensing analysis over to a four-mode architecture, showing the enhancement is not limited to minimal two-mode models.

Reading between the lines

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

If the pole-order-to-Fisher scaling law holds generally, a higher-order hybrid singularity in a larger bosonic lattice would predict even steeper error scaling, $\delta\theta\propto\theta^{s}$, although detector inefficiency and the breakdown of the Laurent expansion at finite $\theta$ would cap the practical gain.
The exact Gaussian quantum Fisher information at the HED point could be evaluated without the Laurent ansatz; a direct calculation of the derivative terms would reveal whether the $\theta^{-4}$ divergence comes from the amplitude response, the covariance response, or both, a distinction that matters for designing the measurement.
A concrete experimental test would be to tune $g$ through $\gamma$ at $J=0$ in a photonic or circuit-QED array and watch the log-log slope of the estimation error change from 1 to 2.
Since heterodyne detection saturates the bound, a simpler homodyne measurement on the most responsive quadrature may achieve the same scaling with fewer resources.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper has a clear structure and a genuinely new object: a four-mode bosonic sensor where a second-order EP and a second-order DP coincide, and the claim that the DP subspace does not spoil the quadratic error scaling. The pole-order computation in Appendix C is the strongest part; the Sain–Massey ranks check out and s=2 is correct for n=I at the HED point. The authors also engage honestly with the no-advantage literature and do not oversell EPs as a free lunch.

The trouble is the load-bearing step. Equation (45) is asserted, not derived. The paper never computes Eq. (29) for the actual output state; it imports Eq. (40) from Ref. [24] and applies it with s=2. But that import is not innocent here. Substituting the response expansion G ~ theta^-2 X0 into the paper's own equations (22)–(23) gives S_out = S_in + O(theta^-2) and V_out = V_in + O(theta^-2). Since V_in is invertible, the derivatives are O(theta^-3) for both mean and covariance. Feeding that into the standard Gaussian QFI formula (29) yields F_theta ~ theta^-6 from the mean term and the covariance term alike, not theta^-4. The only way to recover theta^-4 would be a cancellation of the leading theta^-2 term in V_out, and no such cancellation is shown or visible from the displayed X0. So the abstract's 'twofold improvement' is unverified and, on a direct substitution, appears wrong.

Fig. 3, which claims to numerically confirm the scaling, is not reproducible from the manuscript: no code or data are provided, and the parameter range is limited to n=I and exact resonance. Those would be minor issues if the analytics were right; here they compound the central problem.

Yes, this paper deserves a serious referee — the HED concept is interesting, and catching this kind of error is exactly what peer review is for. But as it stands, the main result does not hold. The authors should re-derive the QFI directly from their Gaussian formulas before resubmitting.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a four-mode bosonic system with balanced gain and loss, coupled by inter-mode couplings g and J, described by the non-Hermitian dynamical generator H in Eq. (13). It studies the estimation of a small linear perturbation theta to the common cavity frequency, encoded as H_theta = H - theta.n with n = I. The response function G_theta = J(theta.n - H)^{-1} becomes singular when H is singular; for the HED point g = gamma, J = 0, the paper finds via the Sain-Massey expansion a pole of order s = 2 (Eqs. (43)-(44)). Using a scaling law imported from Ref. [24] (Eq. (40)), the paper concludes that the quantum Fisher information scales as F_theta ~ theta^{-4}, giving an estimation error delta_theta ~ theta^2 (Eqs. (45)-(46)), and that heterodyne detection achieves the same scaling (Eq. (51)). This is contrasted with non-HED singular points where F_theta ~ theta^{-2} and delta_theta ~ theta. The paper argues for a 'twofold improvement' at HED points and discusses experimental feasibility and imperfections.

Significance. If the claimed scaling were correct, the paper would provide a concrete bosonic model in which hybrid exceptional-diabolic points give a superlinear enhancement in parameter estimation, extending the authors' previous two-mode results to a four-mode system with a diabolic subspace. The model setup and the input-output formalism are clearly presented, and the Sain-Massey computation of the pole order in Appendix C is explicit and appears internally consistent. The identification of heterodyne detection as an optimal measurement for this Gaussian model is also a useful contribution. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an unproven and, as I show in the major comments, incorrect application of the imported scaling law. The significance is therefore conditional: the qualitative idea of HED-enhanced sensing may survive, but the specific twofold-improvement result is not established by the manuscript.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III C, Eq. (40); Sec. IV, Eq. (45)] The scaling law F_theta = theta^{-2s}[b0+O(theta)] in Eq. (40) is imported from Ref. [24] and is applied with s=2 at the HED point, but it is inconsistent with the manuscript's own formulas (22), (23), and (29). With G_theta = theta^{-2}X0 + theta^{-1}X1 from Eq. (43) and V_in = (2n_A+1)I, Eq. (23) gives V_out,theta = V_in - sqrt(kappa) theta^{-2}(X0 V_in + V_in X0^T) + O(theta^{-1}). The matrix X0 in Eq. (C12) is not skew-symmetric (for example, the (1,2) and (2,1) elements of X0+X0^T equal 2*gamma), so the theta^{-2} term does not cancel. Consequently dV_out/dtheta ~ theta^{-3}, V_out^{-1} = V_in^{-1} + O(theta^{-2}), and substitution into Eq. (29) yields F_theta ~ theta^{-6} from the covariance term (and, for S_in different from zero, from the mean term as well). This contradicts Eq. (45). The paper provides no cancellation argument that would restore F_theta ~ theta^{-4}. Since Eq. (45) is the load-bearing step for the claimed twofold improvement, the central result is unsupported.
[Sec. III C, Eq. (41)] Equation (41) defines b0 without derivation, and the expression is not the coefficient obtained by inserting Eqs. (22)-(23) into Eq. (29) for the present four-mode model. It appears to be taken from Ref. [24], where the sensor configuration (and in particular the role of the direct transmission term I - Kprobe G_theta) differs. Because b0 determines the leading QFI coefficient in both the HED case (Eq. (45)) and the non-HED case (Eq. (49)), the authors must provide a self-contained derivation of Eq. (41) in the current model or show explicitly how Eq. (29) reduces to it. As written, the step from the response-function expansion (39) to the QFI scaling (40) is an assumption, not a theorem.
[Fig. 3] The numerical results in Fig. 3 are described as a direct evaluation of Eqs. (29) and (32) and are said to confirm Eqs. (46), (50), and (52). However, no code, data, or numerical parameters beyond those in the caption are provided, so the figure cannot be independently reproduced or checked. Given that the analytic scaling predictions are themselves in question (see above), the figure cannot serve as independent support for the claimed scaling. The authors should make the numerical routines available or provide a transparent analytic calculation that resolves the discrepancy between the claimed theta^{-4} scaling and the direct expansion of Eq. (29).
[Appendix C] Appendix C correctly shows, via the Sain-Massey rank condition, that the response function at the HED point has a pole of order s=2 and computes X0 and X1. This is a useful and apparently valid computation. However, the pole order of G_theta does not by itself determine the scaling of the quantum Fisher information for the output state; the connection is the imported Eq. (40), which is not established here (see above). The appendix therefore does not bridge the gap between the singular response and the claimed estimation error scaling.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV heading] The heading 'ENHANCED PRECESION' contains a typo; it should read 'ENHANCED PRECISION'.
[Sec. IV] The text refers to a 'non-HEP singularity' in the paragraph after Eq. (46); this should be 'non-HED' for consistency with the abstract and the rest of the paper.
[Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as written, delta^2(theta) >= 1/F_theta >= 1/F_theta, repeats the same symbol and is not meaningful; the authors should distinguish the quantum and classical Fisher information with different notation if that is the intent.
[Eq. (33)] In Eq. (33), the expression 'theta n theta H^{-1}' contains an extra theta after n; it should presumably be 'theta n H^{-1}'.
[Table I] The table lists delta_Q theta = 1/F_theta and delta_C theta = 1/F_theta, but the correct Cramer-Rao relation is delta = 1/sqrt(F), as used in Eqs. (46) and (50); the table should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the θ^{-4} HED QFI scaling follows from the independent general lemma of Ref. [24] applied to the locally derived pole order s=2.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The HED result Eq. (45), Fθ^{HED}=θ^{-4}[b'_0+O(θ)], is obtained by combining Eq. (40), a general QFI scaling law for singular generators imported from Ref. [24], with the pole-order computation for the four-mode HED generator in App. C. The lemma is parameter-free, stated for an arbitrary singular H, and does not mention the HED point or assume Fθ∝θ^{-4}; its coefficient b0 in Eq. (41) is an explicit function of X0, V_in, S_in and n. The Sain–Massey calculation in App. C independently determines s=2 and X0=HS|g=γ, X1=I via rank condition (C7) and the pseudoinverse blocks (C10)-(C12), so the application of the lemma is not a restatement of the conclusion. Although Eq. (40) is cited from Ref. [24], whose author list overlaps with the present paper, that reference is published, externally checkable, and holds under stated assumptions that do not include the HED target; it is therefore real independent support rather than a self-confirming assumption. The non-HED case is handled by an explicit SM expansion, and Fig. 3 is described as a direct numerical evaluation of Eqs. (29) and (32). No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no known result is merely renamed. The main caveats—the paper does not re-derive Eq. (40) inside the manuscript and does not explicitly verify b'_0≠0—are completeness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has no fitted parameters; all numbers are chosen example values. The central claim rests on the Gaussian QFI formula (Eq. 28), the Markov input-output formalism, the Sain-Massey expansion, the lemma det H = |det H|^2 from Ref. [24], and on Eq. (40) from Ref. [24]. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Gaussian QFI formula for states with parameter-dependent mean and covariance (Eq. 28).
Standard result from Ref. [39], used in Eq. (29) to compute the QFI.
domain assumption Markov approximation and input-output relation for a multi-mode open bosonic system (Eqs. 11 and A11).
Assumes frequency-independent couplings and Markov baths; standard in quantum optics but physically restrictive.
standard math Sain-Massey Laurent expansion for the inverse of a singular matrix function (Appendix B).
Used to compute the pole order s and the coefficient matrices X_k.
domain assumption det H = |det H|^2, relating the complex-domain singularity of H to the singularity of its phase-space representation H (Lemma 2 of Ref. [24]).
Bridges Eq. (13) H to its phase-space representation H; cited from Ref. [24] rather than proved.
domain assumption The perturbation matrix n = I perturbs only the common cavity frequency uniformly (Eq. C3).
The claimed sensitivity is demonstrated only for this specific perturbation; other perturbation structures are not analyzed.
domain assumption The scaling law F_theta = theta^{-2s}[b0+O(theta)] for singular generators (Eq. 40 from Ref. [24]).
Quoted from Ref. [24] without re-derivation; the central scaling claim hinges on this imported lemma.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced quantum sensing with hybrid exceptional-diabolic singularities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXB3RAYZ

@misc{pith2026250203780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced quantum sensing with hybrid exceptional-diabolic singularities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXB3RAYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03780}
}

read the original abstract

We report an enhanced sensitivity for detecting linear perturbations near hybrid (doubly degenerated) exceptional-diabolic (HED) singular points in a four mode bosonic system. The sensitivity enhancement is attributed to a singular response function, with the pole order determining the scaling of estimation error. At HED singular points, the error scaling exhibits a twofold improvement over non-HED singular points. The ultimate bound on estimation error is derived via quantum Fisher information, with heterodyne detection identified as the measurement achieving this optimal scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03780 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) Sensor model of four bosonic modes aˆk interacting with inaccessible bath modes Bˆk through dissipative (for k= 1, 3) and amplification (for k=2, 4) interactions. All the four cavity modes are probed by accessible (Gaussian) input field Aˆk via dissipative interaction. Using input-output formalism, the accessible and the inaccessible field modes are expressed in terms of the input and output fields (Aˆ k,in/ou… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Parameter space of the dynamical generator H in Eq. (13) with balanced gain and loss γℓ = γ for all ℓ = 1, . . . , 4. Here, J represents the coupling between successive modes with gain or loss, and g is the coupling strength between a loss mode aˆ1(3) and a gain mode aˆ2(4). The green surface, denoted as singular surface, shows points where J = p g 2 − γ 2, where H becomes singular (denoted by HS) as given in Eq. … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[24]

Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplify- ing sensors,

M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. D. Stone and L. Jiang, “Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplify- ing sensors, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180501 (2019)

work page 2019
[1]

Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer, 1966)

T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer, 1966)

work page 1966
[2]

(41) with coefficients given in Eq

Thus, in this case, the precision behaves as F non−HED θ = θ−2 [b′′ 0 + O(θ)] , (49) with b′′ 0 being b0 in Eq. (41) with coefficients given in Eq. (48). The form of precision in Eq. (49) leads to a linear scaling of the error δQθ = 1q F non−HED θ ∝ θ. (50) Consequently, while perturbing the system at the HED sin- gularity achieves a quadratic scaling of ...

work page 2019
[3]

Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,

R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Mussli- mani, S. Rotter and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, ”Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Parity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics,

S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori and L. Yang, “Parity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics, ”Nat. Materials 18, 783 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

The physics of exceptional points,

W. D. Heiss, “The physics of exceptional points, ” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 444016 (2012)

work page 2012
[6]

Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point,

M. Parto, Y . G. N. Liu, B. Bahari, M. Khajavikhan and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point, ”Nanophotonics 10, 403 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Quantum Liouvillian excep- tional and diabolical points for bosonic fields with quadratic Hamiltonians: The Heisenberg-Langevin equation approach,

J. J. Pe ˇrina Jr., A. Miranowicz, G. Chimczak and A. Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk, “Quantum Liouvillian excep- tional and diabolical points for bosonic fields with quadratic Hamiltonians: The Heisenberg-Langevin equation approach, ” Quantum 6, 883 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 64 references

[8]

Diabolical points in the spec- tra of triangles,

M. V . Berry and M. Wilkinson,“Diabolical points in the spec- tra of triangles, ”Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. Math. Phys. Sc. 392, 15 (1984). 12

1984
[9]

Multiple quantum exceptional, diabolical, and hybrid points in multimode bosonic systems: I. Inherited and genuine singularities,

K. Thapliyal, J. P. Jr., G. Chimczak, A. Kowalewska-Kudłaszyk and A. Miranowicz,“Multiple quantum exceptional, diabolical, and hybrid points in multimode bosonic systems: I. Inherited and genuine singularities, ” e-print arXiv:2405.01666 [quant- ph]
[10]

Dynamically crossing diabolic points while encircling exceptional curves: A programmable symmetric-asymmetric multimode switch,

I. I. Arkhipov, A. Miranowicz, F. Minganti, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir and F. Nori,“Dynamically crossing diabolic points while encircling exceptional curves: A programmable symmetric-asymmetric multimode switch, ”Nat. Commun. 14, 2076 (2023)

2023
[11]

Enhancing the sensitivity of frequency and energy splitting detection by using exceptional points: Application to microcavity sensors for single-particle detection,

J. Wiersig, “Enhancing the sensitivity of frequency and energy splitting detection by using exceptional points: Application to microcavity sensors for single-particle detection, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203901 (2014)

2014
[12]

Multiple quantum exceptional, diabolical, and hybrid points in multimode bosonic systems: II. Nonconventional PT -symmetric dynamics and unidirectional coupling,

J. Pe ˇrina Jr., K. Thapliyal, G. Chimczak, A. Kowalewska- Kudłaszyk and A. Miranowicz,“Multiple quantum exceptional, diabolical, and hybrid points in multimode bosonic systems: II. Nonconventional PT -symmetric dynamics and unidirectional coupling, ”e-print arXiv:2405.01667 [...
[13]

Exceptional points in optics and pho- tonics,

M. A. Miri and A. Al `u, “Exceptional points in optics and pho- tonics, ”Science 363, eaar7709 (2019)

2019
[14]

Exceptional points of non-Hermitian operators,

W. D. Heiss, “Exceptional points of non-Hermitian operators, ” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 2455 (2004)

2004
[15]

Review of exceptional point-based sensors,

J. Wiersig, “Review of exceptional point-based sensors, ”Pho- ton. Res. 8, 1457 (2020)

2020
[16]

Quantum exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Liouvillians: The effects of quantum jumps,

F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany and F. Nori, “Quantum exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Liouvillians: The effects of quantum jumps, ”Phys. Rev. A 100, 062131 (2019)

2019
[17]

En- hanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points,

H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El- Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides and M. Khajavikhan, “En- hanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points, ” Nature 548, 187 (2017)

2017
[18]

Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcav- ity,

W. Chen, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig and L. Yang, “Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcav- ity, ”Nat. 548, 192 (2017)

2017
[19]

highlights that enhanced sensitivity is primarily driven by nonreciprocity rather than the proximity to an exceptional point. This study establishes fundamental bounds on signal power and SNR for two-mode sensors, demonstrating that while gain is necessary for enhanced signal ...

2025 arXiv
[20]

No exceptional precision of exceptional-point sensors,

W. Langbein, “No exceptional precision of exceptional-point sensors, ”Phys. Rev. A 98, 023805 (2018)

2018
[21]

Fundamental limits and non- reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quantum sensing,

H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, “Fundamental limits and non- reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quantum sensing, ” Nat. Commun. 9, 1 (2018)

2018
[22]

Fluctuations and noise-limited sensing near the exceptional point of parity-time- symmetric resonator systems,

N. A. Mortensen, P. A. D. Gonc ¸alves, M. Khajavikhan, D. N. Christodoulides, C. Tserkezis and C. Wolff, “Fluctuations and noise-limited sensing near the exceptional point of parity-time- symmetric resonator systems, ”Optica 5, 1342 (2018)

2018
[23]

On the time evolution at a fluctuating exceptional point,

C. Wolff, C. Tserkezis and N. A. Mortensen, “On the time evolution at a fluctuating exceptional point, ”Nanophotonics 8, 1319 (2019)

2019
[25]

Sensitivity of parameter esti- mation near the exceptional point of a non-Hermitian system,

C. Chen, L. Jin and R.-B. Liu, “Sensitivity of parameter esti- mation near the exceptional point of a non-Hermitian system, ” New J. Phys. 21, 083002 (2019)

2019
[26]

Multipa- rameter estimation perspective on non-Hermitian singularity- enhanced sensing,

J. Naikoo, R. W. Chhajlany and J. Kołody ´nski, “Multipa- rameter estimation perspective on non-Hermitian singularity- enhanced sensing, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220801 (2023)

2023
[27]

Exceptional-point sensors offer no fundamental signal-to-noise ratio enhancement,

H. Loughlin and V . Sudhir, “Exceptional-point sensors offer no fundamental signal-to-noise ratio enhancement, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 243601 (2024)

2024
[28]

Prospects and fundamental limits in exceptional point-based sensing,

J. Wiersig, “Prospects and fundamental limits in exceptional point-based sensing, ”Nat. Commun. 11, 2454 (2020)

2020
[29]

Dynamical phase transitions as a resource for quantum en- hanced metrology,

K. Macieszczak, M. Gut ¸˘a, I. Lesanovsky and J. P. Garrahan, “Dynamical phase transitions as a resource for quantum en- hanced metrology, ”Phys. Rev. A 93, 022103 (2016)

2016
[30]

Quantum sensing close to a dissipative phase transition: Symmetry breaking and crit- icality as metrological resources,

S. Fern ´andez-Lorenzo and D. Porras, “Quantum sensing close to a dissipative phase transition: Symmetry breaking and crit- icality as metrological resources, ” Phys. Rev. A 96, 013817 (2017)

2017
[31]

In- and out-of- equilibrium quantum metrology with mean-field quantum criti- cality,

S. Wald, S. V . Moreira and F. L. Semi ˜ao, “In- and out-of- equilibrium quantum metrology with mean-field quantum criti- cality, ”Phys. Rev. E 101, 052107 (2020)

2020
[32]

Dynamic framework for criticality-enhanced quantum sensing,

Y . Chu, S. Zhang, B. Yu and J. Cai, “Dynamic framework for criticality-enhanced quantum sensing, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010502 (2021)

2021
[33]

Criticality-enhanced quantum sensor at finite temperature,

W. Wu and C. Shi, “Criticality-enhanced quantum sensor at finite temperature, ”Phys. Rev. A 104, 022612 (2021)

2021
[34]

D. A. Steck, Quantum and atom optics , available online at https://atomoptics.uoregon.edu/ dsteck/teaching/
[35]

Un- avoidability of nonclassicality loss in PT -symmetric systems,

J. Pe ˇrina, A. Miranowicz, J. K. Kalaga and W. Leo ´nski, “Un- avoidability of nonclassicality loss in PT -symmetric systems, ” Phys. Rev. A 108, 033512 (2023)

2023
[36]

Non-Hermiticity in quantum nonlinear optics through symplectic transformations,

R. Wakefield, A. Laing and Y . N. Joglekar,“Non-Hermiticity in quantum nonlinear optics through symplectic transformations, ” Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 201103 (2024)

2024
[37]

Fractional fourier transforms in two dimensions,

R. Simon and K. B. Wolf,“Fractional fourier transforms in two dimensions, ”J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 2368 (2000)

2000
[38]

Multimode squeeze operators and squeezed states,

X. Ma and W. Rhodes, “Multimode squeeze operators and squeezed states, ”Phys. Rev. A 41, 4625 (1990)

1990
[39]

Gaussian quantum infor- mation,

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garcia-Patr ´on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro and S. Lloyd, “Gaussian quantum infor- mation, ”Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

2012
[40]

Ferraro, S

A. Ferraro, S. Olivares and M. G. A. Paris, Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information (Bibliopolis, Napoli,
[41]

S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: esti- mation theory (Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, 1993)

1993
[42]

Quantum Fisher information for states in exponential form,

Z. Jiang, “Quantum Fisher information for states in exponential form, ”Phys. Rev. A 89, 032128 (2014)

2014
[43]

Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states,

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

1994
[44]

Parity–time- symmetric whispering-gallery microcavities,

B. Peng, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, F. Lei, F. Monifi, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender and L. Yang,“Parity–time- symmetric whispering-gallery microcavities, ” Nat. Phys. 10, 394 (2014)

2014
[45]

Invertibility of linear time-invariant dynamical systems,

M. Sain and J. Massey, “Invertibility of linear time-invariant dynamical systems, ” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 14, 141 (1969)

1969
[46]

A rank criterion for the order of a pole of a matrix function,

F. Zhou, “A rank criterion for the order of a pole of a matrix function, ”Lin. Alg. App. 362, 287 (2003)

2003
[47]

Superconducting metamaterials for waveguide quantum electrodynamics,

M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, V . S. Ferreira, M. Kalaee, A. Sipahigil, A. J. Keller and O. Painter, “Superconducting metamaterials for waveguide quantum electrodynamics, ” Nat. Commun. 9, 3706 (2018)

2018
[48]

Parity–time symmetry and variable op- tical isolation in active–passive-coupled microresonators,

L. Chang, X. Jiang, S. Hua, C. Yang, J. Wen, L. Jiang, G. Li, G. Wang and M. Xiao,“Parity–time symmetry and variable op- tical isolation in active–passive-coupled microresonators, ”Nat. Phot. 8, 524 (2014)

2014
[49]

Nonreciprocal photon trans- mission and amplification via reservoir engineering,

A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, “Nonreciprocal photon trans- mission and amplification via reservoir engineering, ” Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015)

2015
[50]

H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

2009
[51]

Observation of a dissipative phase transition in a one-dimensional circuit qed lattice,

M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y . Li, J. Koch and A. A. Houck, “Observation of a dissipative phase transition in a one-dimensional circuit qed lattice, ”Phys. Rev. X 7, 011016 13 (2017)

2017
[52]

Cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics,

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin and A. Wallraff, “Cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics, ” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[53]

Gen- eral framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology,

B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho and L. Davidovich, “Gen- eral framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, ”Nat. Phys. 7, 406 (2011)

2011
[54]

A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (Edizioni della Normale, 2011)

2011
[55]

Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaussian states,

A. Monras, “Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaussian states, ”Phys. Rev. A 76, 033814 (2007)

2007
[56]

Realistic optical homodyne mea- surements and quasiprobability distributions,

U. Leonhardt and H. Paul, “Realistic optical homodyne mea- surements and quasiprobability distributions, ”Phys. Rev. A48, 4598 (1993)

1993
[57]

Quantum-scissors device for optical state truncation: A pro- posal for practical realization,

S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, A. Miranowicz, M. Koashi and N. Imoto, “Quantum-scissors device for optical state truncation: A pro- posal for practical realization, ” Phys. Rev. A 64, 063818 (2001)

2001
[58]

Quantum circuits for amplification of Kerr nonlinearity via quadrature squeezing,

M. Bartkowiak, L. A. Wu and A. Miranowicz, “Quantum circuits for amplification of Kerr nonlinearity via quadrature squeezing, ”J. Phys. B: Atom., Mol., Opt. Phys. 47, 145501 (2014)

2014
[59]

Input retrieval in finite dimensional linear sys- tems,

P. G. Howlett, “Input retrieval in finite dimensional linear sys- tems, ”J. Australian Math. Soc. Ser. B. App. Math. 23, 357 (1982)

1982
[60]

Quantum Fisher information with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary limit,

X.-Q. Zhou and A. Mizel, “Quantum Fisher information with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary limit, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 040503 (2018)

2018
[61]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, 2002)

2002
[63]

Laurent Series for the Inver- sion of Perturbed Linear Operators on Hilbert Space ,

P. Howlett and K. Avrachenkov, “Laurent Series for the Inver- sion of Perturbed Linear Operators on Hilbert Space ,” in Op- timization and Related Topics, edt. A. Rubinov and B. Glover (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2001) pp. 325–342

2001
[64]

K. E. Avrachenkov, J. A. Filar and P. G. Howlett, Analytic per- turbation theory and its applications (SIAM, 2013)

2013
[2005]

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503237

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplify- ing sensors,

M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. D. Stone and L. Jiang, “Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplify- ing sensors, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180501 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer, 1966)

T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer, 1966)

work page 1966

[3] [2]

(41) with coefficients given in Eq

Thus, in this case, the precision behaves as F non−HED θ = θ−2 [b′′ 0 + O(θ)] , (49) with b′′ 0 being b0 in Eq. (41) with coefficients given in Eq. (48). The form of precision in Eq. (49) leads to a linear scaling of the error δQθ = 1q F non−HED θ ∝ θ. (50) Consequently, while perturbing the system at the HED sin- gularity achieves a quadratic scaling of ...

work page 2019

[4] [3]

Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,

R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Mussli- mani, S. Rotter and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, ”Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [4]

Parity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics,

S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori and L. Yang, “Parity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics, ”Nat. Materials 18, 783 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [5]

The physics of exceptional points,

W. D. Heiss, “The physics of exceptional points, ” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 444016 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [6]

Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point,

M. Parto, Y . G. N. Liu, B. Bahari, M. Khajavikhan and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point, ”Nanophotonics 10, 403 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [7]

Quantum Liouvillian excep- tional and diabolical points for bosonic fields with quadratic Hamiltonians: The Heisenberg-Langevin equation approach,

J. J. Pe ˇrina Jr., A. Miranowicz, G. Chimczak and A. Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk, “Quantum Liouvillian excep- tional and diabolical points for bosonic fields with quadratic Hamiltonians: The Heisenberg-Langevin equation approach, ” Quantum 6, 883 (2022)

work page 2022