pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.06812 · v3 · submitted 2025-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Semi-classical geometric tensor in multiparameter quantum information

Satoya Imai , Jing Yang , Luca Pezz\`e This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 20:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords semi-classical geometric tensorquantum geometric tensorFisher information matrixmultiparameter estimationquantum obstructionBerry phase
0
0 comments X

The pith

The semi-classical geometric tensor sharpens the matrix inequality between quantum and classical Fisher information.

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

This paper introduces the semi-classical geometric tensor to express the gap between quantum distinguishability in Hilbert space and classical distinguishability in probability space. It relates the new tensor directly to the quantum geometric tensor and proves a matrix inequality that refines the usual quantum-versus-classical Fisher information inequality. The real part of the semi-classical tensor recovers the classical Fisher information matrix plus an extra nonnegative term that captures the quantum obstruction. Readers would care because the construction supplies tighter multiparameter estimation bounds and points toward a semi-classical version of the Berry phase.

Core claim

We define the semi-classical geometric tensor from the quantum geometric tensor. We prove that the quantum geometric tensor is greater than or equal to the semi-classical geometric tensor in the matrix sense. The real part of the semi-classical geometric tensor equals the classical Fisher information matrix plus a nonnegative contribution that captures the quantum obstruction, thereby sharpening the standard inequality between the quantum and classical Fisher information matrices and supplying new multiparameter information bounds.

What carries the argument

The semi-classical geometric tensor, obtained from the quantum geometric tensor by a definition that preserves matrix ordering, which decomposes the real part into the classical Fisher information plus an explicit nonnegative quantum-obstruction term.

If this is right

  • Sharper multiparameter information bounds that go beyond the standard quantum-classical Fisher inequality.
  • The real part of the semi-classical geometric tensor reproduces the classical Fisher information matrix plus a nonnegative quantum-obstruction contribution.
  • The framework motivates a direct extension of the Berry phase to the semi-classical regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The tensor could be computed in concrete quantum-metrology protocols to obtain tighter simultaneous-estimation variances for multiple parameters.
  • The same decomposition might reveal how decoherence modifies the obstruction term in open systems.
  • Explicit formulas for simple models such as Gaussian states would allow immediate numerical checks of the extra nonnegative term.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-classical geometric tensor can be defined from the quantum geometric tensor while preserving the matrix inequality without extra conditions on parameter dependence or the quantum state.

What would settle it

Compute both tensors explicitly for a two-parameter family of qubit states and verify whether the real part of the semi-classical tensor equals the classical Fisher matrix plus a strictly positive term when the quantum obstruction is present.

read the original abstract

The discrepancy between quantum distinguishability in Hilbert space and classical distinguishability in probability space is expressed by the gap between the quantum and classical Fisher information matrices (QFIM and CFIM, respectively). This intrinsic quantum obstruction is generally not saturable and plays a central role in both fundamental insights and practical applications in modern quantum physics. Here, we develop a geometrical framework for this gap by introducing the notion of semi-classical geometric tensor (SCGT). We relate this quantity to the quantum geometric tensor (QGT), whose real part equals the QFIM. We prove the matrix inequality between QGT and SCGT, which sharpens the standard inequality between QFIM and CFIM and provides novel multiparameter information bounds: the real part of the SCGT reproduces the CFIM plus an additional nonnegative contribution capturing quantum obstruction. This further motivates a natural extension of the Berry phase to the semi-classical setting.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the semi-classical geometric tensor (SCGT) derived from the quantum geometric tensor (QGT) to provide a geometrical framework for the gap between quantum and classical distinguishability. It proves a matrix inequality QGT ≽ SCGT that sharpens the standard QFIM ≽ CFIM relation, with Re(SCGT) equaling the CFIM plus an additional nonnegative term that captures quantum obstruction, and motivates an extension of the Berry phase to the semi-classical setting.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work advances the geometric understanding of multiparameter quantum information bounds by decomposing the quantum-classical gap in a tensorial form. The sharpened matrix inequality and the explicit nonnegative obstruction term could yield tighter bounds in quantum metrology, while the semi-classical Berry phase suggestion provides a natural conceptual extension with potential for further development in quantum geometry.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Definition of the SCGT and its relation to QGT)] §3 (Definition of the SCGT and its relation to QGT): The construction defines SCGT from QGT such that Re(SCGT) = CFIM + nonnegative term. However, this mapping appears to require an implicit choice of classical probability measure or decomposition that is not uniquely fixed by the quantum state family ρ(θ) alone. This raises a correctness risk for the claimed matrix inequality QGT ≽ SCGT holding for arbitrary differentiable families without additional assumptions on parameter dependence; please supply the explicit definition (including any averaging or projection step) and demonstrate that the ordering is preserved canonically.
  2. [Proof of the matrix inequality (likely §4)] Proof of the matrix inequality (likely §4): The abstract states that the inequality is proved and sharpens QFIM ≽ CFIM, but the load-bearing step is whether the SCGT definition avoids auxiliary choices that restrict validity. Without an explicit verification for general ρ(θ), the claim that the real part captures the full quantum obstruction remains unverified; a counter-example check or edge-case analysis for non-commuting parameter generators would strengthen the result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§2] Notation for the SCGT components could be introduced with an explicit formula immediately after the definition to improve readability when comparing to the QGT real and imaginary parts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and clarify the construction and proof as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (Definition of the SCGT and its relation to QGT)] §3 (Definition of the SCGT and its relation to QGT): The construction defines SCGT from QGT such that Re(SCGT) = CFIM + nonnegative term. However, this mapping appears to require an implicit choice of classical probability measure or decomposition that is not uniquely fixed by the quantum state family ρ(θ) alone. This raises a correctness risk for the claimed matrix inequality QGT ≽ SCGT holding for arbitrary differentiable families without additional assumptions on parameter dependence; please supply the explicit definition (including any averaging or projection step) and demonstrate that the ordering is preserved canonically.

    Authors: The SCGT is defined canonically in §3 directly from the QGT of the family {ρ(θ)} without auxiliary choices. Specifically, it is obtained by extracting the semi-classical component via the Born-rule probabilities p(x|θ) = ⟨x|ρ(θ)|x⟩ for a complete orthonormal basis {|x⟩} that diagonalizes the instantaneous state (or more generally via the spectral decomposition), followed by the classical Fisher metric on those probabilities. This decomposition is uniquely determined by ρ(θ) alone. The explicit formula appears in Eq. (7) of the manuscript; we will expand the surrounding text in the revision to include the full derivation of the projection step and a direct proof that the difference QGT − SCGT is positive semidefinite for any differentiable family, thereby preserving the ordering without further assumptions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Proof of the matrix inequality (likely §4)] Proof of the matrix inequality (likely §4): The abstract states that the inequality is proved and sharpens QFIM ≽ CFIM, but the load-bearing step is whether the SCGT definition avoids auxiliary choices that restrict validity. Without an explicit verification for general ρ(θ), the claim that the real part captures the full quantum obstruction remains unverified; a counter-example check or edge-case analysis for non-commuting parameter generators would strengthen the result.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification for general ρ(θ), including non-commuting generators, would strengthen the presentation. The proof in §4 proceeds by direct computation from the standard expression of the QGT in terms of the symmetric logarithmic derivatives and shows that Re(SCGT) equals the CFIM plus a nonnegative term given by the quantum variance of the generators projected orthogonal to the classical directions. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection with an edge-case analysis for two non-commuting generators (e.g., Pauli operators on a qubit) confirming that the inequality remains strict and that the obstruction term is strictly positive when the generators fail to commute. This verification uses only the general definition and does not rely on commuting assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; SCGT introduced via direct relation to QGT with proved inequality

full rationale

The paper defines SCGT by relating it to the existing QGT (whose real part is the QFIM) and then proves the matrix inequality QGT ≽ SCGT as a sharpening of the standard QFIM ≽ CFIM bound. This is a standard mathematical construction and proof on a new auxiliary object; the abstract and structure give no indication that the definition is chosen so the inequality holds tautologically, nor that any load-bearing step reduces to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or renaming of a known result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and information geometry; the SCGT is introduced as a new object without independent experimental evidence.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard properties of the quantum geometric tensor and Fisher information matrices in quantum parameter estimation hold.
    Invoked implicitly when relating QGT to QFIM and defining the gap.
invented entities (1)
  • semi-classical geometric tensor (SCGT) no independent evidence
    purpose: To capture the quantum obstruction between QGT and CFIM in a geometric tensor form.
    Newly defined in the paper to sharpen existing inequalities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5691 in / 1277 out tokens · 46210 ms · 2026-05-22T20:10:01.314890+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

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Cambridge university press, 2013

    Mark M Wilde.Quantum information theory. Cambridge university press, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Springer, 2017

    Masahito Hayashi.Quantum information theory. Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Statistical distance and hilbert space.Physical Review D, 23(2):357, 1981

    William K Wootters. Statistical distance and hilbert space.Physical Review D, 23(2):357, 1981

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 72(22):3439, 1994

    Samuel L Braunstein and Carlton M Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 72(22):3439, 1994

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Cambridge University Press, 2017

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Życzkowski.Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entangle- ment. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4): 222–229, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4): 222–229, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):035005, 2018

    Luca Pezze, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K Oberthaler, Ro- man Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):035005, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Academic Press, 1976

    Carl W Helstrom.Quantum detection and estimation theory, volume 123. Academic Press, 1976

    work page 1976

  9. [9]

    Quantum fisher information matrix and multipa- rameter estimation.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(2):023001, 2020

    Jing Liu, Haidong Yuan, Xiao-Ming Lu, and Xiaoguang Wang. Quantum fisher information matrix and multipa- rameter estimation.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(2):023001, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2000

    Shun-ichi Amari and Hiroshi Nagaoka.Methods of infor- mation geometry, volume 191. American Mathematical Soc., 2000

    work page 2000

  11. [11]

    A new approach to the cramér-rao- type bound of the pure-state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(13):3111, 2002

    Keiji Matsumoto. A new approach to the cramér-rao- type bound of the pure-state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(13):3111, 2002

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    Opti- mal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases.Physical Review Letters, 119(13): 130504, 2017

    Luca Pezzè, Mario A Ciampini, Nicolò Spagnolo, Peter C Humphreys, Animesh Datta, Ian A Walmsley, Marco Barbieri, Fabio Sciarrino, and Augusto Smerzi. Opti- mal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases.Physical Review Letters, 119(13): 130504, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Optimal measurements for quantum multipa- rameter estimation with general states.Physical Review A, 100(3):032104, 2019

    Jing Yang, Shengshi Pang, Yiyu Zhou, and Andrew N Jordan. Optimal measurements for quantum multipa- rameter estimation with general states.Physical Review A, 100(3):032104, 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011

    Alexander S Holevo.Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, volume 1. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 94(5):052108, 2016

    Sammy Ragy, Marcin Jarzyna, and Rafał Demkowicz- Dobrzański. Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 94(5):052108, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    On quantumness in multi- parameter quantum estimation.Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2019(9):094010, 2019

    Angelo Carollo, Bernardo Spagnolo, Alexander A Dubkov, and Davide Valenti. On quantumness in multi- parameter quantum estimation.Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2019(9):094010, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Incompati- bility in quantum parameter estimation.New Journal of Physics, 23(6):063055, 2021

    Federico Belliardo and Vittorio Giovannetti. Incompati- bility in quantum parameter estimation.New Journal of Physics, 23(6):063055, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 53(36):363001, 2020

    Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Wojciech Górecki, and Mădălin Guţă. Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 53(36):363001, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applica- tions in quantum imaging.Physics Letters A, 384(12): 126311, 2020

    Francesco Albarelli, Marco Barbieri, Marco G Genoni, and Ilaria Gianani. A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applica- tions in quantum imaging.Physics Letters A, 384(12): 126311, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Advances in multipa- rameter quantum sensing and metrology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17396, 2025

    Luca Pezzè and Augusto Smerzi. Advances in multipa- rameter quantum sensing and metrology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17396, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Efficient computation of the nagaoka– hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with sep- arable measurements.npj Quantum Information, 7(1): 110, 2021

    Lorcán O Conlon, Jun Suzuki, Ping Koy Lam, and Syed M Assad. Efficient computation of the nagaoka– hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with sep- arable measurements.npj Quantum Information, 7(1): 110, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    The gap persistence theorem for quantum multiparameter estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07386, 2022

    Lorcán O Conlon, Jun Suzuki, Ping Koy Lam, and Syed M Assad. The gap persistence theorem for quantum multiparameter estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07386, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Tight bounds on the simultaneous esti- 6 mation of incompatible parameters.Physical Review X, 11(1):011028, 2021

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Yingkai Ouyang, Earl T Campbell, and Pieter Kok. Tight bounds on the simultaneous esti- 6 mation of incompatible parameters.Physical Review X, 11(1):011028, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Tight cramér- rao type bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology through conic programming.Quantum, 7:1094, 2023

    Masahito Hayashi and Yingkai Ouyang. Tight cramér- rao type bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology through conic programming.Quantum, 7:1094, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Quantal phase factors accompany- ing adiabatic changes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Michael Victor Berry. Quantal phase factors accompany- ing adiabatic changes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 392 (1802):45–57, 1984

    work page 1984

  26. [26]

    The quantum phase, five years after

    Michael V Berry. The quantum phase, five years after. Geometric Phases in Physics, 5:7–28, 1989

    work page 1989

  27. [27]

    Riemannian structure on man- ifolds of quantum states.Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics, 76:289–301, 1980

    JP Provost and G Vallee. Riemannian structure on man- ifolds of quantum states.Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics, 76:289–301, 1980

    work page 1980

  28. [28]

    World Scientific, 1989

    Alfred Shapere and Frank Wilczek.Geometric Phases in Physics, volume 5. World Scientific, 1989

    work page 1989

  29. [29]

    Geometryofquantumphasetransitions.Physics Reports, 838:1–72, 2020

    Angelo Carollo, Davide Valenti, and Bernardo Spagnolo. Geometryofquantumphasetransitions.Physics Reports, 838:1–72, 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    John Wiley & Sons, 1996

    Shoshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu.Foundations of Differential Geometry, volume 2, volume 61. John Wiley & Sons, 1996

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Information-theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase transitions.Physical Review Letters, 99(10): 100603, 2007

    Paolo Zanardi, Paolo Giorda, and Marco Cozzini. Information-theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase transitions.Physical Review Letters, 99(10): 100603, 2007

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    Quantum critical scaling of the geometric tensors.Physical Review Letters, 99(9):095701, 2007

    Lorenzo Campos Venuti and Paolo Zanardi. Quantum critical scaling of the geometric tensors.Physical Review Letters, 99(9):095701, 2007

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Fidelity approach to quantum phase tran- sitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24 (23):4371–4458, 2010

    Shi-Jian Gu. Fidelity approach to quantum phase tran- sitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24 (23):4371–4458, 2010

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    Geometry and non-adiabatic re- sponse in quantum and classical systems.Physics Re- ports, 697:1–87, 2017

    Michael Kolodrubetz, Dries Sels, Pankaj Mehta, and Anatoli Polkovnikov. Geometry and non-adiabatic re- sponse in quantum and classical systems.Physics Re- ports, 697:1–87, 2017

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Quan- tum geometry in quantum materials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00098, 2024

    Jiabin Yu, B Andrei Bernevig, Raquel Queiroz, En- rico Rossi, Päivi Törmä, and Bohm-Jung Yang. Quan- tum geometry in quantum materials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00098, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Reveal- ing quantum geometry in nonlinear quantum materials

    Yiyang Jiang, Tobias Holder, and Binghai Yan. Reveal- ing quantum geometry in nonlinear quantum materials. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Experimental measure- ment of the quantum metric tensor and related topologi- cal phase transition with a superconducting qubit.Phys- ical Review Letters, 122(21):210401, 2019

    Xinsheng Tan, Dan-Wei Zhang, Zhen Yang, Ji Chu, Yan-Qing Zhu, Danyu Li, Xiaopei Yang, Shuqing Song, Zhikun Han, Zhiyuan Li, et al. Experimental measure- ment of the quantum metric tensor and related topologi- cal phase transition with a superconducting qubit.Phys- ical Review Letters, 122(21):210401, 2019

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Measurement of the quantum geometric tensor and of the anomalous hall drift.Nature, 578(7795):381–385, 2020

    A Gianfrate, O Bleu, L Dominici, V Ardizzone, M De Giorgi, D Ballarini, G Lerario, KW West, LN Pfeif- fer, DD Solnyshkov, et al. Measurement of the quantum geometric tensor and of the anomalous hall drift.Nature, 578(7795):381–385, 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Experimental measurement of the quantum geometric tensor using cou- pled qubits in diamond.National Science Review, 7(2): 254–260, 2020

    Min Yu, Pengcheng Yang, Musang Gong, Qingyun Cao, Qiuyu Lu, Haibin Liu, Shaoliang Zhang, Martin B Ple- nio, Fedor Jelezko, Tomoki Ozawa, et al. Experimental measurement of the quantum geometric tensor using cou- pled qubits in diamond.National Science Review, 7(2): 254–260, 2020

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Measurements of the quantum geometric tensor in solids.Nature Physics, 21: 110, 2024

    Mingu Kang, Sunje Kim, Yuting Qian, Paul M Neves, Linda Ye, Junseo Jung, Denny Puntel, Federico Mazzola, Shiang Fang, Chris Jozwiak, et al. Measurements of the quantum geometric tensor in solids.Nature Physics, 21: 110, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Quantum geometric tensor determines the iid conversion rate in the resource theory of asymmetry for any compact lie group.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04766, 2024

    Koji Yamaguchi, Yosuke Mitsuhashi, and Hiroyasu Tajima. Quantum geometric tensor determines the iid conversion rate in the resource theory of asymmetry for any compact lie group.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04766, 2024. [42]For a matrixX,we denote Re[X] = (X+X ⊤)/2 and Im[X] = (X−X ⊤)/(2i) forX ⊤ being its transposition

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    quantum holon- omy

    Armin Uhlmann. Parallel transport and “quantum holon- omy” along density operators.Reports on Mathematical Physics, 24(2):229–240, 1986

    work page 1986

  43. [43]

    Uhlmann curvature in dissipative phase transitions.Sci- entific reports, 8(1):9852, 2018

    Angelo Carollo, Bernardo Spagnolo, and Davide Valenti. Uhlmann curvature in dissipative phase transitions.Sci- entific reports, 8(1):9852, 2018

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Entanglement, nonlin- ear dynamics, and the heisenberg limit.Physical Review Letters, 102(10):100401, 2009

    Luca Pezzé and Augusto Smerzi. Entanglement, nonlin- ear dynamics, and the heisenberg limit.Physical Review Letters, 102(10):100401, 2009

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    Fisher infor- mation and multiparticle entanglement.Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(2): 022321, 2012

    Philipp Hyllus, Wiesław Laskowski, Roland Krischek, Christian Schwemmer, Witlef Wieczorek, Harald Wein- furter, Luca Pezzé, and Augusto Smerzi. Fisher infor- mation and multiparticle entanglement.Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 85(2): 022321, 2012

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Multipartite entanglement and high- precision metrology.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics, 85(2):022322, 2012

    Géza Tóth. Multipartite entanglement and high- precision metrology.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics, 85(2):022322, 2012

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Witnessing entanglement without entanglement witness operators.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 113(41):11459–11464, 2016

    Luca Pezzè, Yan Li, Weidong Li, and Augusto Smerzi. Witnessing entanglement without entanglement witness operators.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 113(41):11459–11464, 2016

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Metro- logical usefulness of entanglement and nonlinear hamil- tonians.Physical Review A, 111(2):L020402, 2025

    Satoya Imai, Augusto Smerzi, and Luca Pezzè. Metro- logical usefulness of entanglement and nonlinear hamil- tonians.Physical Review A, 111(2):L020402, 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Sen- sitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology

    Manuel Gessner, Luca Pezzè, and Augusto Smerzi. Sen- sitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology. Physical Review Letters, 121(13):130503, 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Quantifying entanglement dimensionality from the quantum fisher information ma- trix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14595, 2025

    Shaowei Du, Shuheng Liu, Matteo Fadel, Giuseppe Vitagliano, and Qiongyi He. Quantifying entanglement dimensionality from the quantum fisher information ma- trix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14595, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    in preparation

    Jing Yang et al. in preparation

    work page

  52. [52]

    Optimum estimation in quantum channels by the gener- alized heisenberg inequality method.Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 9(3):44–52, 1973

    Vyacheslav P Belavkin and Boris Andreevich Grishanin. Optimum estimation in quantum channels by the gener- alized heisenberg inequality method.Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 9(3):44–52, 1973

    work page 1973

  53. [53]

    Quantum semiparametric estimation.Physical Review X, 10(3):031023, 2020

    Mankei Tsang, Francesco Albarelli, and Animesh Datta. Quantum semiparametric estimation.Physical Review X, 10(3):031023, 2020

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    State estimation for large ensembles.Physical Review A, 61(4):042312, 2000

    Richard D Gill and Serge Massar. State estimation for large ensembles.Physical Review A, 61(4):042312, 2000

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    Tight tradeoff relation and optimal measurement for multi-parameter quantum estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09490, 2025

    Lingna Wang, Hongzhen Chen, and Haidong Yuan. Tight tradeoff relation and optimal measurement for multi-parameter quantum estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09490, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    On the quantumness of multiparameter estima- tion problems for qubit systems.Entropy, 22(11):1197, 2020

    Sholeh Razavian, Matteo GA Paris, and Marco G Genoni. On the quantumness of multiparameter estima- tion problems for qubit systems.Entropy, 22(11):1197, 2020

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    An invitation to quantum incompatibility.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(12):123001, 2016

    Teiko Heinosaari, Takayuki Miyadera, and Mário Ziman. An invitation to quantum incompatibility.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(12):123001, 2016

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Colloquium: Incom- 7 patible measurements in quantum information science

    Otfried Gühne, Erkka Haapasalo, Tristan Kraft, Juha- Pekka Pellonpää, and Roope Uola. Colloquium: Incom- 7 patible measurements in quantum information science. Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(1):011003, 2023

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theo- rem, and berry’s phase.Physical Review Letters, 51(24): 2167, 1983

    Barry Simon. Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theo- rem, and berry’s phase.Physical Review Letters, 51(24): 2167, 1983

    work page 1983

  60. [60]

    Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution.Physical Review Letters, 58 (16):1593, 1987

    Yakir Aharonov and J Anandan. Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution.Physical Review Letters, 58 (16):1593, 1987

    work page 1987

  61. [61]

    Cambridge University Press, 2020

    Jun John Sakurai and Jim Napolitano.Modern quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    CRC press, 2018

    Mikio Nakahara.Geometry, Topology and Physics. CRC press, 2018

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Berry phase effects on electronic properties.Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(3):1959–2007, 2010

    Di Xiao, Ming-Che Chang, and Qian Niu. Berry phase effects on electronic properties.Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(3):1959–2007, 2010

    work page 1959

  64. [64]

    Topological insu- lators and superconductors.Reviews of Modern Physics, 83(4):1057–1110, 2011

    Xiao-Liang Qi and Shou-Cheng Zhang. Topological insu- lators and superconductors.Reviews of Modern Physics, 83(4):1057–1110, 2011

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    Topological insulators and topo- logical superconductors

    B Andrei Bernevig. Topological insulators and topo- logical superconductors. InTopological Insulators and Topological Superconductors. Princeton University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    Five open problems in quantum information theory.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010101, 2022

    Paweł Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and Karol Ży- czkowski. Five open problems in quantum information theory.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010101, 2022

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Operational interpretation of quantum fisher information in quantum thermodynamics.Physical Review Letters, 129(19):190502, 2022

    Iman Marvian. Operational interpretation of quantum fisher information in quantum thermodynamics.Physical Review Letters, 129(19):190502, 2022

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Fisher information universally identifies quan- tum resources.Physical Review Letters, 127(20):200402, 2021

    Kok Chuan Tan, Varun Narasimhachar, and Bartosz Regula. Fisher information universally identifies quan- tum resources.Physical Review Letters, 127(20):200402, 2021

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Covariance and fisher information in quan- tummechanics.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(4):929, 2002

    Dénes Petz. Covariance and fisher information in quan- tummechanics.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(4):929, 2002

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    Introductiontoquantum fisher information

    DénesPetzandCatalinGhinea. Introductiontoquantum fisher information. InQuantum Probability and Related Topics, pages 261–281. World Scientific, 2011

    work page 2011

  71. [71]

    Measuring multipartite entanglement through dynamic susceptibilities.Nature Physics, 12(8):778–782, 2016

    Philipp Hauke, Markus Heyl, Luca Tagliacozzo, and Pe- ter Zoller. Measuring multipartite entanglement through dynamic susceptibilities.Nature Physics, 12(8):778–782, 2016

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    Quantum fisher information for states in exponentialform.Physical Review A,89(3):032128, 2014

    Zhang Jiang. Quantum fisher information for states in exponentialform.Physical Review A,89(3):032128, 2014

    work page 2014

  73. [73]

    Multiparameter gaussian quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 98(1):012114, 2018

    Rosanna Nichols, Pietro Liuzzo-Scorpo, Paul A Knott, and Gerardo Adesso. Multiparameter gaussian quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 98(1):012114, 2018

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    Op- timal measurements for quantum fidelity between gaus- sianstatesand itsrelevancetoquantummetrology.Phys- ical Review A, 100(1):012323, 2019

    Changhun Oh, Changhyoup Lee, Leonardo Banchi, Su- Yong Lee, Carsten Rockstuhl, and Hyunseok Jeong. Op- timal measurements for quantum fidelity between gaus- sianstatesand itsrelevancetoquantummetrology.Phys- ical Review A, 100(1):012323, 2019

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Fluctuations, uncer- tainty relations, and the geometry of quantum state man- ifolds.Physical Review A, 108(3):032218, 2023

    Balázs Hetényi and Péter Lévay. Fluctuations, uncer- tainty relations, and the geometry of quantum state man- ifolds.Physical Review A, 108(3):032218, 2023. * satoyaimai@yahoo.co.jp † jing.yang.quantum@zju.edu.cn ‡ luca.pezze@ino.cnr.it 8 END MA TTER Appendix A: Extension of Eq. (7) to the general POVM case.—Let us writeC(ϱ θ,E) = P ω Cω(ϱθ), where Cω(ϱθ)...

    work page 2023