Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 101 references

Probing the Limits of Dispersive Quantum Thermometry with a Nonlinear Mach-Zehnder-Based Quantum Simulator

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exact calculation shows that dispersive atom-field thermometry with N00N states is limited to standard quantum limit precision, contradicting earlier Heisenberg-scaling claims.

desk verdict A sound exact calculation that kills Heisenberg scaling for the bright-port reduced state, but the abstract's 'joint atom-field' claim is broader than what is proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04246 v1 pith:5LDA2PTK submitted 2025-07-06 quant-ph

Daniel Y. Akamatsu , Lucas Ferreira R. de Moura , Gabriella G. Damas , Gentil D. de Moraes Neto , Victor Montenegro , Norton G. de Almeida This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumthermometryFisherinformationdispersiveatom-fieldinteractionN00NstatesstandardlimitHeisenbergMach-Zehnderinterferometerdigitalsimulation
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 tries to settle what precision is actually achievable when the temperature of a small sample is read out through a dispersive atom-light interaction. The authors claim that, for $M$ identical two-level atoms in a Gibbs state probed by a single field mode prepared in a N00N state, the exact quantum Fisher information is bounded at the standard quantum limit: the precision scales at best linearly with $M$, and the photon number $N$ only rescales the interaction time through $N_\mathrm{eff} = \varepsilon N\chi t/2$. This directly contradicts an earlier claim of Heisenberg ($N^2$) scaling for the same setup, which the authors trace to an illegitimate replacement of the operator phase $\langle e^{iN\chi t \hat{M}_\mathrm{qubits}}\rangle$ by $e^{iN\chi t \langle \hat{M}_\mathrm{qubits}\rangle}$. If the paper is right, entangled field states such as N00N states are not a useful resource for this kind of thermometry, and the practical path to better precision is more atoms, not more photons in the probe. The authors also implement the scheme as a digital quantum simulation and report agreement with the standard quantum limit for $N = 1, 2, 3$, including for atomic ensembles at effective negative temperatures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact probability $p_0(T) = \langle \cos^2(N\chi t\,\hat M_\mathrm{qubits}/2)\rangle$ for the bright port, evaluated over the thermal mixture. Writing the cosine in complex exponentials and using the binomial expansion turns $p_0$ into the real part of a power of $1 + e^{-\varepsilon/T + 2iN_\mathrm{eff}}$, which De Moivre's formula converts into $p_0 = \frac{1}{2}(1 + \alpha^M\cos(M\theta))$ with $\alpha \le 1$ and an $M$-independent angle $\theta$. The two-outcome form of $\rho_a$ then gives the Fisher information in closed form via $Q(T) = p_0'(T)^2/[p_0(T)(1-p_0(T))]$. The factor $\alpha^{2M}$, the modulus of the thermal characteristic function raised to the $M$-th power, is what suppresses superlinear scaling, and the identity $\langle e^{iN\chi t \hat M_\mathrm{qubits}}\rangle \ne e^{iN\chi t \langle \hat M_\mathrm{qubits}\rangle}$ is what separates this calculation from the earlier Heisenberg-scaling one.

What would settle it

A concrete decisive check is to compute the exact quantum Fisher information of the full joint state after the dispersive interaction — field modes of both interferometer ports together with the $M$-atom thermal register — without tracing anything out. If in any regime (for example, near the best working point $N_\mathrm{eff} \approx \pi/2$ at low temperature) that joint QFI grows faster than linearly in $N$ or $M$, the paper's general claim that the joint evolution is standard-quantum-limited is false; if it remains linear, the single-port result is confirmed and extended. A simpler comparison experiment is to measure photon statistics at the dark port and correlations with the atomic register and check whether the total classical Fisher information exceeds the bright-port QFI of Eq. (20).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a closed-form expression for the quantum Fisher information of the temperature, computed without any approximation of the dynamics. For the dispersive Hamiltonian $H = \varepsilon\chi\,\hat a^\dagger \hat a \sum_{k=1}^M \hat\sigma_+^{(k)}\hat\sigma_-^{(k)}$ and a N00N input $|\mathrm{N00N}\rangle = (|N,0\rangle + |0,N\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the reduced state of the probed mode is $\rho_a(t) = p_0(T)|0\rangle\langle 0| + p_N(T)|N\rangle\langle N|$, and the resulting QFI is $Q(T) = M^2\alpha^{2M} g^2 \cos^2(M\theta+\Phi)\,/\,[1-\alpha^{2M}\cos^2(M\theta)]$, where $0 < \alpha \le 1$ depends on temperature and on $N_\mathrm{eff} = \varepsilon N\chi t/2$. Because $\alpha^{2M}$ decays exponentially with $M$ except at isolated points where the QFI vanishes, the leading term in $M$ is linear, and the apparent $M^2$ term can never dominate; similarly, $N$ enters only inside $N_\mathrm{eff}$, so it merely adjusts the interaction time. The paper's diagnosis of the earlier Heisenberg claim is the strict inequality $\langle e^{iN\chi t \hat{M}_\mathrm{qubits}}\rangle \ne e^{iN\chi t\langle \hat{M}_\mathrm{qubits}\rangle}$: replacing the first (exact) quantity by the second converts a decaying characteristic function of the thermal excitation distribution into a sharp phase, which is what produced the spurious $N^2$ scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the thermometer is exactly this system — $M$ non-interacting identical two-level atoms in a Gibbs state at temperature $T$, coupled only through the dispersive Hamiltonian $H = \varepsilon\chi\,\hat a^\dagger \hat a \sum_k \hat\sigma_+^{(k)}\hat\sigma_-^{(k)}$ with no losses — and that the bound is demonstrated for the reduced state of the single probed field mode, leaving open whether joint measurements on the second interferometer port and on the atoms could extract more information.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, N00N states and higher photon numbers offer no thermometric advantage in this setting: precision scales at best linearly with the number of atoms $M$, and the photon number $N$ merely rescales the interaction time through $N_\mathrm{eff} = \varepsilon N\chi t/2$.
  • The earlier Heisenberg-limit prediction for this setup cannot be reached, because it relied on replacing the exact operator phase $\langle e^{iN\chi t\hat M_\mathrm{qubits}}\rangle$ with $e^{iN\chi t\langle\hat M_\mathrm{qubits}\rangle}$; any experimental scheme built on that approximation will cap at the standard quantum limit.
  • Because increasing $N$ is equivalent to tuning $t$ or $\chi$, single-photon probes ($N=1$) already reach the optimal precision at the correct interaction time, which the authors demonstrate on hardware data.
  • The digital implementation also works for effective negative temperatures, where the optimal $N_\mathrm{eff}$ stays nearly constant over a wide temperature range, so one experimental setting can serve many inverted-population temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-Heisenberg conclusion is proven for the reduced bright-port state; the paper's framing that it covers the entire joint atom-field system is an extrapolation beyond the shown derivation, and computing the QFI of the full joint state (both interferometer modes plus the atomic register) is the most direct open test of that stronger statement.
  • The suppression mechanism is general: $p_0$ is the characteristic function of the thermal excitation-number distribution, so any probe whose coupling operator has a discrete spectrum and sits in a classical mixture will exhibit the same $\alpha^{2M}$ decay; coherent, squeezed, or otherwise non-classical atomic preparations would evade this mechanism and are the natural place to look for genuine He
  • The same characteristic-function technique applies to estimating any parameter encoded through an operator with discrete spectrum — for instance the coupling strength $\chi$, the energy splitting $\varepsilon$, or a detuning — not just temperature; each would inherit the same standard-quantum-limit structure.
  • The hardware results suggest that depolarizing noise pulls the observed Fisher information below the theoretical curve; an error-mitigated version of the same circuit would test whether the standard quantum limit can be approached more closely on current devices.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes dispersive thermometry of M identical non-interacting two-level atoms prepared in a Gibbs state at temperature T, probed by the field mode of a nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer initially in a N00N state. The authors derive a closed-form expression for the quantum Fisher information (QFI), Eq. (20), of the reduced single-mode state at the bright port after tracing out the second field mode and all qubits. They show that the field-excitation number N enters only through the effective parameter Neff = ε N χ t / 2, so increasing N cannot produce Heisenberg scaling; they contrast this with the phase-averaging assumption of Ref. [67]. They then implement the scheme with Qiskit circuits and IBM_brisbane hardware for N = 1, 2, 3 and for positive and effective negative temperatures, finding that the simulated QFI is consistent with Eq. (20) and with the standard quantum limit.

Significance. If correct, the central result is a useful correction to the thermometry literature: it provides an exact, closed-form counterexample to the Heisenberg-limit claim of Ref. [67] for this specific dispersive N00N thermometry setup. The algebraic derivation of Eq. (20) is explicit and self-contained, and the binomial and de Moivre steps appear sound. The proposed digital simulation is a practical way to benchmark the theoretical prediction, and the inclusion of effective negative temperatures adds breadth. However, the paper's framing overstates what is proven: the exact no-Heisenberg conclusion is established only for the single bright-port reduced state, not for the joint atom-field state or the two-mode field state, and the M-scaling claim made around Eqs. (20)-(28) is not a general linear bound. These gaps are fixable, and a short additional calculation would close the main one.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. I; Sec. III, Eqs. (11) and (20)] The paper claims to analyze the QFI 'for the entire system and when measurements are restricted to the light degree of freedom only' (Sec. I) and to show that the 'joint atom-field evolution' achieves at best the standard quantum limit. The derivation, however, computes the QFI only of the reduced state ρ_a(t) = Tr_a[U ρ_0 U^†] defined in Eq. (11), after tracing out mode b and all M qubits. Since the QFI is monotone under partial trace, Q(ρ_full) ≥ Q(ρ_a), so the no-Heisenberg bound for the single-port state cannot bound the precision of arbitrary joint measurements on the full state. The conclusion is therefore not established for the joint state as written. This gap can be closed: conditioned on a fixed qubit basis string with q excitations, the field state is independent of T (the phase e^{-i ε N χ t q} depends only on the fixed q), so the full joint state is a classical-quantum state whose QFI reduces to the classical Fisher information of the thermal distribution, Eq. (9), which is linear in M and independent of N. Adding this calculation, or restricting the abstract and Sec. I claims to the single-port scheme, is necessary.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (20) and (28)] The statement that the QFI 'scales, at best, linearly' with M is not supported by Eq. (28). That expansion contains a positive M² term, and for fixed α < 1 the factor M² α^{2M} in Eq. (20) is non-monotonic: it grows initially and then decays to zero as M → ∞. The correct statement from Eq. (20) is that Q → 0 for large M and that the maximum over M is achieved at finite M; it is not a linear upper bound. This affects the wording in Sec. III.A and in the caption of Fig. 7, where 'standard quantum limit' scaling is asserted without a precise asymptotic bound.
  3. [Secs. IV and VI] The hardware experimental data in Fig. 6 are for N = 1, M = 1 only; the higher-N and higher-M points in Fig. 7 come from digital simulation with Qiskit, not from the hardware experiment. The conclusion in Sec. VI that the standard quantum limit is 'indeed achieved in the single-photon excitation subspace' is therefore not demonstrated by a scaling curve, since a single (N, M) point cannot distinguish the SQL from any other scaling. I suggest softening the experimental claims or presenting a genuine hardware scaling scan.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] The phrase 'without any assumptions or approximations' overstates the result: the derivation is exact only within the stated model (Gibbs-state sample, dispersive Hamiltonian of Eq. (10), no losses, no qubit-qubit interactions). Consider replacing it with 'exact within the model considered here'.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (28)] The coefficients c1(T) and c2(T) in Eq. (28) also depend on Neff through α and θ, so the notation c_i(T) is misleading; the coefficients should be written as c_i(T, Neff).
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A20)] The binomial probability displayed after Eq. (A20) appears to be mistyped: it should be p(q) = p_1^q (1 - p_1)^{M-q}, not p_1^q (1 - p_1)^q.
  4. [Sec. V] There is a typo in the final paragraph of Sec. V: 'N00N sates' should be 'N00N states'.
  5. [Sec. III.A and Fig. 7] Consider stating explicitly that the QFI maximized over Neff is independent of N up to periodicity, because N and t are redundant in Neff. This would prevent the reader from interpreting the overlapping curves in Fig. 7 as a numerical accident rather than a structural consequence of Eq. (20).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central QFI result is derived from declared model assumptions with no fitted inputs; the only fitted parameter calibrates hardware noise.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The theorem (Eq. 20) is obtained by inserting the declared model—Gibbs sample (Eq. 7), dispersive Hamiltonian (Eq. 10), N00N input (Eq. 13)—into the standard QFI expression (Eq. 19), with the auxiliary parameters alpha, theta, g, and Phi defined in Eqs. (22)-(27) and evaluated in Appendix B. No fitted constant appears in this chain. Ref. [67] is used as a comparison target, not as an input: Eq. (29) explicitly identifies the exact phase-operator expectation <exp(iN chi t M_qubits)> as different from exp(iN chi t <M_qubits>), and the claimed absence of Heisenberg scaling follows from the resulting algebra, not from assuming it. The self-citations ([74,75,82]) concern negative-temperature background and are not load-bearing for the scaling result. The experimental depolarizing parameter p_gamma = 0.95 (Eq. 50) is calibrated to the hardware data and does not feed back into Eq. (20). The paper's overreach—the abstract says 'joint atom-field evolution' while Eq. (11) explicitly evaluates only the reduced single-mode state rho_a(t), so the QFI of the full joint state is not computed—is a scope/correctness gap, not a circular reduction: Q(rho_a) is derived from the model without assuming its own conclusion, and monotonicity of QFI would only make the full-state QFI larger, not force the single-port result. Hence no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation costs: a product Gibbs-state assumption for the atoms, an ideal dispersive coupling with no qubit-qubit or loss terms, an ideal N00N-state preparation and recombination, and a bright-port-only measurement. No new entities are introduced. The only fitted number is the depolarizing probability used to model the hardware run.

free parameters (1)
  • p_gamma (depolarizing probability) = 0.95
    Fit to match experimental QFI in Fig. 6; not used in the central no-Heisenberg derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thermal qubit sample is an uncorrelated product of Gibbs states for M identical two-level systems.
    Eqs. (7)-(8); this product structure is what allows p0 to be written as a binomial average over Hamming weights q.
  • domain assumption Dispersive coupling Hamiltonian H = epsilon chi a-dagger a M_qubits with no qubit-qubit interaction and no losses.
    Eq. (10); the whole exact-evolution calculation and the conclusion that N appears only through Neff depend on this form.
  • domain assumption A perfect nonlinear beam splitter prepares an ideal N00N state and a second beam splitter recombines modes without loss.
    Eqs. (13)-(14) and Fig. 1; the QFI formula assumes this ideal interferometer and ignores insertion losses.
  • domain assumption Only the bright-port mode a is detected; mode b is traced out before QFI evaluation.
    Eq. (11) and the measurement description in Fig. 1; this restricts the demonstrated claim to the single-port scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Limits of Dispersive Quantum Thermometry with a Nonlinear Mach-Zehnder-Based Quantum Simulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LDA2PTK

@misc{pith2026250704246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Limits of Dispersive Quantum Thermometry with a Nonlinear Mach-Zehnder-Based Quantum Simulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LDA2PTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04246}
}
read the original abstract

Temperature estimation, known as thermometry, is a critical sensing task for physical systems operating in the quantum regime. Indeed, thermal fluctuations can significantly degrade quantum coherence. Therefore, accurately determining the system's operating temperature is a crucial first step toward distinguishing thermal noise from other sources of decoherence. In this work, we estimate the unknown temperature of a collection of identical and independent two-level atoms dispersively probed by a single-mode quantized electromagnetic field. In contrast to previous works, we present an analytical sensing analysis demonstrating that the joint atom-field evolution -- without any assumptions or approximations -- can achieve, at best, the standard quantum limit of precision concerning the number of field excitations. To investigate our analysis further, we propose and implement a quantum thermometer based on a nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which we realize through quantum digital simulation. Our simulation is highly flexible regarding atomic state preparation, allowing the initialization of atomic ensembles with positive and effective negative temperatures. This makes our platform a promising and versatile testbed for benchmarking thermometric capabilities in current quantum simulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04246 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the Mach-Zehnder (MZ) thermometry scheme: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) QFI maximized over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. QFI as functions of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Circuit scheme for parameter estimation. Registers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Digitally simulated QFI as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Quantum Fisher information (QFI) as a function of tempera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Maximum QFI as a function of number of two-level atoms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. QFI as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. QFI as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  2. [1]

    (A3) Therefore, after the first BS the state is ˆ ρNOON⊗ ˆρT , with ˆρNOON =|NOON⟩⟨NOON| and |NOON⟩ = 1√ 2 (|N, 0⟩ab +|0, N⟩ab)

    Nonlinear Beam Splitter Evolution Now we assume that the nonlinear BS produces the follow- ing evolution |N, 0⟩→ 1√ 2 (|N, 0⟩ +|0, N⟩),|0, N⟩→ 1√ 2 (|0, N⟩−| N, 0⟩). (A3) Therefore, after the first BS the state is ˆ ρNOON⊗ ˆρT , with ˆρNOON =|NOON⟩⟨NOON| and |NOON⟩ = 1√ 2 (|N, 0⟩ab +|0, N⟩ab). (A4) The interaction Hamiltonian is (ℏ = 1): ˆH =εχˆa† ˆa MX k...

  3. [2]

    In contrast, as T/ε→ 0−, the population inverts and pe→ 1, while for T/ε→−∞ , pe = 1 2 again

    As the temperature decreases toward zero from above T/ε→ 0+, pe → 0, meaning full ground-state occupation. In contrast, as T/ε→ 0−, the population inverts and pe→ 1, while for T/ε→−∞ , pe = 1 2 again. Therefore, the Fermi-Dirac distri- bution ensures that pe < 1 2 for T/ε >0, pe > 1 2 for T/ε→ 0, and pe = 1 2 in the limit T/ε→±∞ . E ffective negative tem-...

  4. [3]

    As shown in Fig

    (50) The expression above represents a statistical mixture, where the quantum state ρ is prepared with probability 0 ≤ pγ≤ 1 and mixed with the identity with probability 1− pγ. As shown in Fig. 6, we find that introducing a modest depolarizing prob- ability of pγ = 0.95 is sufficient to reduce the theoretical QFI to a level that closely matches the experi...

  5. [4]

    State After the Second BS After the second BS and grouping the similar terms, we find: ˆρabT (t) = 1 4 " 2 + eiεNχt ˆMqubits + e−iεNχt ˆMqubits |0, N⟩ab⟨0, N|+ (eiεNχt ˆMqubits− e−iεNχt ˆMqubits)|0, N⟩ab⟨N, 0| + (e−iεNχt ˆMqubits− eiεNχt ˆMqubits)|N, 0⟩ab⟨0, N| + 2− eiεNχt ˆMqubits− e−iεNχt ˆMqubits |N, 0⟩ab⟨N, 0| # ⊗ρT. (A13) Using the Euler formula and ...

  6. [5]

    (B9) Note that, as defined,θ =θ(T, Neff) is independent of the num- ber of two-level atoms M

    (B7) Now, using De Moivre’s formula zM = |z|M(cos(Mθ) + i sin(Mθ)): p0 = 1 2  p 1 + 2e−ε/T cos(2Neff) + e−2ε/T 1 + e−ε/T  M cos(Mθ) + 1 2, (B8) θ = arcsin  e−ε/T sin(2Neff)p 1 + 2e−ε/T cos(2Neff) + e−2ε/T . (B9) Note that, as defined,θ =θ(T, Neff) is independent of the num- ber of two-level atoms M. Let us now define α(T, Neff)...

  7. [6]

    Note that this procedure makesα dependent on N and M

    Case 1: α , 1 In this case, the maximum of the QFI is obtained by dif- ferentiating Q(T) and solving for Neff and M. Note that this procedure makesα dependent on N and M. By varying either the excitation of the NOON state or the number of atoms in the sample, or both, there will be a new value ofα that maximizes the QFI. It is to be noted that fixing the ...

  8. [7]

    In this situation, both the de- nominator and the numerator in the equation forQ cancel each other out, resulting in an indeterminacy of type 0 /0

    Case 2: α = 1 This case occurs when cos(2 Neff) = 1, implicating sin(2Neff) = 0 and Neff = kπ. In this situation, both the de- nominator and the numerator in the equation forQ cancel each other out, resulting in an indeterminacy of type 0 /0. To ana- lyze this indeterminacy, it will be necessary to consider the exact forms of C, D, and their derivatives: ...

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    In Fig.9, we plot the behavior of the QFI calculated for Neff that maximizes it, for different temperatures, as a function of the number of two-level atoms M

    Dependence of QFI with key parameters. In Fig.9, we plot the behavior of the QFI calculated for Neff that maximizes it, for different temperatures, as a function of the number of two-level atoms M. As seen from the figure, a clear linear scaling with respect to M is shown. As ...

    2014

  2. [9]

    Zoller, T

    P. Zoller, T. Beth, D. Binosi, R. Blatt, H. J. Briegel, D. Bruss, I. Cirac, J. Eisert, N. Gisin, P. Grangier, S. Haroche, M. Horodecki, G. Leuchs, D. Loss, G. Ludwig, S. Massar, H. Mooij, M. B. Plenio, E. S. Polzik, S. Popescu, H. Ritsch, 13 FIG. 9. Maximum QFI as a function o...

    2005

  3. [10]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkilä, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. P. Pekola, Opportunities for mesoscopics in thermometry and refrigeration: Physics and applications, Reviews of Modern Physics 78, 217 (2006)

    2006

  4. [11]

    J. P. Pekola, Towards quantum thermodynamics in electronic circuits, Nature Physics 11, 118 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    A. V . Timofeev, M. Helle, M. Meschke, M. Möttönen, and J. P. Pekola, Electronic refrigeration at the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 200801 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. d. Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topical review, J. Phys. A 49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemporary Physics 57, 545–579 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Millen and A

    J. Millen and A. Xuereb, Perspective: Quantum thermodynam- ics, New Journal of Physics 18, 2703 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    De ffner and S

    S. De ffner and S. Campbell, Quantum Thermodynamics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum information (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    M. H. Mohammady, H. Choi, M. E. Trusheim, A. Bayat, D. En- glund, and Y . Omar, Low-control and robust quantum refriger- ator and applications with electronic spins in diamond, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042124 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermometry in the quantum regime: recent theoretical progress, J. Phys. A 52, 303001 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    De Pasquale and T

    A. De Pasquale and T. M. Stace, Quantum thermometry, Ther- modynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions , 503 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    T. P. Purdy, P.-L. Yu, N. S. Kampel, R. W. Peterson, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, and C. A. Regal, Optomechanical raman-ratio thermometry, Phys. Rev. A92, 031802 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    Montenegro, M

    V . Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. Paris, Me- chanical oscillator thermometry in the nonlinear optomechani- cal regime, Physical Review Research 2, 043338 (2020). 14 FIG. 11. QFI as a function of Neff for M = 9, T =−0.4ε,ε = 1.0. Heisenberg limit cannot be observed

    2020

  16. [23]

    Razavian, C

    S. Razavian, C. Benedetti, M. Bina, Y . Akbari-Kourbolagh, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum thermometry by single-qubit dephas- ing, The European Physical Journal Plus 134, 284 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    Mihailescu, S

    G. Mihailescu, S. Campbell, and A. K. Mitchell, Thermometry of strongly correlated fermionic quantum systems using impu- rity probes, Physical Review A 107, 042614 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    A. K. Srivastava, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewenstein, and M. Płodzie ´n, Topological quantum thermometry (2023), arXiv:2311.14524 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Płodzie ´n, R

    M. Płodzie ´n, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, and T. Sowi ´nski, Few-fermion thermometry, Phys. Rev. A97, 063619 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Sekatski and M

    P. Sekatski and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal nonequilibrium thermometry in markovian environments, Quantum 6, 869 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, In- dividual quantum probes for optimal thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220405 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Mukherjee, A

    V . Mukherjee, A. Zwick, A. Ghosh, X. Chen, and G. Kur- izki, Enhanced precision bound of low-temperature quantum thermometry via dynamical control, Communications Physics 2 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    Glatthard, J

    J. Glatthard, J. Rubio, R. Sawant, T. Hewitt, G. Barontini, and L. A. Correa, Optimal cold atom thermometry using adaptive bayesian strategies, PRX Quantum 3, 040330 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    W.-K. Mok, K. Bharti, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Bayat, Opti- mal probes for global quantum thermometry, Communications physics 4, 62 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Rubio, J

    J. Rubio, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Global quantum ther- mometry, Physical Review Letters 127, 190402 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Campbell, M

    S. Campbell, M. Mehboudi, G. D. Chiara, and M. Paternos- tro, Global and local thermometry schemes in coupled quantum systems, New Journal of Physics 19, 103003 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    G. O. Alves and G. T. Landi, Bayesian estimation for collisional thermometry, Phys. Rev. A105, 012212 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    M. R. Jørgensen, J. Kołody ´nski, M. Mehboudi, M. Perarnau- Llobet, and J. B. Brask, Bayesian quantum thermometry based on thermodynamic length, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042601 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    Mihailescu, A

    G. Mihailescu, A. Bayat, S. Campbell, and A. K. Mitchell, Mul- tiparameter critical quantum metrology with impurity probes, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035033 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Ostermann and K

    L. Ostermann and K. Gietka, Temperature-enhanced critical quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A109, L050601 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Aybar, A

    E. Aybar, A. Niezgoda, S. S. Mirkhalaf, M. W. Mitchell, D. Benedicto Orenes, and E. Witkowska, Critical quantum ther- mometry and its feasibility in spin systems, Quantum 6, 808 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    Ullah, M

    A. Ullah, M. T. Naseem, and O. E. Müstecaplıo ˘glu, Low- temperature quantum thermometry boosted by coherence gen- eration, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043184 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Mehboudi, M

    M. Mehboudi, M. R. Jørgensen, S. Seah, J. B. Brask, J. Kołody´nski, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Fundamental limits in bayesian thermometry and attainability via adaptive strategies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 130502 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Campbell, M

    S. Campbell, M. G. Genoni, and S. Deffner, Precision thermom- etry and the quantum speed limit, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 3, 025002 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    Quintanilla, M

    M. Quintanilla, M. Henriksen-Lacey, C. Renero-Lecuna, and L. M. Liz-Marzán, Challenges for optical nanothermometry in biological environments, Chem. Soc. Rev.51, 4223 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    C. D. S. Brites, P. P. Lima, N. J. O. Silva, A. Millán, V . S. Ama- ral, F. Palacio, and L. D. Carlos, Thermometry at the nanoscale, Nanoscale 4, 4799 (2012)

    2012

  37. [44]

    Kucsko, P

    G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, N. Y . Yao, M. Kubo, H. J. Noh, P. K. Lo, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nanometre-scale thermometry in a living cell, Nature 500, 54 (2013)

    2013

  38. [45]

    Fujiwara and Y

    M. Fujiwara and Y . Shikano, Diamond quantum thermometry: from foundations to applications, Nanotechnology 32, 482002 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Ða ˇcanin Far and M

    L. Ða ˇcanin Far and M. D. Drami ´canin, Luminescence ther- mometry with nanoparticles: A review, Nanomaterials 13 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    Chu and J

    Y . Chu and J. Cai, Thermodynamic principle for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 200501 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    K. B. Efetov, Temperature effects in quantum dots in the regime of chaotic dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2299 (1995)

    1995

  42. [49]

    Lopes, D

    N. Lopes, D. G. Barci, and M. A. Continentino, Finite temper- ature effects in quantum systems with competing scalar orders, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 415601 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Watanabe, T

    Y . Watanabe, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, Quantum and tem- perature effects on the crystal structure of superhydride lah 10: A path integral molecular dynamics study, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174111 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    Lucrezi, P

    R. Lucrezi, P. P. Ferreira, M. Aichhorn, and C. Heil, Tempera- ture and quantum anharmonic lattice effects on stability and su- perconductivity in lutetium trihydride, Nature Communications 15, 441 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    Ahumada, F

    M. Ahumada, F. A. Cárdenas-López, G. Alvarado Barrios, F. Albarrán-Arriagada, and J. C. Retamal, Embedded quantum correlations in thermalized quantum rabi systems, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012433 (2023)

    2023

  46. [53]

    H.-G. Xu, V . Montenegro, G. Xianlong, J. Jin, and G. D. d. M. Neto, Persisting quantum e ffects in the anisotropic rabi model at thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin- Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94 (2022)

    2022

  48. [55]

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

    1969

  49. [56]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, In- ternational Journal of Quantum Information 7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  50. [57]

    H. L. van Trees, Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory, Part 1 (Wiley & Sons, 1968). 15 FIG. 12. The parameter Neff = εMχt 2 that maximizes the QFI versus the number of two-level atoms in the thermal sample (with ε = 1.0). Note that Neff varies significantly with positiv...

    1968

  51. [58]

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

    1994

  52. [59]

    Yuan, H.-F

    J.-B. Yuan, H.-F. Liu, Y .-J. Song, S.-Q. Tang, X.-W. Wang, and L.-M. Kuang, Utilizing evolution time as a resource to enhance quantum sensing by probe qubit dephasing, Phys. Rev. A 111, 062620 (2025)

    2025

  53. [60]

    Montenegro, G

    V . Montenegro, G. S. Jones, S. Bose, and A. Bayat, Sequen- tial measurements for quantum-enhanced magnetometry in spin chain probes, Physical Review Letters 129, 120503 (2022)

    2022

  54. [61]

    Y . Yang, V . Montenegro, and A. Bayat, Extractable informa- tion capacity in sequential measurements metrology, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043273 (2023)

    2023

  55. [62]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. A. C. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Restoring heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment, Quantum 2, 110 (2018)

    2018

  56. [63]

    M. A. C. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy quantum metrology enhanced by continuous nondemoli- tion measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200505 (2020)

    2020

  57. [64]

    Smirne, J

    A. Smirne, J. Kołody ´nski, S. F. Huelga, and R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski, Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency esti- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120801 (2016)

    2016

  58. [65]

    Montenegro, M

    V . Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum metrology with boundary time crystals, Communica- tions Physics 6 (2023)

    2023

  59. [66]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  60. [68]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nature photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    Montenegro, C

    V . Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Physics Reports 1134, 1 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Cavazzoni, B

    S. Cavazzoni, B. Teklu, and M. G. Paris, Frequency estimation by frequency jumps, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06738 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Montenegro, S

    V . Montenegro, S. Dornetti, A. Ferraro, and M. G. Paris, En- hanced quantum frequency estimation by nonlinear scrambling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01959 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Jahnke, S

    T. Jahnke, S. Lanéry, and G. Mahler, Operational approach to fluctuations of thermodynamic variables in finite quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. E 83, 011109 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    O’Connor, S

    E. O’Connor, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, Fisher information rates in sequentially measured quantum systems, New Journal of Physics 26, 033048 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    H. Yang, Q. Zheng, P. Yue, and Q. Zhi, Quantum thermom- etry based on interferometric power, Europhysics Letters 146, 38002 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    T. M. Stace, Quantum limits of thermometry, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 82, 011611 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

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

    2017

  69. [77]

    Wilkie and S

    D. Wilkie and S. Fisher, Measurement of temperature by mach- zehnder interferometry, Proceedings of the Institution of Me- chanical Engineers 178, 461 (1963)

    1963

  70. [78]

    Yadav, G

    D. Yadav, G. Shukla, P. Sharma, and D. K. Mishra, Quantum- enhanced super-sensitivity of mach–zehnder interferometer us- ing squeezed kerr state, APL Quantum 1 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Grond, U

    J. Grond, U. Hohenester, J. Schmiedmayer, and A. Smerzi, Mach-zehnder interferometry with interacting trapped bose- einstein condensates, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 84, 023619 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    IBM Quantum Development Team, Qiskit 1.1.0 (2024), ac- cessed: 2025-03-23

    2024

  73. [81]

    IBM Quantum Development Team, IBM Quantum Documen- tation (2024), accessed: 2025-03-23

    2024

  74. [82]

    R. J. de Assis, T. M. de Mendonça, C. J. Villas-Boas, A. M. de Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and N. G. de Almeida, Efficiency of a quantum otto heat engine operating under a reservoir at effective negative temperatures, Physical review let- ters 122, 240602 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    G. G. Damas, R. J. de Assis, and N. G. de Almeida, Negative temperature is cool for cooling, Physics Letters A 482, 129038 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    E. M. Purcell and R. V . Pound, A nuclear spin system at nega- tive temperature, Physical Review 81, 279 (1951)

    1951

  77. [85]

    N. F. Ramsey, Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics at negative absolute temperatures, Physical Review 103, 20 (1956). 16

    1956

  78. [86]

    Xi and H.-T

    J.-Y . Xi and H.-T. Quan, Quantum heat engine and nega- tive boltzmann temperature*, Communications in Theoretical Physics 68, 347 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    L. D. Carr, Negative temperatures?, Science 339, 42 (2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    Yan, Z.-X

    W.-B. Yan, Z.-X. Man, Y .-J. Zhang, and Y .-J. Xia, An o ff- resonant quantum collision model: Realizing a qubit coupled with an e ffective negative-temperature bath, Chinese Physics Letters 42, 010203 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Braun, J

    S. Braun, J. P. Ronzheimer, M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, T. Rom, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider, Negative absolute temper- ature for motional degrees of freedom, Science 339, 52 (2013)

    2013

  82. [90]

    T. M. Mendonça, A. M. Souza, R. J. de Assis, N. G. de Almeida, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Reservoir engineering for maximally e fficient quantum engines, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043419 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Cramér, Mathematical methods of statistics, V ol

    H. Cramér, Mathematical methods of statistics, V ol. 26 (Prince- ton university press, 1999)

    1999

  84. [92]

    L. M. Le Cam, Asymptotic methods in statistical decision the- ory, Springer series in statistics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986)

    1986

  85. [93]

    Holevo, in Quantum Probability and Applications to the Quantum Theory of Irreversible Processes (Springer, 1984) pp

    A. Holevo, in Quantum Probability and Applications to the Quantum Theory of Irreversible Processes (Springer, 1984) pp. 153–172

    1984

  86. [94]

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum pa- rameter estimation, A VS Quantum Science2 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    L. C. Venuti and P. Zanardi, Quantum critical scaling of the geometric tensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 095701 (2007)

    2007

  88. [96]

    Zanardi and N

    P. Zanardi and N. Paunkovi´c, Ground state overlap and quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006)

    2006

  89. [97]

    Y . Yang, V . Montenegro, and A. Bayat, Sequential- measurement thermometry with quantum many-body probes, Physical Review Applied 22, 024069 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    K. V . Hovhannisyan, M. R. Jørgensen, G. T. Landi, Á. M. Al- hambra, J. B. Brask, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal quantum thermometry with coarse-grained measurements, Prx Quantum 2, 020322 (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    Glatthard, K

    J. Glatthard, K. V . Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. A. Correa, and H. J. D. Miller, Energy measurements remain ther- mometrically optimal beyond weak coupling, Quantum7, 1190 (2023)

    2023

  92. [100]

    A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, Quantum mechanical interaction- free measurements, Foundations of physics 23, 987 (1993)

    1993

  93. [101]

    Kwiat, H

    P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Ka- sevich, Interaction-free measurement, Physical Review Letters 74, 4763 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.