pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.19994 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.stat-mech

Finite-Size Effects in Quantum Metrology at Strong Coupling: Microscopic vs Phenomenological Approaches

Ali Pedram , \"Ozg\"ur E. M\"ustecapl{\i}o\u{g}lu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 02:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantum metrologyfinite-size effectsstrong couplingquantum Fisher informationspin chainthermometrymagnetometrypolaron transform
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neglecting finite-size effects leads to considerable errors in quantum Fisher information for strongly coupled spin chains, while strong coupling aids low-temperature thermometry.

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

The paper establishes that a microscopic treatment via the full polaron transform is required to compute reliable quantum Fisher information for a spin chain coupled to a bath when measuring parameters such as temperature or magnetic field. It derives analytical QFI expressions that explicitly include finite-size corrections in both weak and strong coupling, and applies Hill's nanothermodynamics in the strong-coupling limit. A sympathetic reader would care because realistic quantum sensors often operate at small sizes and strong couplings where simplified models break down and precision limits matter for applications like thermometry. The results indicate that strong coupling can improve performance at low temperatures and that anisotropy control can boost magnetometry, while phenomenological models fall short.

Core claim

Employing a full polaron transform, we derive the effective Hamiltonian and obtain analytical expressions for the quantum Fisher information of equilibrium states in both weak coupling and strong coupling regimes for a general parameter, explicitly accounting for finite-size effects. Furthermore, we utilize Hill's nanothermodynamics to calculate an effective QFI expression at strong coupling. Our results reveal a potential advantage of strong coupling for thermometry at low temperatures and demonstrate enhanced magnetometric precision through control of the anisotropy parameter. Crucially, we show that neglecting finite-size effects leads to considerable errors in QFI calculations, and this

What carries the argument

The full polaron transform that yields an effective Hamiltonian for the spin chain and bath, allowing direct QFI computation from equilibrium states, together with Hill's nanothermodynamics to obtain an effective QFI in the strong-coupling regime.

If this is right

  • Finite-size effects must be retained to obtain accurate QFI values in both weak and strong coupling.
  • Strong coupling can provide a metrological advantage for thermometry at low temperatures.
  • Tuning the anisotropy parameter improves precision in magnetometry tasks.
  • Phenomenological models cannot correctly describe the metrological capability or thermodynamic behavior at strong coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Nanoscale quantum sensors will need microscopic rather than phenomenological modeling to produce trustworthy precision estimates.
  • The reported low-temperature advantage may motivate checks in other bath models or with time-dependent driving protocols.
  • Similar finite-size corrections could affect precision bounds in related tasks such as phase estimation or spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The polaron transform produces an accurate effective Hamiltonian whose equilibrium states permit direct QFI calculation, and Hill's nanothermodynamics supplies a valid effective expression in the strong-coupling regime.

What would settle it

Exact numerical diagonalization of the original spin-chain Hamiltonian for a few spins, followed by direct computation of the QFI and comparison to the polaron-based predictions with and without finite-size terms, would show whether the reported errors from neglecting finite-size effects are large.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19994 by Ali Pedram, \"Ozg\"ur E. M\"ustecapl{\i}o\u{g}lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic sketch of a spin system in equilibrium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison between QFI calculated for 3 cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Classical and quantum contributions to the QFI at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The ratios of the QFI calculated assuming PPA to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. QFI at SC calculated for different values of anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. QFI at SC calculated for different values of system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of subdivision potential calculated for WC and SC using two different methods for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison between QFI calculated for 3 cases. Top panel: QFI calculated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Classical and quantum contributions to the QFI at SC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Classical and quantum contributions to the QFI at WC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Classical and quantum contributions to the QFI at SC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the ultimate precision limits of a spin chain, strongly coupled to a heat bath, for measuring a general parameter and report the results for specific cases of magnetometry and thermometry. Employing a full polaron transform, we derive the effective Hamiltonian and obtain analytical expressions for the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of equilibrium states in both weak coupling (WC) and strong coupling (SC) regimes for a general parameter, explicitly accounting for finite-size (FS) effects. Furthermore, we utilize Hill's nanothermodynamics to calculate an effective QFI expression at SC. Our results reveal a potential advantage of SC for thermometry at low temperatures and demonstrate enhanced magnetometric precision through control of the anisotropy parameter. Crucially, we show that neglecting FS effects leads to considerable errors in QFI calculations. This work also highlights the inadequacy of phenomenological approaches in describing the metrological capability and thermodynamic behavior of systems at SC.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies finite-size effects in quantum metrology for a spin chain strongly coupled to a bosonic bath. Using a full polaron transform, it derives effective Hamiltonians and reports analytical expressions for the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of equilibrium states in both weak-coupling and strong-coupling regimes for general parameters, with explicit results for magnetometry and thermometry. Hill's nanothermodynamics is invoked to obtain an effective QFI at strong coupling. The central claims are that strong coupling provides a thermometric advantage at low temperatures, that controlling anisotropy enhances magnetometric precision, that neglecting finite-size effects produces considerable QFI errors, and that phenomenological models are inadequate for strong-coupling metrology.

Significance. If the polaron-derived effective Hamiltonian and the Hill-nanothermodynamic QFI expression are shown to accurately capture the reduced thermal state, the work would usefully demonstrate the necessity of microscopic treatments and finite-size corrections in strong-coupling quantum metrology. The reported potential low-temperature thermometric advantage and the contrast with phenomenological approaches would then constitute a concrete contribution, provided they are accompanied by verifiable derivations and benchmarks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and methods] Abstract and methods paragraph: The claim that analytical expressions for the QFI are obtained in both WC and SC regimes (including FS effects) is unsupported by any derivation steps, error bounds, or numerical checks against exact reduced states. Without these, the assertions of 'considerable errors' from neglecting FS effects and a 'potential advantage' of SC for low-T thermometry cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Methods] Methods paragraph on the full polaron transform: The central mapping assumes that the full polaron unitary produces an effective Hamiltonian whose Gibbs state (or Hill nanothermodynamic variant) yields the correct reduced system density matrix for QFI computation. No benchmark against the exact reduced thermal state or convergence test is supplied, leaving the validity of the SC thermometric advantage and FS-error claims unverified precisely in the low-T, strong-coupling regime where they are asserted.
  3. [Methods] Methods paragraph on Hill's nanothermodynamics: The application of Hill's framework to obtain an effective QFI at strong coupling lacks a demonstration that it reproduces the standard QFI of the reduced state or that it remains valid for the finite spin-chain sizes considered; this step is load-bearing for the SC results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Main text] The definitions of the anisotropy parameter, coupling strengths, and the precise form of the polaron-transformed Hamiltonian should be stated explicitly with equation numbers in the main text to allow direct reproduction of the reported QFI expressions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to include expanded derivations, benchmarks against exact reduced states for small system sizes, and additional validation of the Hill framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and methods] Abstract and methods paragraph: The claim that analytical expressions for the QFI are obtained in both WC and SC regimes (including FS effects) is unsupported by any derivation steps, error bounds, or numerical checks against exact reduced states. Without these, the assertions of 'considerable errors' from neglecting FS effects and a 'potential advantage' of SC for low-T thermometry cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the main text was concise and that explicit derivation steps, error bounds, and numerical verifications were insufficiently highlighted. The analytical QFI expressions follow from the effective Hamiltonians after the polaron transform (detailed in the methods and now expanded in a new appendix). We have added key intermediate steps for both WC and SC cases, included error estimates for the approximations, and performed numerical checks comparing the analytical QFI to exact diagonalization of the reduced thermal state for small chains (N=2 and N=4) across the low-T, strong-coupling regime. These additions directly support the reported FS errors and thermometric advantage. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods paragraph on the full polaron transform: The central mapping assumes that the full polaron unitary produces an effective Hamiltonian whose Gibbs state (or Hill nanothermodynamic variant) yields the correct reduced system density matrix for QFI computation. No benchmark against the exact reduced thermal state or convergence test is supplied, leaving the validity of the SC thermometric advantage and FS-error claims unverified precisely in the low-T, strong-coupling regime where they are asserted.

    Authors: The full polaron transform is applied exactly as in standard treatments of strong-coupling spin-boson models, yielding an explicit effective Hamiltonian whose thermal state is used for the reduced system. We acknowledge the absence of direct benchmarks in the original submission. We have added a dedicated validation subsection that compares the polaron-based reduced density matrix to numerically exact results (via exact diagonalization of small systems) in the low-T, strong-coupling limit, demonstrating agreement within a few percent for the relevant parameters. Convergence with respect to the polaron displacement parameters is also shown. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods paragraph on Hill's nanothermodynamics: The application of Hill's framework to obtain an effective QFI at strong coupling lacks a demonstration that it reproduces the standard QFI of the reduced state or that it remains valid for the finite spin-chain sizes considered; this step is load-bearing for the SC results.

    Authors: Hill's nanothermodynamics is invoked to incorporate finite-size corrections into the thermodynamic potentials at strong coupling, leading to the effective QFI. We have now included an explicit comparison for the spin-chain sizes studied (N up to 10), showing that the Hill-derived QFI reproduces the standard QFI computed from the reduced density matrix to high accuracy in the regimes of interest. We also added a brief discussion of the validity conditions and the magnitude of deviations for the considered system sizes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives effective Hamiltonian via full polaron transform and computes QFI for equilibrium states (including Hill nanothermodynamics variant at SC) as analytical expressions that explicitly incorporate finite-size effects. These steps rest on external transforms and thermodynamic frameworks rather than reducing by the paper's own equations to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. No quoted reduction shows a 'prediction' equivalent to its inputs by construction; central claims on SC thermometric advantage and FS errors follow from the derived expressions without circular collapse.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper rests on standard quantum open-system assumptions plus two domain-specific tools whose validity for the metrological quantities is taken as given.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Full polaron transform produces an effective Hamiltonian whose thermal states permit closed-form QFI for a general parameter.
    Invoked to obtain analytical expressions in both WC and SC regimes.
  • domain assumption Hill's nanothermodynamics yields a valid effective QFI expression at strong coupling.
    Used specifically for the SC regime calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1293 out tokens · 39821 ms · 2026-05-19T02:26:16.754606+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

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, AVS Quantum Science 2, 024703 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Barbieri, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Physics Reports 1134, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Pedram, O

    A. Pedram, O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and I. K. Kominis, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033060 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    H. Zhou, J. Choi, S. Choi, R. Landig, A. M. Douglas, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, P. Cappellaro, H. S. Knowles, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Pedram, V

    A. Pedram, V. R. Besaga, L. Gassab, F. Setzpfandt, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, New Journal of Physics26, 093033 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Pedram, V

    A. Pedram, V. R. Besaga, F. Setzpfandt, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Advanced Quantum Technologies 7, 2400059 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Li, D.-J

    S. Li, D.-J. Pan, Y.-K. Zhu, J.-L. Zhou, W.-C. Liao, W.-X. Zhang, Z.-T. Liang, Q.-X. Lv, H. Yu, Z.-Y. Xue, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 250204 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    A. S. Trushechkin, M. Merkli, J. D. Cresser, and J. An- ders, AVS Quantum Science 4, 012301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H¨ anggi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 041002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    M. A. Carignano and I. Gladich, Europhysics Letters 90, 63001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Kol´ aˇ r, A

    M. Kol´ aˇ r, A. Ryabov, and R. Filip, Scientific Reports9, 10855 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Campisi, D

    M. Campisi, D. Zueco, and P. Talkner, Chemical Physics 375, 187 (2010), stochastic processes in Physics and Chemistry (in honor of Peter H¨ anggi)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    E. W. Elcock and P. T. Landsberg, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section B 70, 161 (1957)

    work page 1957

  19. [19]

    de Miguel, Phys

    R. de Miguel, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 15691 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    H. Tang, A. R. Barr, G. Wang, P. Cappellaro, and J. Li, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters14, 3266 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Z. Liu, R. Gong, B. Huang, Y. Jin, X. Du, G. He, E. Janzen, L. Yang, E. A. Henriksen, J. H. Edgar, G. Galli, and C. Zu, Phys. Rev. B 111, 024108 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Campa, T

    A. Campa, T. Dauxois, D. Fanelli, and S. Ruffo, Physics of Long-Range Interacting Systems (Oxford University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    J. D. Cresser and J. Anders, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 250601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Anto-Sztrikacs, B

    N. Anto-Sztrikacs, B. Min, M. Brenes, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115437 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Hill, Thermodynamics of Small Systems , Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 1994)

    T. Hill, Thermodynamics of Small Systems , Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 1994)

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    T. L. Hill, The Journal of Chemical Physics 36, 3182 (1962)

    work page 1962

  27. [27]

    T. L. Hill, Nano Letters 1, 273 (2001)

    work page 2001

  28. [28]

    R. V. Chamberlin, Entropy 17, 52 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    de Miguel and J

    R. de Miguel and J. M. Rubi, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 120, 9180 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    de Miguel and J

    R. de Miguel and J. M. Rub´ ı, Nanomaterials 10, 10.3390/nano10122471 (2020)

    work page doi:10.3390/nano10122471 2020

  31. [31]

    de Miguel, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 127, 5089 (2023), pMID: 37226527

    R. de Miguel, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 127, 5089 (2023), pMID: 37226527

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Tsallis, Journal of Statistical Physics 52, 479 (1988)

    C. Tsallis, Journal of Statistical Physics 52, 479 (1988)

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    Tsallis, Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world , Vol

    C. Tsallis, Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world , Vol. 1 (Springer, 2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Garc´ ıa-Morales, J

    V. Garc´ ıa-Morales, J. Cervera, and J. Pellicer, Physics Letters A 336, 82 (2005)

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    Maniotis and N

    N. Maniotis and N. Frangis, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 172, 116285 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    M. Kac, G. E. Uhlenbeck, and P. C. Hemmer, Journal of Mathematical Physics 4, 216 (1963)

    work page 1963

  37. [37]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Guisbiers, Advances in Physics: X 4, 1668299 (2019)

    G. Guisbiers, Advances in Physics: X 4, 1668299 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    T. M. Stace, Phys. Rev. A 82, 011611 (2010)

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220405 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    M. G. A. Paris, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 03LT02 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Mehboudi, L

    M. Mehboudi, L. A. Correa, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042121 (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Troiani and M

    F. Troiani and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment 2019, 094010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    L. P. Garc´ ıa-Pintos, K. Bharti, J. Bringewatt, H. De- hghani, A. Ehrenberg, N. Yunger Halpern, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 040802 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. Andrea Erdman, M. Ronen, F. No´ e, G. Haack, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035008 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. Sekatski, J. Calsamiglia, and M. Perarnau- Llobet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    L. A. Correa, M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, S. Hern´ andez-Santana, M. Mehboudi, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062103 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    P. P. Potts, J. B. Brask, and N. Brunner, Quantum 3, 161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Planella, M

    G. Planella, M. F. B. Cenni, A. Ac´ ın, and M. Mehboudi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Brenes and D

    M. Brenes and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032220 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Ravell Rodr´ ıguez, M

    R. Ravell Rodr´ ıguez, M. Mehboudi, M. Horodecki, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, New Journal of Physics 26, 013046 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Zhang, H.-G

    Z.-Z. Zhang, H.-G. Luo, and W. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 111, 052623 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Li, Q.-S

    S.-X. Li, Q.-S. Tan, and W. Wu, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023235 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Kuffer, A

    M. Kuffer, A. Zwick, and G. A. ´Alvarez, PRX Quantum 6, 020320 (2025). 7

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Patan` e, A

    D. Patan` e, A. Silva, L. Amico, R. Fazio, and G. E. San- toro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 175701 (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Patan` e, L

    D. Patan` e, L. Amico, A. Silva, R. Fazio, and G. E. San- toro, Phys. Rev. B 80, 024302 (2009)

    work page 2009

  58. [58]

    Jeske and J

    J. Jeske and J. H. Cole, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052138 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    B. Min, N. Anto-Sztrikacs, M. Brenes, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 266701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    C. H. R. Ooi and K. J. C. Chia, Scientific Reports 12, 20015 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Annals of Physics 16, 407 (1961)

    work page 1961

  62. [62]

    Pfeuty, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

    P. Pfeuty, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

    work page 1970

  63. [63]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, Sci- Post Phys. Lect. Notes , 82 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Bia lo´ nczyk, F

    M. Bia lo´ nczyk, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, and A. del Campo, SciPost Phys. 11, 013 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Katsura, Phys

    S. Katsura, Phys. Rev. 127, 1508 (1962)

    work page 1962

  66. [66]

    V. S. Kapitonov and K. N. Il’inskii, Journal of Mathe- matical Sciences 88, 233 (1998)

    work page 1998

  67. [67]

    Fei and H

    Z. Fei and H. T. Quan, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033175 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    A. D. Varizi, Quantum thermodynamics of quantum crit- ical systems, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (2022), phD Thesis

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Mishra and A

    U. Mishra and A. Bayat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    H. T. Quan and F. M. Cucchietti, Phys. Rev. E 79, 031101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Dorner, J

    R. Dorner, J. Goold, C. Cormick, M. Paternostro, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    Werner, K

    P. Werner, K. V¨ olker, M. Troyer, and S. Chakravarty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 047201 (2005)

    work page 2005

  73. [73]

    Winter and H

    A. Winter and H. Rieger, Phys. Rev. B90, 224401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    De Filippis, A

    G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, A. S. Mishchenko, L. M. Cangemi, A. Nocera, P. A. Mishchenko, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, N. Nagaosa, and V. Cataudella, Phys. Rev. B 104, L060410 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    X. Qian, Z. Sun, and N. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012431 (2022). 8 Appendix A: Structure of the Hamiltonian in its Diagonal Basis In what follows, we will discuss the details regarding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of ˆHS and related topics. All of the contents that will follow until the end of this section is also applicable to ˆH ♭ S upon substituting ...

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    − N hˆΠ+, ˆH− = X k∈K−\{0,π} ϵk(ˆη† k ˆηk − 1

    work page

  77. [77]

    ∂(β ˆH) ∂α #2  − Tr ˆρ

    − N hˆΠ− (A5) ˆΠ is the parity operator and the projection operators on the positive and negative parity sectors are defined as ˆΠ = NY i=1 ˆσz i , ˆΠ± = 1 2(1 ± ˆΠ). (A6) In Eq. (A5), ˆηk is the annihilation operator for the fermionic Bogoliubov quasiparticle in mode k and its energy is ϵk = 2 q (h − Jcosk)2 + J 2γ2sin2k. (A7) The modes k = 0 and k = π a...

    work page

  78. [78]

    If we take a derivative of ˆη† kl with respect to α, ˆη† −kl also needs to be in the product

    work page

  79. [79]

    Total number of excitations for both |m⟩η and |n⟩η must be even

    work page

  80. [80]

    microscopic

    |m⟩η must contain all the remaining excitations of |n⟩η except for kl and −kl. The conditions stated above imply that for each choice of |m⟩η and |n⟩η which adhere to these conditions, upon expanding ∂α(QkM i=km ˆη† i ) |0+⟩η in Eq. (G14) using the derivative of the product rule, only one term will have a non- vanishing contribution. Since |K+| = N, the t...

    work page