Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

The paper introduces a conditional quantum Fisher information that turns quantum metrology from an ensemble average into a per-trajectory random variable, with a negative interference term that witnesses non-classicality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 09:47 UTC pith:LE5B35NB

load-bearing objection The paper has a genuinely interesting idea—trajectory-level QFI with a negative interference term—but the definition is equivocal and the derivation from the classical SFI is invalid, so the central claim doesn't hold as written. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.12475 v2 pith:LE5B35NB submitted 2026-01-18 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Stochastic Quantum Information Geometry and Speed Limits at the Trajectory Level

Pedro B. Melo , Pedro V. Paraguass\'u , S\'ilvio M. Duarte Queir\'os , Fernando Iemini , Mauro Paternostro , Welles A. M. Morgado This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords conditional quantum Fisher informationtrajectory-level quantum speed limitstochastic information geometrysymmetric logarithmic derivativequantum jump unravelinginterference cross-termsingle-shot metrologyquantum thermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces the conditional quantum Fisher information (CQFI) as a trajectory-level counterpart to the standard QFI: each measurement record gets its own information value, and averaging over records returns the usual ensemble QFI. The CQFI splits into an incoherent (population) term, a coherent (basis-rotation) term, and an interference cross-term that disappears in the ensemble average but can be negative on individual runs. The paper uses the CQFI to build a stochastic information geometry—stochastic length, action, and a speed limit—that bounds evolution along single quantum trajectories, not just on average. It validates the construction with quantum-jump trajectories of a driven thermal qubit and shows the trajectory-level bounds respect the expected thermodynamic hierarchy. If the claims hold, quantum metrology and stochastic thermodynamics gain access to single-shot sensitivity and fluctuations hidden by ensemble averaging.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a family of identities turning the quantum Fisher information into a trajectory-level random variable. Defining the CQFI by f_Q,α = Tr(Π_α L²ρ)/Tr(Π_αρ), with L the symmetric logarithmic derivative and Π_α a POVM element, the authors show it averages to F_Q = Tr(ρL²) over measurement outcomes. For projective measurements they expand it as f_Q,α = f^IC_Q,α + f^C_Q,α + f^X_Q,α, where the incoherent part comes from population derivatives, the coherent part from eigenbasis rotations, and the cross-term from their interference; the cross-term can be negative along single trajectories while vanishing on average. From the induced metric they define single-trajectory

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional quantum Fisher information (CQFI), defined as Tr(Π_α L²ρ)/Tr(Π_αρ) in terms of the symmetric logarithmic derivative L of the state; in the trajectory simulations it is evaluated through the state-conditioned form ⟨α|L²|α⟩. Its role is to be a stochastic metric: it assigns a sensitivity value to a single measurement outcome α and to the instantaneous pure state of a trajectory. The argument is carried by the spectral decomposition of L into diagonal and off-diagonal parts, which splits the CQFI into incoherent, coherent, and interference contributions, and by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that converts the squared second moment into bounds on observable r

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the ratio definition of the CQFI and the state-conditioned form ⟨α|L²|α⟩ give the same value for every mixed state; the trajectory-level calculations and numerical checks use the state-conditioned form, so that equivalence is load-bearing.

What would settle it

Evaluate the ratio form and the state-conditioned form for the same POVM element on a state, e.g., ρ = |+⟩⟨+| and Π = |0⟩⟨0|; if the two numbers differ, the average-to-QFI property and speed limits demonstrated numerically belong to the state-conditioned object rather than the ratio-defined CQFI. Re-running the driven-qubit simulation with the ratio definition and checking whether ⟨f⟩ still equals F_Q would settle whether the reported trajectory-level results survive under the paper's primary definition.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Averaging the CQFI over measurement outcomes recovers the standard QFI, so single-shot information remains consistent with the ensemble metrological bound.
  • The trajectory-level speed limit ∫|ȯ_γ|/Δ_γ O ≤ 2ℓ holds for each realization, potentially giving tighter bounds than ensemble QSLs for rare, information-rich trajectories.
  • The interference cross-term can be negative along a single trajectory and vanishes on average, offering a local, trajectory-level witness of destructive interference between classical and quantum information channels.
  • The stochastic length and action satisfy ℓ² ≤ j for every trajectory, extending thermodynamic length and action to individual quantum realizations.
  • In the Gaussian force-sensing example, the CQFI coincides with the QFI and is independent of the measurement outcome, showing a regime where trajectory-level and ensemble sensitivities agree.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-trajectory speed limit is stable under feedback, the CQFI could be used for real-time metrology—e.g., stopping or switching measurement basis when a trajectory's sensitivity spikes; the paper discusses this as an application but does not simulate a closed-loop protocol.
  • The negative cross-term could be tested as an empirical non-classicality witness by correlating its occurrence with other single-shot indicators such as contextuality or negativity in phase-space distributions.
  • The paper's two definitions of the CQFI—the ratio form and the state-conditioned form—are asserted to be equivalent; a direct check for arbitrary mixed states is a natural extension, since the reported numerics use the state-conditioned form.
  • A multiparameter version of the CQFI could yield a conditional Fisher matrix and trajectory-level versions of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, extending the framework beyond single-parameter time estimation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a trajectory-level 'Conditional Quantum Fisher Information' (CQFI), intended to generalize classical stochastic Fisher information to quantum trajectories. The CQFI is defined in Eq. (9) as a ratio involving a POVM element and the ensemble SLD operator, and it is claimed to average to the standard QFI and to decompose into incoherent, coherent, and interference contributions. The authors further define stochastic length and action, derive trajectory-level speed limits, and validate the formalism on a driven thermal qubit and on displaced Gaussian states. The central advertised results are the negative cross-term as a single-trajectory interference witness and the recovery of ensemble QFI from trajectory averages.

Significance. If the central construction were sound, the paper would offer a useful bridge between stochastic thermodynamics and quantum metrology, with potential applications in adaptive metrology and single-shot speed limits. The authors provide explicit analytic decompositions, numerical simulations with 5×10^4 trajectories, and no fitted parameters, and the averaged state-conditioned quantity does indeed converge to the QFI in their examples. However, the central definition is internally inconsistent: two inequivalent expressions for the CQFI are used interchangeably, and the derivation connecting the CQFI to the classical stochastic Fisher information relies on an invalid Cauchy-Schwarz step. The numerical and speed-limit results therefore concern a different object from the one formally defined and derived, undermining the paper's main claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (9) vs Eq. (A7)] The paper defines the CQFI in Eq. (9) as f_{Q,α}=Tr(Π_α L² ρ)/Tr(Π_α ρ), then states that 'an equivalent representation' is f_{Q,α}=Tr(Π_α L²)=⟨α|L²|α⟩. These are not equivalent for a generic ρ. For example, with ρ=|+⟩⟨+| and Π=|0⟩⟨0|, Eq. (9) evaluates to √2 ⟨0|L²|+⟩, while Eq. (A7) is ⟨0|L²|0⟩. The full spectral decomposition in Appendix B and the trajectory-level expressions in Eqs. (35)–(37) are built on the state-conditioned form, and the simulations use f_{Q,γ}=⟨ψ_γ|L²|ψ_γ⟩. Thus the quantity whose average is shown in Fig. 2(a) and which enters the speed limits is not the quantity defined in Eq. (9). This equivocation is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Appendix A] The derivation of Eq. (9) from the classical stochastic Fisher information is invalid. With A=√ρ√Π and B=√ρ L√Π, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives |Tr(ΠLρ)|² ≤ Tr(Πρ)Tr(Π L ρ L), not |Tr(ΠLρ)|² ≤ Tr(Πρ)Tr(Π L² ρ). The latter requires additional commutation assumptions that are neither stated nor satisfied in general. Consequently the bound and the 'saturation' claim leading to Eqs. (A4)–(A5) are unjustified. The asserted link between the CQFI and the classical SFI therefore rests on an incorrect inequality.
  3. [§IV, Eqs. (31)–(32)] The single-trajectory speed limit is asserted without a proof. The standard observable-speed bound uses the QFI of the state being evolved; here f_Q[ρ_γ] is constructed from the ensemble SLD, not from the QFI of the instantaneous pure trajectory state. Since the stochastic Schrödinger equation (24) contains jump terms, a derivation is needed for |Tr(O dρ_γ/dt)| ≤ Δ_{ρ_γ}O sqrt(⟨ψ_γ|L²|ψ_γ⟩). The numerical test in Fig. 4 is trivial because the chosen observable H_RWA has ∂_t ⟨H_RWA⟩=0 identically, so it does not validate the inequality.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (24)] The detailed-balance condition L_k^- = L_k^+ e^{-Δs_k/2} is introduced but never used in the subsequent derivation or simulation. Please either connect it to the jump operators in Eq. (33) or remove it.
  2. [§IV, Fig. 4] The text itself notes that the speed-limit inequality is trivially satisfied for O=H_RWA because the rate of change is zero. A nontrivial observable should be used to provide a meaningful numerical check of Eq. (32).
  3. [Appendix C.2] The Gaussian CQFI in Eq. (C7) uses the ratio definition, whereas the main trajectory formalism and Appendix B use the state-conditioned definition. This further illustrates the need to fix a single consistent definition before the results can be evaluated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: trajectory-level quantities are defined, not predicted; the ensemble average and decomposition follow algebraically from the definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The CQFI is introduced as a definition (Eq. 9), and its ensemble average (Eq. 10) is an immediate algebraic consequence of the POVM completeness relation, not a fitted or independently predicted result. The incoherent/coherent/interference decomposition (Appendix B) is just the expansion of L^2 in the instantaneous eigenbasis; the vanishing of the averaged cross-term follows from linearity of the trace. The trajectory-level speed limits (Eqs. 31-32) are Cauchy-Schwarz bounds applied to the defined stochastic length and action, with no free parameters. The authors cite their own classical SFI work (Refs. [26,31]) for the classical counterpart, but this is ordinary, non-load-bearing self-citation: the quantum extension is not justified by those references, and the averaging/completeness identity is verified in the text. Separately, the manuscript contains a mathematical inconsistency that is a correctness concern rather than a circularity: Eq. (9) (ratio form) and Eq. (A7) (state-conditioned form) are not equivalent for mixed states, and the Cauchy-Schwarz step in Appendix A (choosing A=sqrt(rho)sqrt(Pi), B=sqrt(rho)L sqrt(Pi)) does not yield the stated Tr(Pi L^2 rho) bound. Because the CQFI is stipulated rather than derived from the SFI, these issues do not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the physical parameters in the simulation are arbitrary but not used to enforce the results. The main derivation relies on standard quantum trajectory theory and the algebraic identity that the average of ⟨ψ|L²|ψ⟩ over an unravelling equals Tr(ρL²). No invented physical entities.

axioms (3)
  • standard math The SLD operator L satisfies ∂_θρ = 1/2{L,ρ} and the QFI is Tr(ρL²).
    Used throughout; standard quantum estimation theory.
  • domain assumption The ensemble state of the unravelling equals the GKSL solution: ρ_t = E[|ψ_γ⟩⟨ψ_γ|].
    Required so that the average of ⟨ψ|L²|ψ⟩ over trajectories equals Tr(ρL²) = QFI; standard for jump unravellings.
  • domain assumption The trajectory states form a resolution of the ensemble density matrix, so the trace of ρ times an operator equals the probability-weighted average of the pure-state expectation.
    Used in Sec. II.B and Fig. 2(a) to equate average CQFI with QFI.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15230 in / 24789 out tokens · 238267 ms · 2026-08-03T09:47:15.417854+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In quantum metrology, precision is typically characterized by an ensemble-averaged quantity, the quantum Fisher information (QFI), which averages over the fluctuations of individual measurement records. Here we introduce the conditional quantum Fisher information (CQFI), a trajectory-level version of the QFI that generalizes the classical stochastic Fisher information to the quantum domain. Defined through the symmetric logarithmic derivative and conditioned on a measurement outcome, the CQFI is a random variable whose average recovers the QFI. Using it, we derive a trajectory-level quantum speed limit, illustrated by the quantum-jump unraveling of a driven thermal qubit. Moreover, the CQFI decomposes into incoherent (population) and coherent (basis-rotation) contributions, together with an interference cross-term. This cross-term vanishes on average but can take negative values along single trajectories, providing a local witness of destructive interference between classical and quantum information channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12475 by Fernando Iemini, Mauro Paternostro, Pedro B. Melo, Pedro V. Paraguass\'u, S\'ilvio M. Duarte Queir\'os, Welles A. M. Morgado.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sketch of the conditional quantum Fisher information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Decomposition and validation of the CQFI. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Verification of information geometry and speed limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Speed limits for the rate of change of the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time evolution of the CQFI and QFI for force sensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Ergotropic and passive contributions on the phase-space information geometry of Gaussian states

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5

    Wigner-Fisher information of Gaussian states splits into passive (Wigner-entropy-rate) and ergotropic (displacement/squeezing) contributions that constrain phase-space trajectories and explain the ergotropic Mpemba effect.

  2. Pointwise mutual information bounded by stochastic Fisher information

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Derives upper bounds on pointwise mutual information in terms of stochastic Fisher information that recover known averaged bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    4, where 4(a) shows the inequality for the ensemble level, and 4(b) shows for trajectory level, depicting some of the trajectories

    The results are depicted in Fig. 4, where 4(a) shows the inequality for the ensemble level, and 4(b) shows for trajectory level, depicting some of the trajectories. 8 0 5 10 t 0 1 2 (a) Q dt dt | H(t) | H 0 5 10 t 0 2 4 (b) fQ dt dt | H(t) | H FIG. 4. Speed limits for the rate of change of the Hamiltonian expectation value. (a) Ensemble-level speed limit ...

    2024

  2. [2]

    The system Hamiltonian is ˆHS(θ) = ∆σz + θ 2 σx, where ∆ is the energy gap andθ is the transverse driving field

    Field sensing with a thermal qubit We consider a two-level system used to estimate a transverse field parameterθ. The system Hamiltonian is ˆHS(θ) = ∆σz + θ 2 σx, where ∆ is the energy gap andθ is the transverse driving field. The system is in a thermal stateρ θ =e −β ˆHS (θ)/Z(θ), whereZ(θ) = Tr(e −β ˆHS (θ)). The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian areE ±(θ)...

  3. [3]

    F orce sensing in dislocated Gaussian states Dislocated Gaussian states are a prominent resource in quantum metrology, particularly for weak force 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 time, t/ 0 1 2 3 4QFI 1e7 Q( ) FIG. 5. Time evolution of the CQFI and QFI for force sensing in dislocated Gaussian states. Due to the Gaussian nature of the state and measurement, the CQ...

  4. [4]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749909004839

    doi:10.1142/s0219749909004839 2009

  5. [5]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    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 Reports1134, 1 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    N. F. Ramsey, A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields, Phys. Rev.78, 695 (1950)

    1950

  9. [9]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  10. [10]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photon.5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    G. M. D’Ariano, M. D. Laurentis, M. G. A. Paris, A. Porzio, and S. Solimeno, Quantum tomography as a tool for the characterization of optical devices, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics4, S127 (2002)

    2002

  13. [13]

    M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Optical phase estimation in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 153603 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Commun.3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Quantum critical metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 020402 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Garbe, M

    L. Garbe, M. Bina, A. Keller, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Felicetti, Critical quantum metrology with a finite- component quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

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

    2021

  18. [18]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Quantum speed limit for physical processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050402 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    del Campo, I

    A. del Campo, I. L. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Quantum speed limits in open system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050403 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Quantum speed limit for non- markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 010402 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    G. E. Crooks, Measuring thermodynamic length, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 100602 (2007)

    2007

  22. [22]

    E. H. Feng and G. E. Crooks, Far-from-equilibrium measurements of thermodynamic length, Phys. Rev. E 79, 012104 (2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    D. A. Sivak and G. E. Crooks, Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 190602 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Ito, Stochastic thermodynamic interpretation of information geometry, Phys

    S. Ito, Stochastic thermodynamic interpretation of information geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030605 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    S. B. Nicholson, A. del Campo, and J. R. Green, Nonequilibrium uncertainty principle from information geometry, Phys. Rev. E98, 032106 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Ito and A

    S. Ito and A. Dechant, Stochastic time evolution, information geometry, and the cram´ er-rao bound, Phys. Rev. X10, 021056 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    S. B. Nicholson, L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, A. del Campo, and J. R. Green, Time–information uncertainty relations in thermodynamics, Nature Physics16, 1211 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, S. B. Nicholson, J. R. Green, A. del Campo, and A. V. Gorshkov, Unifying quantum and classical speed limits on observables, Phys. Rev. X12, 011038 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    P. B. Melo, F. Iemini, D. O. Soares-Pinto, S. M. D. Queir´ os, and W. A. M. Morgado, Thermodynamic interpretation to stochastic fisher information and single- trajectory speed limits, Phys. Rev. E112, 014126 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Touchette, The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics, Phys

    H. Touchette, The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics, Phys. Rep.478, 1 (2009)

    2009

  31. [31]

    J. P. Garrahan, Aspects of non-equilibrium in classical and quantum systems: Slow relaxation and glasses, dynamical large deviations, quantum non-ergodicity, and open quantum dynamics, Physica A504, 130 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

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

    2009

  33. [33]

    Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and its Applications(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    K. Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and its Applications(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    P. B. Melo, S. M. Duarte Queir´ os, and W. A. M. Morgado, Stochastic thermodynamics of fisher information, Phys. Rev. E111, 014101 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    T´ oth and D

    G. T´ oth and D. Petz, Extremal properties of the variance and the quantum fisher information, Phys. Rev. A87, 032324 (2013)

    2013

  36. [36]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. D’Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auff` eves, L. B. Oftelie, L. P. Bettmann, M. V. Bonan¸ ca, T. Busch, M. Campisi, M. F. Cavalcante, L. A. Correa, E. Cuestas, C. B. Dag, S. Dago, S. Deffner, A. del Campo, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. Donadi, E. Doucet, C. Elouard, K. Ensslin, P. Erker, N. Fabbri, F. Fedele, G. Fiusa, ...

    2025

  37. [37]

    L. P. Bettmann and J. Goold, Information geometry approach to quantum stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E111, 014133 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynamics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, A VS Quantum Science4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    J. M. Horowitz and J. M. R. Parrondo, Entropy production along nonequilibrium quantum jump trajectories, New Journal of Physics15, 085028 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Elouard, D

    C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Mart ´ ı, M. Clusel, and A. Auff` eves, The role of quantum measurement in stochastic thermodynamics, npj Quantum Information3, 9 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    D. P. Pires, M. Cianciaruso, L. C. C´ eleri, G. Adesso, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, Generalized geometric quantum speed limits, Phys. Rev. X6, 021031 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Bringewatt, Z

    J. Bringewatt, Z. Steffen, M. A. Ritter, A. Ehrenberg, H. Wang, B. S. Palmer, A. J. Koll´ ar, A. V. Gorshkov, and L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, Generalized geometric speed limits for quantum observables (2024), arXiv:2409.04544 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    H. M. Wiseman, Adaptive phase measurements of optical modes: Going beyond the marginalqdistribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4587 (1995)

    1995

  44. [44]

    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, Quantum2, 110 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of gaussian states (2013), arXiv:1303.3682 [quant-ph]

    A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of gaussian states (2013), arXiv:1303.3682 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Chang, M

    S. Chang, M. G. Genoni, and F. Albarelli, Multiparameter quantum estimation with gaussian states: efficiently evaluating holevo, rld and sld cram´ er- rao bounds (2025), arXiv:2504.17873 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025