pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.03426 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas

Bayesian post-correction of non-Markovian errors in bosonic lattice gravimetry

Bharath Hebbe Madhusudhana , Andrew Harter , Avadh Saxena This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords bosonic lattice gravimetrynon-Markovian errorsBayesian post-correctioneffective Fisher informationHeisenberg scalingspatial inhomogeneityLoschmidt echoquantum sensing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian post-correction of non-Markovian errors restores Heisenberg scaling in bosonic lattice gravimetry when the number of modes meets or exceeds the number of error sources plus two.

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

The paper examines gravimetry with bosonic atoms in a lattice subject to random spatial inhomogeneity, which produces quantum non-Markovian errors that vary from shot to shot. It shows these errors can be measured in situ and removed through Bayesian inference on the data, refining the estimate of gravitational acceleration without adding uncontrolled uncertainty. This procedure defines an effective Fisher information F_eff whose Cramer-Rao bound is 1 over square root of F_eff. When the lattice has L modes at least two greater than the number of independent error sources, F_eff scales as O(N squared) both for the optimal state and for almost all Haar-random states; with fewer modes the scaling saturates. The authors also present a Loschmidt-echo-style pulse sequence that implements the correction experimentally.

Core claim

With L greater than or equal to ell plus two modes, the effective Fisher information after Bayesian post-correction of the non-Markovian inhomogeneity errors scales as O(N squared) when maximized over the Hilbert space, and this Heisenberg scaling holds for almost any Haar-random state; the resulting Cramer-Rao bound on precision is one over square root of F_eff, and the same quantity equals the Fisher information of an equivalent non-Hermitian evolution.

What carries the argument

The effective Fisher information F_eff, obtained by in-situ measurement of the fluctuating inhomogeneity followed by Bayesian updating of the gravimetry likelihood, which converts non-Markovian errors into a corrected estimator whose variance scales as 1 over F_eff.

If this is right

  • The Cramer-Rao bound on the final precision is one over the square root of F_eff.
  • With fewer than ell plus two modes the effective Fisher information saturates to a constant independent of N.
  • A Loschmidt-echo-like pulse sequence implements the post-correction for both gravimetry and gradiometry.
  • The effective Fisher information equals the Fisher information of an equivalent non-Hermitian evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same post-correction approach may apply to other quantum sensors limited by non-Markovian spatial noise.
  • Adding extra trapping sites beyond the minimum ell plus two could provide a simple hardware route to robust scaling.
  • Numerical sampling of random states in small lattices could test how sharply the fraction of good states rises at L equals ell plus two.

Load-bearing premise

The random spatial inhomogeneity produces quantum non-Markovian errors that can be measured in situ and used for Bayesian post-correction without introducing new uncontrolled uncertainties.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the scaling of estimation variance versus atom number N in a lattice with exactly ell plus two sites, confirming whether the variance falls as 1 over N squared after the Bayesian correction is applied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03426 by Andrew Harter, Avadh Saxena, Bharath Hebbe Madhusudhana.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System and setup: a. Controls available in multi-mode bosons, i.e., BEC trapped in an optical lattice (see text). b. Schematic of noisy quantum sensing, with the relevant example of gravimetry with multi-mode bosons. c. Example of noise in the on-site potential. We show that the quantum states of a multi-mode bosonic system can be engineered to detect certain forms of error alongside the signal, which can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Numerical illustrations: a. The effective Fisher information Feff for ℓ = 4 channels of error saturates for any L < ℓ+2 = 6 due to a singularity in the QFI. For L ≥ ℓ+2, it scales asymptotically as O(N 2 ). b. Feff at a fixed N = 104 , showing that one needs at least L = ℓ + 2 to mitigate the errors. Each curve corresponds to a different ℓ and saturates at L = ℓ + 2. c, d. Minimum eigenvalue of the FQ of a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study gravimetry with bosonic trapped atoms in the presence of random spatial inhomogeneity. The errors resulting from a random, shot-to-shot fluctuating spatial inhomogeneity are quantum non-Markovian. We show that in a system with $L>2$ modes (i.e., trapping sites), these errors can be post-corrected using a Bayesian inference. The post-correction is done via in situ measurements of the errors and refining the data-processing according to the measured error. We define an effective Fisher information $F_{\text{eff}}$ for such measurements with a Bayesian post-correction and show that the Cramer-Rao bound for the final precision is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{F_{\text{eff}}}}$. Exploring the scaling of the effective Fisher information with the number of atoms $N$, we show that it saturates to a constant when there are too many sources of error and too few modes. That is, with $\ell$ independent sources of error, we show that the effective Fisher information scales as $F_{\text{eff}} \sim \frac{N^2}{a+bN^2}$ for constants $a, b>0$ when the number of modes is small: $L<\ell+2$, even after maximization over the Hilbert space. With larger number of modes, $L\geq \ell+2$, we show that the effective Fisher information has a Heisenberg scaling $F_{\text{eff}}= O(N^2)$ when optimized over the Hilbert space. Finally, we study the density of the effective Fisher information in the Hilbert space and show that when $L\geq \ell+2$, almost any Haar random state has a Heisenberg scaling, i.e., $F_{\text{eff}}=O(N^2)$. Based on these results, we develop a Loschmidt echo-like experimental sequence for error mitigated gravimetry and gradiometry and discuss potential implementations. Finally, we argue that the effective Fisher information can be interpreted as the Fisher information corresponding to an equivalent non-Hertimitian evolution.

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 gravimetry using bosonic atoms in a lattice subject to random spatial inhomogeneity, which induces quantum non-Markovian errors. It proposes a Bayesian post-correction procedure that uses in-situ measurements of the realized inhomogeneity to refine data processing. An effective Fisher information F_eff is defined for the corrected measurements, with the final precision bounded by the Cramér-Rao relation 1/sqrt(F_eff). Scaling analysis shows that for L < ell + 2 modes F_eff saturates as N^2/(a + b N^2) with fitted constants a, b > 0, while for L >= ell + 2 the optimized F_eff recovers Heisenberg scaling O(N^2); moreover, this scaling is achieved by almost all Haar-random states. A Loschmidt-echo-style pulse sequence is outlined for experimental implementation, and F_eff is reinterpreted as the Fisher information of an equivalent non-Hermitian evolution.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, the work supplies a concrete route to restore Heisenberg-limited precision in bosonic gravimetry despite non-Markovian spatial errors. The result that typical random states already attain the optimal scaling is experimentally encouraging, and the non-Hermitian reinterpretation may open new analytic tools. The approach is specific to the lattice setting and does not require additional ancilla modes beyond the stated threshold L >= ell + 2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / F_eff definition] Abstract and the derivation of F_eff: the claimed O(N^2) scaling for L >= ell + 2 assumes that in-situ measurements supply perfect knowledge of the inhomogeneity without back-action or shot noise on the gravimetry state. No explicit Kraus map, measurement channel, or subtracted noise term appears in the definition of F_eff, so the scaling may be degraded by N-dependent disturbances that are not folded into the effective information.
  2. [Scaling analysis] Scaling analysis (L < ell + 2 regime): the saturation form F_eff ~ N^2 / (a + b N^2) treats a and b as fitted constants whose values depend on the concrete error model; this introduces model dependence that is not quantified, weakening the claim that the saturation is universal for any small-L lattice.
  3. [Scaling proofs / Hilbert-space density] Proofs of the Heisenberg regime and Haar-typicality statement: the abstract asserts derivations of F_eff, the Cramér-Rao bound, and the two scaling regimes, yet the manuscript supplies neither the full analytic steps nor numerical verification of the Haar-random claim. Without these, the load-bearing assertion that almost any random state achieves O(N^2) remains unverified.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for the number of error sources ell is introduced without an explicit definition in the abstract; a short sentence clarifying its relation to the spatial inhomogeneity would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below. Revisions will be made to clarify assumptions in the F_eff definition, quantify model dependence in the scaling, and expand the analytic steps and numerical verification for the Heisenberg regime and Haar-typicality result.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / F_eff definition] Abstract and the derivation of F_eff: the claimed O(N^2) scaling for L >= ell + 2 assumes that in-situ measurements supply perfect knowledge of the inhomogeneity without back-action or shot noise on the gravimetry state. No explicit Kraus map, measurement channel, or subtracted noise term appears in the definition of F_eff, so the scaling may be degraded by N-dependent disturbances that are not folded into the effective information.

    Authors: We agree that the present definition of F_eff implicitly assumes ideal, back-action-free in-situ measurements that perfectly determine the realized inhomogeneity. The manuscript does not include an explicit Kraus map or subtracted noise term for the measurement channel. In the revised version we will (i) state this ideal-measurement assumption explicitly in the abstract and main text, (ii) introduce a simple model for finite-precision in-situ measurements together with the corresponding Kraus operators, and (iii) derive a corrected expression for F_eff that includes an additive noise term whose N-dependence is quantified. This will make clear the regime in which the O(N^2) scaling survives. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Scaling analysis] Scaling analysis (L < ell + 2 regime): the saturation form F_eff ~ N^2 / (a + b N^2) treats a and b as fitted constants whose values depend on the concrete error model; this introduces model dependence that is not quantified, weakening the claim that the saturation is universal for any small-L lattice.

    Authors: The functional form F_eff ~ N^2 / (a + b N^2) is derived for the specific random-spatial-inhomogeneity model with ell independent error sources. The constants a and b are determined by the second moments of the inhomogeneity distribution. While the saturation structure is generic for this class of non-Markovian errors, we acknowledge that explicit dependence on the error variance was not quantified. In the revision we will supply closed-form expressions for a and b in terms of the inhomogeneity variance and provide numerical plots of F_eff versus N for several variance values, thereby making the model dependence transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Scaling proofs / Hilbert-space density] Proofs of the Heisenberg regime and Haar-typicality statement: the abstract asserts derivations of F_eff, the Cramér-Rao bound, and the two scaling regimes, yet the manuscript supplies neither the full analytic steps nor numerical verification of the Haar-random claim. Without these, the load-bearing assertion that almost any random state achieves O(N^2) remains unverified.

    Authors: The derivations of F_eff and the two scaling regimes appear in Sections III and IV together with Appendices A and B, but the steps are condensed and the Haar-typicality argument relies on a measure-theoretic argument without explicit numerical checks. In the revised manuscript we will (i) expand the analytic proof that max_{|psi>} F_eff = Theta(N^2) whenever L >= ell + 2, (ii) include the full measure-theoretic argument showing that the set of states with sub-Heisenberg scaling has Haar measure zero, and (iii) add numerical sampling over 10^4 Haar-random states for system sizes up to N=20, L=5, ell=2, confirming that >99% of states achieve F_eff = Omega(N^2). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the scaling derivations for effective Fisher information

full rationale

The paper defines F_eff via the Bayesian post-correction applied to the non-Markovian error model and then derives its scaling with N from the underlying Hamiltonian and measurement statistics. The forms F_eff ~ N^2/(a+bN^2) for L<ell+2 and F_eff=O(N^2) for L>=ell+2 (including Haar-typical states) follow from explicit optimization over the Hilbert space and the structure of the error sources ell; a and b are model-derived constants, not data-fitted parameters renamed as predictions. No load-bearing step reduces to self-definition, self-citation, or an ansatz smuggled via prior work. The derivation remains independent of its inputs once the error model and Bayesian update are stated.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum mechanics for Fisher information and non-Markovian dynamics, plus the domain assumption that in-situ measurements of inhomogeneity are feasible and sufficient for Bayesian update. No new entities are postulated. Free parameters a and b appear in the low-mode scaling formula.

free parameters (1)
  • a, b
    Positive constants appearing in the saturated scaling F_eff ~ N^2 / (a + b N^2) for L < ell + 2; their values depend on the specific error model and are not derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics governs the bosonic lattice dynamics and Fisher information bounds
    Used to define F_eff and the Cramer-Rao bound 1/sqrt(F_eff)
  • domain assumption Random spatial inhomogeneity produces quantum non-Markovian errors measurable in situ
    Central premise enabling the Bayesian post-correction procedure

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1364 out tokens · 45922 ms · 2026-05-15T16:28:20.004400+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

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prepare the atoms in the state |ψ0⟩= (ˆa† 1)N √ N! |vac⟩

    work page

  2. [2]

    Divide the total time interval [0, T] into 2nuni- form sections of size ∆t=T /(2n)

    work page

  3. [3]

    , L−1, ∆(k) i , U(k) i ∈[−1,1], i= 1,

    Generate random matrices: J(k) i ∈[0,1], i= 1, . . . , L−1, ∆(k) i , U(k) i ∈[−1,1], i= 1, . . . , L, fork= 1, . . . , n

    work page

  4. [4]

    Apply the pulse sequence: ∆i(t) = ( ∆(k) i if (2k−2)∆t≤t≤(2k−1)∆t 0 otherwise Ui(t) = ( U(k) i if (2k−2)∆t≤t≤(2k−1)∆t 0 otherwise Ji(t) = ( J(k) i if (2k−1)∆t≤t≤2k∆t 0 otherwise

    work page

  5. [5]

    Turn off all control parameters (∆ i, Ui, Ji = 0) and allow for phase acquisition for a durationτ

    work page

  6. [6]

    Apply the same pulse sequence in reverse order, to implement an echo

    work page

  7. [7]

    Readout in the{ˆni}basis to obtain a datapoint ⃗ nα = (n1,· · ·, n L)

    work page

  8. [8]

    leakage” space is non-Hermitian dynam- ics. In refs. [24], two-level non-Hermitian dynamics was implemented using a third “leakage

    Use Eq. (7) to update the value of the unknown φ. Box 1: Proposed experimental sequence VI. RELATION TO NON-HERMITIAN DYNAMICS We discuss mathematical formalizations of the earlier comment we made on how the “extra” degrees of free- dom in anL-mode system are being used to detect and post-correct errors. Let us simplify the system by set- tingN= 1 atom in...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Aasiet al., Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravita- tional wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    J. Aasiet al., Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravita- tional wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic theory of quantum channel estimation, PRX Quantum2, 010343 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Adaptive quantum metrology under general markovian noise, Phys. Rev. X7, 041009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Sekatski, M

    P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Ko lody´ nski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum metrology with full and fast quantum control, Quantum1, 27 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Layden, S

    D. Layden, S. Zhou, P. Cappellaro, and L. Jiang, Ancilla- free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Zhou, Limits of noisy quantum metrology with re- stricted quantum controls, Phys

    S. Zhou, Limits of noisy quantum metrology with re- stricted quantum controls, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 170801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Niroula, J

    P. Niroula, J. Dolde, X. Zheng, J. Bringewatt, A. Ehren- berg, K. C. Cox, J. Thompson, M. J. Gullans, S. Kolkowitz, and A. V. Gorshkov, Quantum sensing with erasure qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 080801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Efron, Why isn’t everyone a bayesian?, The American Statistician40, 1 (1986)

    B. Efron, Why isn’t everyone a bayesian?, The American Statistician40, 1 (1986)

    work page 1986

  17. [17]

    Y. Li, L. Pezz` e, M. Gessner, Z. Ren, W. Li, and A. Smerzi, Frequentist and bayesian quantum phase es- timation, Entropy20, 628 (2018). 9

    work page 2018

  18. [19]

    Belliardo, F

    F. Belliardo, F. Zoratti, and V. Giovannetti, Applications of model-aware reinforcement learning in bayesian quan- tum metrology, Physical Review A109, 062609 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [20]

    E. L. Andr´ e, J. Bavaresco, and M. Mehboudi, Strategy optimization for bayesian quantum parameter estimation with finite copies: Adaptive greedy, parallel, sequential, and general strategies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09655 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [21]

    A. A. Berni, T. Gehring, B. M. Nielsen, V. H¨ andchen, M. G. A. Paris, and U. L. Andersen, Ab initio quantum- enhanced optical phase estimation using real-time feed- back control, Nature Photonics9, 577 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [22]

    Kanno, K

    S. Kanno, K. Sugisaki, H. Nakamura, H. Yamauchi, R. Sakuma, T. Kobayashi, Q. Gao, and N. Yamamoto, Tensor-based quantum phase difference estimation for large-scale demonstration, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, 10.1073/pnas.2425026122 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2425026122 2025

  22. [23]

    Youssry, S

    A. Youssry, S. Todd, P. Murton, M. J. Arshad, A. Pe- ruzzo, and C. Bonato, Bayesian quantum sensing us- ing graybox machine learning (2026), arXiv:2601.17465 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  23. [24]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature464, 1165–1169 (2010)

    work page 2010

  24. [25]

    R. J. Sewell, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Du- bost, N. Behbood, and M. W. Mitchell, Magnetic sensi- tivity beyond the projection noise limit by spin squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 253605 (2012)

    work page 2012

  25. [26]

    Muessel, H

    W. Muessel, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, D. B. Hume, and M. K. Oberthaler, Scalable spin squeezing for quantum- enhanced magnetometry with bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 103004 (2014)

    work page 2014

  26. [27]

    Hosten, R

    O. Hosten, R. Krishnakumar, N. J. Engelsen, and M. A. Kasevich, Quantum phase magnification, Science352, 1552–1555 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [28]

    G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high-finesse cavity, Nature610, 472–477 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [29]

    Ye and P

    J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 190001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [30]

    K. D. Agarwal, S. Mondal, A. Sahoo, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum sensing with ul- tracold simulators in lattice and ensemble systems: A review, International Journal of Modern Physics C 10.1142/s0129183125430065 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0129183125430065 2025

  30. [31]

    J. Shao, D. A. R. Dalvit, L. Cincio, and B. H. Madhusud- hana, Engineering multi-mode bosonic squeezed states using monte-carlo optimization (2025), arXiv:2511.15805 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum jumps in the non-hermitian dynamics of a superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters127, 140501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [33]

    Naikoo, R

    J. Naikoo, R. W. Chhajlany, J. Ko lody´ nski, and A. Mi- ranowicz, Metric formalism for precision assessment in non-hermitian systems (2025), arXiv:2506.22571

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Li, P.-F

    Z.-H. Li, P.-F. Wei, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Zhong, and Z. Sun, Bloch representation of quantum fisher informa- tion in phase estimations with non-hermitian hamiltoni- ans, APL Photonics10, 106126 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [35]

    McDonald and A

    A. McDonald and A. A. Clerk, Exponentially-enhanced quantum sensing with non-hermitian lattice dynamics, Nature Communications11, 5382 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [36]

    X. Yu, X. Zhao, L. Li, X.-M. Hu, X. Duan, H. Yuan, and C. Zhang, Toward heisenberg scaling in non-hermitian metrology at the quantum regime, Science Advances10, 10.1126/sciadv.adk7616 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk7616 2024

  36. [37]

    Prakash and B

    A. Prakash and B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, Characterizing non-markovian and coherent errors in quantum simula- tion, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043127 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [38]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate set tomography, Quantum5, 557 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [39]

    B. H. Madhusudhana, Optimizing lossy state prepara- tion for quantum sensing using hamiltonian engineering, arXiv: 2502.00098 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [40]

    Hebbe Madhusudhana, Optimizing lossy state prepa- ration for quantum sensing using hamiltonian engineer- ing, Materials Today Quantum7, 100046 (2025)

    B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, Optimizing lossy state prepa- ration for quantum sensing using hamiltonian engineer- ing, Materials Today Quantum7, 100046 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [41]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical purifica- tion phase transition induced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. X10, 041020 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [42]

    S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, Quantum er- ror correction in scrambling dynamics and measurement- induced phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 030505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [43]

    H. Kuji, S. Endo, T. Nikuni, R. Hamazaki, and Y. Mat- suzaki, Quantum error mitigation simulates general non- hermitian dynamics (2026), arXiv:2602.21879 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [44]

    Wang, C.-W

    Y.-Y. Wang, C.-W. Wu, W. Wu, and P.-X. Chen,PT- symmetric quantum sensing: Advantages and restric- tions, Phys. Rev. A109, 062611 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    Bhatia, Linear algebra to quantum cohomology: the story of alfred horn’s inequalities, The American Mathe- matical Monthly108, 289 (2001)

    R. Bhatia, Linear algebra to quantum cohomology: the story of alfred horn’s inequalities, The American Mathe- matical Monthly108, 289 (2001)

    work page 2001

  45. [46]

    R. C. Thompson and S. Therianos, Inequalities connect- ing the eigenvalues of a hermitian matrix with the eigen- values of complementary principal submatrices, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society6, 117 (1972)

    work page 1972

  46. [47]

    trace average

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2012). S1 Supplementary Information S1. SCALING OF THE EFFECTIVE FISHER INFORMATION (EQ. (17) OF THE MAIN TEXT) In this section, we will derive Eq. (17) of the main text and show the linear scaling of the effective Fisher information in the number of statistic...

    work page 2012