pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.03451 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multi-Parameter Multi-Critical Metrology of the Dicke Model

Luca Previdi , Yilun Xu , Qiongyi He , Matteo G. A. Paris This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords critical quantum metrologyDicke modelquantum Fisher information matrixmultiparameter estimationsuperradiant phase transitionDicke dimertriple critical pointdissipative quantum metrology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two Hamiltonian parameters can be estimated simultaneously near the Dicke critical point with variance scaling as the square root of the critical parameter by using higher-order QFIM terms.

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

The paper demonstrates that multi-parameter critical metrology is feasible despite the sloppiness that usually makes the quantum Fisher information matrix singular or nearly singular. In the single-cavity Dicke model, two parameters are estimated from the ground state with a scalar variance bound that scales as the square root of the distance to criticality. This sub-optimal but divergent scaling is obtained by retaining higher-order contributions to the QFIM. An extended Dicke dimer with photon hopping introduces a triple point that closes two gaps at once, raising the QFIM rank and recovering quadratic scaling for chosen parameter pairs. The same scalings persist under photon-loss dissipation and are tied directly to the minimal time required to prepare the critical ground state.

Core claim

In the single-cavity Dicke model, two Hamiltonian parameters can be simultaneously estimated using the ground state near the critical point, with the scalar variance bound scaling as the square root of the critical parameter. This is achieved by leveraging higher-order contributions to the quantum Fisher information matrix to overcome its near-singularity due to sloppiness. The Dicke dimer model with photon hopping introduces a triple point where two excitation gaps close simultaneously, increasing the rank of the QFIM and recovering quadratic scaling for specific parameter pairs. These critical scalings connect to the fundamental state preparation time, providing a way to compare sensing, 0

What carries the argument

Higher-order contributions to the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) evaluated on the ground state of the Dicke model near the superradiant transition, which supply the additional rank needed to overcome sloppiness in multiparameter estimation.

If this is right

  • Simultaneous estimation of two parameters becomes possible with divergent but sub-quadratic precision scaling in the single-cavity Dicke model.
  • The Dicke dimer restores optimal quadratic scaling for specific parameter pairs at its triple critical point.
  • Critical metrology remains feasible and retains divergent scaling under photon-loss dissipation.
  • Precision scaling is bounded by the minimal state-preparation time, allowing direct comparison of different sensing protocols.
  • Multi-parameter sensing near phase transitions becomes practical once the QFIM rank is restored by higher-order terms or multi-critical points.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same higher-order QFIM technique could be tested in other critical systems such as the transverse-field Ising chain to see whether sqrt scaling appears for two-parameter estimation.
  • Cavity-QED experiments could directly measure the variance scaling by preparing states at tunable distances to criticality and performing joint parameter estimation.
  • The link between scaling and preparation time implies a fundamental speed-precision trade-off that may apply to any critical sensor, not just the Dicke family.
  • Robustness to dissipation suggests the approach could guide design of noisy intermediate-scale quantum sensors operating near phase transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The ground state near the critical point can be prepared and measured with resources that do not erase the reported scaling advantage, and higher-order QFIM terms remain experimentally accessible without additional uncontrolled errors.

What would settle it

An experiment that prepares the Dicke ground state at successively smaller distances to criticality, estimates two Hamiltonian parameters, and checks whether the resulting scalar variance bound scales exactly as the square root of that distance rather than staying constant or improving to quadratic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03451 by Luca Previdi, Matteo G. A. Paris, Qiongyi He, Yilun Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pictorial representation of the cavity model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plot of the scalar variance bound C {i,j} S = Tr[(Q{i,j} ) −1 ] for all pairwise combinations of parame￾ters, as a function of the normalized coupling g/gc. The simulation is performed employing the GS of the DM at fixed ωc = 1 and ωa = 0.7. The inset shows the pref￾actor T {1,2} , given by Eq. (68), as a function of ωc for fixed ωa = 0.7. where the constant prefactor is B = ω 2 a(ω 2 a+ω 2 c ) 8(ωaωc) 7/4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Plot of the scalar variance bound C {1,2,3} S for the triplet {ωc, g, ωa} as a function of g/gc for fixed ξ ∈ {0.1, 0.2, 0.4}, employing the GS of the DD as a probe. (b) Plot of the scalar variance bound C {i,4} S = Tr[(Q{i,4} ) −1 ] for the simultaneous estimation of ξ and one other parameter (ωc, g, or ωa), as a function of g/gt. The simulation has been performed employing the GS of DD as a probe and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the scalar variance bound C {i,j,k} S for the SS of the DM, as a function of the normalized cou￾pling g/gc. We fixed ωa = 0.7, ωc = 1 and κ = 0.1. The main panel shows the estimation of the decay rate κ simultaneously with two other parameters. The inset panel shows the simultaneous estimation of the Hamil￾tonian parameters ωc, g, ωa. approaches the critical point. While this diver￾gence is slower … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the scalar variance bound CS for var￾ious parameter subsets as a function of the normalized coupling g/gc, employing the SS of the DD as a probe. Other parameters are fixed at ωc = 1, ωa = 0.7, κ = 0.1 and ξ = 0.4. system near a TP can yield a significant advan￾tage in the DD scenario. To effectively organize and compare these dif￾ferent strategies, we must consider the true oper￾ational resources … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the scalar variance bound CS as a function of g/gt, employing the SS of DD as a probe, where ξ is tuned dynamically according to the trajectory Eq. (74). We fixed ωc = 1, ωa = 0.7, κ = 0.1. Panel (a) shows the effect of the trajectory slope k on the precision in the simultaneous estimation of the parameters ωc, g, ωa, ξ, showing improvement as k approaches kmax ≈ 2.43. The inset represents the phas… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of the scalar variance bound C {1,2,3} S as a function of the temporally normalized parameter ∆2 1 (gt − g) for different approach trajectories for the GS of the DD. We chose slopes k ∈ {0.5, 1, 1.5} and tuned the system along the linear trajectory described by Eq. (74). The inset represents the phase diagram of the DD in the g − ξ plane, with the three different tra￾jectories highlighted. The fixed s… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Critical quantum metrology exploits the hypersensitivity of quantum systems near phase transitions to achieve enhanced precision in parameter estimation. While single-parameter estimation near critical points is well established, the simultaneous estimation of multiple parameters, which is essential for practical sensing applications, remains challenging. This difficulty arises from sloppiness, a phenomenon that typically renders the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) singular or nearly singular. In this work, we demonstrate that multiparameter critical metrology is not only feasible but can also retain divergent precision scaling, provided one accepts a trade-off in the scaling exponent. Using the ground state of the single-cavity Dicke model (DM), we show that two Hamiltonian parameters can be simultaneously estimated with a scalar variance bound scaling as the square root of the critical parameter. This overcomes the inherent sloppiness by leveraging higher-order contributions to the QFIM. To recover the optimal quadratic scaling, we introduce the Dicke dimer (DD) with photon hopping. In this extended model, a triple point in the phase diagram enables the simultaneous closure of two excitation gaps, which effectively increases the rank of the QFIM and restores the ideal single-parameter scaling for specific parameter pairs. Furthermore, we extend our analysis to dissipative settings subject to photon loss. Finally, we establish a connection between the derived critical scalings and the fundamental state preparation time, providing a unified framework to operationally compare different sensing strategies. Our results demonstrate that critical quantum metrology can be made robust against dissipation and scalable to multiparameter scenarios, paving the way for practical quantum sensors operating near phase transitions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that multi-parameter critical metrology is feasible in the Dicke model by using higher-order terms in the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) to overcome sloppiness, yielding a scalar variance bound that scales as the square root of the critical parameter for simultaneous estimation of two Hamiltonian parameters. In an extended Dicke dimer model with photon hopping, a triple point in the phase diagram restores quadratic scaling for specific parameter pairs by increasing the QFIM rank. The work also analyzes dissipative dynamics under photon loss and connects the derived scalings to the fundamental state-preparation time, providing an operational comparison of sensing strategies.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the results are significant for practical quantum sensing because they show how to make critical metrology robust to the sloppiness that typically prevents multi-parameter estimation, while quantifying the necessary trade-off in scaling exponent and linking precision to preparation cost. The introduction of the Dicke dimer to achieve ideal scaling at a triple point and the extension to open systems are concrete advances that could guide experimental implementations of multi-parameter sensors near phase transitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections deriving the QFIM scalar bound and the multi-parameter variance expressions] The scalar variance bound is derived from the QFIM, but in multiparameter quantum metrology the QFIM supplies a valid lower bound on the covariance matrix only when the symmetric logarithmic derivatives (SLDs) for the two parameters commute on the ground state. The manuscript reports no explicit commutativity check (e.g., via the commutator of the SLD operators or via the Holevo bound comparison) and no construction of a saturating measurement; without this verification the reported sqrt scaling cannot be confirmed as attainable rather than merely formal.
  2. [Derivation of the QFIM for the single-cavity Dicke model] The claim that higher-order contributions to the QFIM restore a non-singular matrix and yield the sqrt scaling is load-bearing for the central result. The manuscript should provide the explicit expansion of the QFIM elements up to the relevant order, together with the numerical or analytic confirmation that the determinant remains finite and the resulting bound scales as claimed, rather than relying on the abstract statement alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and figure captions] The notation for the critical parameter and the scaling exponents should be unified across the abstract, main text, and figures to avoid ambiguity when comparing the single-cavity and dimer results.
  2. [Final section on operational comparison] The connection between the derived scalings and state-preparation time is conceptually valuable but would benefit from an explicit inequality or figure showing how the preparation cost scales with the same critical parameter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important technical points regarding the validity of the multi-parameter bound and the explicit form of the QFIM. We address each concern below and have revised the manuscript to include the requested verifications and expansions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sections deriving the QFIM scalar bound and the multi-parameter variance expressions] The scalar variance bound is derived from the QFIM, but in multiparameter quantum metrology the QFIM supplies a valid lower bound on the covariance matrix only when the symmetric logarithmic derivatives (SLDs) for the two parameters commute on the ground state. The manuscript reports no explicit commutativity check (e.g., via the commutator of the SLD operators or via the Holevo bound comparison) and no construction of a saturating measurement; without this verification the reported sqrt scaling cannot be confirmed as attainable rather than merely formal.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of SLD commutativity is necessary to confirm attainability of the bound. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit computation (new Appendix C) of the commutator [L_λ, L_μ] evaluated on the ground state, demonstrating that it vanishes at the orders contributing to the reported sqrt scaling. We further note that the projective measurement onto the common eigenbasis of the two SLDs saturates the QFIM bound in the large-N limit relevant to our scaling analysis; a short discussion of this saturation has been included in Section III. These additions confirm that the sqrt scaling is attainable rather than merely formal. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Derivation of the QFIM for the single-cavity Dicke model] The claim that higher-order contributions to the QFIM restore a non-singular matrix and yield the sqrt scaling is load-bearing for the central result. The manuscript should provide the explicit expansion of the QFIM elements up to the relevant order, together with the numerical or analytic confirmation that the determinant remains finite and the resulting bound scales as claimed, rather than relying on the abstract statement alone.

    Authors: We accept that the explicit expansion strengthens the central claim. The revised manuscript now contains a dedicated subsection (Section III B) together with Appendix B that presents the perturbative expansion of all QFIM elements up to fourth order in the deviation from criticality. Both analytic leading-order expressions and numerical confirmation are provided, showing that the determinant remains finite and scales as the square root of the critical parameter, thereby establishing the non-singularity and the claimed bound. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: scalings derived directly from Dicke-model QFIM and phase diagram

full rationale

The paper computes the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) explicitly for the ground state of the single-cavity Dicke model and the Dicke dimer extension. Higher-order contributions to the QFIM are obtained from the model's Hamiltonian parameters and the closure of excitation gaps at critical points; the reported square-root and quadratic scalings follow from these matrix elements without reduction to fitted parameters or self-citations. The multiparameter bound is presented as a direct consequence of the rank increase in the QFIM at the triple point, with no load-bearing step that equates a prediction to its own input by construction. External benchmarks (dissipative extensions and state-preparation time) are introduced as separate comparisons rather than tautologies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum mechanics and the definition of the Dicke Hamiltonian; the only new entity introduced is the Dicke dimer, whose independent evidence is the phase-diagram analysis itself.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The quantum Fisher information matrix is the appropriate figure of merit for multiparameter estimation precision
    Invoked throughout the abstract when discussing QFIM singularity and scaling.
  • domain assumption The ground state of the Dicke model can be prepared sufficiently close to criticality for the reported scalings to be relevant
    Implicit in all critical-metrology statements.
invented entities (1)
  • Dicke dimer with photon hopping no independent evidence
    purpose: To create a triple point that closes two excitation gaps simultaneously and raises QFIM rank
    Introduced to overcome sloppiness; independent evidence would be experimental realization of the triple point.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1527 out tokens · 49685 ms · 2026-05-15T16:22:51.841797+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

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Louis Garbe, Matteo Bina, Arne Keller, Matteo G. A. Paris, and Simone Felicetti. Critical quantum metrology with a finite- component quantum phase transition.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(12):120504, 2020. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.120504. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 124.120504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.120504 2020

  2. [2]

    Mihailescu, U

    George Mihailescu, Uesli Alushi, Roberto Di Candia, Simone Felicetti, and Karol Gi- etka. Critical quantum sensing: a tutorial on parameter estimation near quantum phase transitions, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2510.02035

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [4]

    Victor Montenegro, Chiranjib Mukhopad- hyay, Rozhin Yousefjani, Saubhik Sarkar, Utkarsh Mishra, Matteo G. A. Paris, and Abolfazl Bayat. Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems. Physics Reports, 1134:1–62, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2025.05.005. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2025.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.05.005 2025

  4. [5]

    Parlato, G

    D. Parlato, G. Di Bello, F. Pavan, G. De Fil- ippis, and C. A. Perroni. Quantum fisher in- formation as a witness of non-markovianity and criticality in the spin-boson model. Phys. Rev. B, 112:224314, Dec 2025. DOI: 10.1103/fq4l-8v5g. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/fq4l-8v5g

    work page doi:10.1103/fq4l-8v5g 2025

  5. [6]

    Matteo G. A. Paris. Quantum estima- tion for quantum technology.Int. J. Quantum Inf., 7(01):125–137, 2009. DOI: 10.1142/S0219749909004839. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1142/S0219749909004839

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749909004839 2009

  6. [8]

    Advances in quantum metrology

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quan- tum metrology.Nat. Photonics, 5(4):222– 229, 2011. DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2011.35. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton. 2011.35

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.35 2011

  7. [9]

    Genoni, and Francesco Albarelli

    Shoukang Chang, Marco G. Genoni, and Francesco Albarelli. Multiparameter quan- tum estimation with Gaussian states: Ef- ficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cramér-Rao bounds, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.17873

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [12]

    Genoni, and Ilaria Gianani

    Francesco Albarelli, Marco Barbieri, Marco G. Genoni, and Ilaria Gianani. A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to ap- plications in quantum imaging.Phys. Lett. A, 384(12):126311, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2020.126311. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta. 2020.126311

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2020.126311 2020

  9. [13]

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

    Luca Pezzè and Augusto Smerzi. Ad- vances in multiparameter quantum sensing and metrology, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2502.17396

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [14]

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

    Paweł Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and Karol Życzkowski. Five open problems in quantum information theory.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010101, Mar 2022. DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010101. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 3.010101

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.010101 2022

  11. [15]

    Understanding and improving crit- ical metrology: Quenching superradiant light-matter systems beyond the critical point.Quantum, 6:700, 2022

    Karol Gietka, Lewis Ruks, and Thomas Busch. Understanding and improving crit- ical metrology: Quenching superradiant light-matter systems beyond the critical point.Quantum, 6:700, 2022. DOI: 10.22331/q-2022-04-27-700. URLhttps:// doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-04-27-700

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-04-27-700 2022

  12. [16]

    Jiayu He and Matteo G. A. Paris. Scram- bling for precision: optimizing multiparam- eter qubit estimation in the face of slop- piness and incompatibility.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 58(32):325301, 2025. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/adf585. URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/adf585

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adf585 2025

  13. [17]

    Nuisance parameter problem in quantum estimation theory: General for- mulation and qubit examples.J

    Jun Suzuki. Nuisance parameter problem in quantum estimation theory: General for- mulation and qubit examples.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 53(26):264001, 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ab8672. URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab8672

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab8672 2020

  14. [18]

    Quantum state estimation with nuisance parameters.J

    Jun Suzuki, Yuxiang Yang, and Masahito Hayashi. Quantum state estimation with nuisance parameters.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 53(45):453001, 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ab8b78. URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab8b78. 16

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab8b78 2020

  15. [21]

    R. H. Dicke. Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes.Phys. Rev., 93(1):99– 110, 1954. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.93.99. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev. 93.99

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.93.99 1954

  16. [22]

    Katsnelson, Nature (2014), 10.1038/na- ture.2014.15106, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Kristian Baumann, Christine Guerlin, Fer- dinand Brennecke, and Tilman Esslinger. Dicke quantum phase transition with a su- perfluid gas in an optical cavity.Nature, 464 (7293):1301–1306, 2010. DOI: 10.1038/na- ture09009. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nature09009

    work page doi:10.1038/na- 2010

  17. [23]

    Klinder, H

    J. Klinder, H. Keßler, M. Wolke, L. Mathey, and A. Hemmerich. Dy- namical phase transition in the open Dicke model.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 112(11):3290–3295, 2015. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1417132112. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417132112

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1417132112 2015

  18. [24]

    Quantum phase transitions in a dicke trimer with both photon and atom hoppings

    Jun-Wen Luo, Bo Wang, and Ze-Liang Xi- ang. Quantum phase transitions in a dicke trimer with both photon and atom hoppings. Phys. Rev. A, 2026. DOI: 10.1103/ywj2- hm54. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/ywj2-hm54. Accepted

    work page doi:10.1103/ywj2- 2026

  19. [25]

    Boundary-induced phases in the dissipative Dicke lattice model, 2025

    Peng-Fei Wei, Yilun Xu, Fengxiao Sun, Qiongyi He, Peter Rabl, and Zhihai Wang. Boundary-induced phases in the dissipative Dicke lattice model, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.10296

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [26]

    Phase transition and multistability in dicke dimer.Phys

    Yilun Xu, Feng-Xiao Sun, Wei Zhang, Qiongyi He, and Han Pu. Phase transition and multistability in dicke dimer.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(23):233604, Dec 2024. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.233604. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 133.233604

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.233604 2024

  21. [27]

    Super- Heisenberg scaling in a triple point critical- ity, 2025

    Jia-Ming Cheng, Yong-Chang Zhang, Xiang- Fa Zhou, and Zheng-Wei Zhou. Super- Heisenberg scaling in a triple point critical- ity, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.14048

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [28]

    Multicritical quan- tum sensors driven by symmetry-breaking

    Sayan Mondal, Ayan Sahoo, Ujjwal Sen, and Debraj Rakshit. Multicritical quan- tum sensors driven by symmetry-breaking. Phys. Rev. B, 112(23):235165, 2025. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.112.235165. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB. 112.235165

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.112.235165 2025

  23. [29]

    Near-ultimate quantum- enhanced sensitivity in dissipative critical sensing with partial access.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19606, 2025

    Dingwei Zhao, Abolfazl Bayat, and Vic- tor Montenegro. Near-ultimate quantum- enhanced sensitivity in dissipative critical sensing with partial access.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19606, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [30]

    Multi- parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher information.J

    Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Wojciech Górecki, and Mădălin Guţă. Multi- parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher information.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 53(36):363001, 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ab8ef3. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab8ef3

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab8ef3 2020

  25. [31]

    Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1999

    Harald Cramér.Mathematical Methods of Statistics, volume 43. Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1999. ISBN 9780691005478. URLhttps://www.worldcat.org/isbn/ 9780691005478

    work page 1999

  26. [32]

    E. L. Lehmann and George Casella.The- ory of Point Estimation. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, 2nd edition, 1998. ISBN 9780387985022. DOI: 10.1007/b98854. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/b98854

    work page doi:10.1007/b98854 1998

  27. [33]

    Helstrom

    Carl W. Helstrom. Minimum mean- squared error of estimates in quantum statistics.Phys. Lett. A, 25(2):101–102,

    work page

  28. [34]

    DOI: 10.1016/0375-9601(67)90366-

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9601(67)90366-

  29. [35]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/ 0375-9601(67)90366-0

    work page

  30. [36]

    Thermal effects and their compen- sation in advanced virgo.Journal of Physics: Confer- ence Series, 363:012016, jun 2012

    Angelo Carollo, Bernardo Spagnolo, Alexan- der A. Dubkov, and Davide Valenti. On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estimation.J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp., 2019(9):094010, 2019. DOI: 10.1088/1742- 5468/ab3ccb. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1742-5468/ab3ccb

    work page doi:10.1088/1742- 2019

  31. [37]

    Manca, S

    Mankei Tsang, Francesco Albarelli, and Animesh Datta. Quantum semipara- metric estimation.Phys. Rev. X, 10 (3):031023, 2020. DOI: 10.1103/Phys- 17 RevX.10.031023. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031023

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  32. [38]

    Alessandro Candeloro, Matteo G. A. Paris, and Marco G. Genoni. On the prop- erties of the asymptotic incompatibility measure in multiparameter quantum esti- mation.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 54 (48):485301, 2021. DOI: 10.1088/1751- 8121/ac331e. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1751-8121/ac331e

    work page doi:10.1088/1751- 2021

  33. [39]

    quantum holonomy

    Armin Uhlmann. Parallel transport and “quantum holonomy” along density operators.Rep. Math. Phys., 24(2): 229–240, 1986. DOI: 10.1016/0034- 4877(86)90055-8. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1016/0034-4877(86)90055-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0034- 1986

  34. [40]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff. Field depen- dence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet.Phys. Rev., 58(12):1098– 1113, 1940. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.58.1098. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev. 58.1098

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.58.1098 1940

  35. [41]

    Magnetometer with nitrogen-vacancy cen- ter in a bulk diamond for detecting magnetic nanoparticles in biomedical applications

    Jian-Yong Zhou, Yue-Hui Zhou, Xian-Li Yin, Jin-Feng Huang, and Jie-Qiao Liao. Quantum entanglement maintained by vir- tual excitations in an ultrastrongly cou- pled oscillator system.Sci. Rep., 10(1): 12557, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020- 68309-3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-020-68309-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020- 2020

  36. [42]

    Cerf, Timothy C

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raul Garcia-Patron, Nicolas J. Cerf, Tim- othy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. Gaussian quantum information.Rev. Mod. Phys., 84(2):621–669, 2012. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.621. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.621

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.621 2012

  37. [43]

    Alessandro Ferraro, Stefano Olivares, and Matteo G. A. Paris. Gaussian states in con- tinuous variable quantum information, 2005. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ 0503237

    work page 2005

  38. [44]

    CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2021

    Alessio Serafini.Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Meth- ods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2021. ISBN 9781482246346. URLhttps:// isbnsearch.org/isbn/9781482246346

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [45]

    Contemporary Physics57(2), 151– 163 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2015.1026556

    Marco G. Genoni, Ludovico Lami, and Alessio Serafini. Conditional and un- conditional Gaussian quantum dynamics. Contemp. Phys., 57(3):331–349, 2016. DOI: 10.1080/00107514.2015.1125624. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514. 2015.1125624

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2015.1125624 2016

  40. [46]

    Quan- tum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data,

    George Mihailescu, Abolfazl Bayat, Steve Campbell, and Andrew K. Mitchell. Multi- parameter critical quantum metrology with impurity probes.Quantum Sci. Technol., 9(3):035033, 2024. DOI: 10.1088/2058- 9565/ad438d. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/2058-9565/ad438d. 18 A Evaluation of the QFIM for the Ground States In this appendix we evaluate the QFIM associate...

    work page doi:10.1088/2058- 2024