Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 73 references

Ancilla-Shielded Qubit Measures AdS Temperature via Non-Markovian Memory

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 06:42 UTC pith:PE7OWWFO

load-bearing objection Ancilla-mediated UDW thermometry in AdS — interesting setup, but the master equation has a structural inconsistency that needs resolving before the numerical results can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07562 v1 pith:PE7OWWFO submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Relativistic Quantum Thermometry in AdS Spacetime via Non-Markovian Temperature Sensing

Anass Hminat , Abdallah Slaoui , Rachid Ahl Laamara This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumspacetimedetectortemperaturecharacterizeestimationinformationnon-markovian
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.

This paper proposes a quantum thermometry protocol for measuring the temperature of an Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime using a two-level quantum probe. The central innovation is the insertion of an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector between a shielded probe qubit and the thermal bath of the curved spacetime. The ancilla interacts directly with the scalar field environment and, through a tunable coupling to the probe, channels temperature-dependent information into the probe's quantum coherence without exposing the probe to direct decoherence. The authors show that increasing the probe-ancilla coupling induces non-Markovian dynamics (information backflow) in the probe, which enhances both the Quantum Fisher Information and the quantum signal-to-noise ratio for temperature estimation, particularly at low temperatures. The paper characterizes how detector acceleration, boundary conditions (Dirichlet, Neumann, transparent), energy gap, and curvature length scale modify the thermometric sensitivity, and identifies finite optimal interaction times and temperatures at which estimation precision is maximized.

Core claim

The paper's central result is that an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector, interposed between a protected probe qubit and an AdS thermal bath, serves as an information router: it absorbs thermal information from the spacetime and transfers it to the probe's off-diagonal coherence, while the probe itself remains shielded from dissipative decoherence. Crucially, the strength of the probe-ancilla coupling controls a transition from Markovian to non-Markovian probe dynamics, and the non-Markovian regime produces oscillatory enhancements in the Quantum Fisher Information and quantum signal-to-noise ratio that exceed what a directly coupled probe can achieve, with the strongest gains occurring at low.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a three-layer open quantum system: (1) the AdS spacetime with a massless scalar field acting as a thermal reservoir, (2) an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector linearly coupled to the field and undergoing Markovian dissipation governed by a Kossakowski-Lindblad master equation whose coefficients are determined by the AdS Wightman function, and (3) a probe qubit coupled to the ancilla via an exchange-type Hamiltonian with strength kappa. The ancilla's Kossakowski matrix encodes the spacetime's temperature, acceleration, curvature, and boundary conditions. Temperature information enters the probe through the coherence channel of the exchange interaction, and increasing kappa above

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Born-Markov master equation used to describe the ancilla's interaction with the field remains valid while the probe-ancilla coupling simultaneously induces non-Markovian dynamics on the probe. The consistency of deriving Markovian dissipative coefficients and then using them to generate non-Markovian behavior through the inter-qubit coupling is not rigorously justified, and the regime where both approximations hold simultaneously is not

What would settle it

If the probe-ancilla coupling kappa is increased into the strongly non-Markovian regime, the Born-Markov approximation for the ancilla-field interaction may break down, invalidating the Kossakowski matrix and thus the temperature encoding channel. A fully non-perturbative treatment could show that the QFI enhancement reverses or that the probe does not actually acquire reliable thermal information, falsifying the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the ancilla-mediated shielding protocol is valid, it provides a design template for quantum sensors that can estimate parameters of extreme or inaccessible environments without directly exposing delicate quantum probes to decoherence.
  • The finding that non-Markovian backflow enhances thermometric precision suggests that engineering structured environments with memory effects could be a general strategy for improving quantum metrology beyond Markovian limits.
  • The identification of finite optimal times and temperatures for maximum QFI implies that quantum thermometry protocols have a nontrivial operating window, not simply 'longer is better,' which has practical consequences for probe design.
  • The boundary-condition dependence at low temperatures but not at high temperatures suggests that AdS boundary effects could be used as a diagnostic knob for calibrating or testing thermometric protocols in curved spacetime analog systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The protocol could in principle be tested in analogue gravity systems (e.g., superconducting circuits or trapped ions simulating AdS geometries) where an ancilla-mediated coupling architecture is experimentally realizable, providing a tabletop test of relativistic quantum thermometry claims.
  • If the non-Markovian enhancement scales with system size or ancilla complexity, extending the protocol to multiple ancillas or networked probe-ancilla chains could yield a scaling advantage in precision, potentially approaching Heisenberg-limited thermometry.
  • The tension between using a Markovian-derived master equation for the ancilla and claiming non-Markovian dynamics for the probe suggests that a fully non-perturbative or exact treatment of the ancilla-field coupling might reveal additional corrections to the QFI that are absent in the current weak-coupling analysis.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a quantum thermometry protocol in which a protected probe qubit is coupled to an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector that interfaces directly with a thermal scalar field in AdS spacetime. The authors argue that the ancilla channels temperature information into the probe's coherence, and that increasing the probe-ancilla coupling κ induces non-Markovian dynamics on the probe that enhance the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) and quantum signal-to-noise ratio (QSNR), particularly at low temperatures. The paper analyzes the roles of detector acceleration, boundary conditions (Dirichlet/transparent/Neumann), energy gap, and interaction time, and identifies optimal operating conditions. The framework combines open quantum system techniques (GKSL master equations) with quantum estimation theory in curved spacetime.

Significance. The idea of using an ancillary detector as a thermal intermediary to shield a probe from direct decoherence while retaining thermometric sensitivity is a reasonable extension of pseudo-mode and ancilla-assisted thermometry approaches to the curved-spacetime setting. The paper explores an interesting parameter space (AdS boundary conditions, acceleration threshold, non-Markovian coupling) and provides falsifiable predictions for optimal sensing times and temperatures. However, the significance is substantially undermined by a load-bearing inconsistency in the master equation and the absence of the explicit solutions from which all results are derived, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. §IV, Eqs. (34) and (37): The paper states that χ₂ is set to zero because the probe is protected from the scalar field. This means the probe does not couple to the field at all. However, the GKSL dissipator in Eq. (34) sums over m,n = 1,2 (both probe and ancilla), and Eq. (37) then sets all Kossakowski matrices equal: Λ^(aa) = Λ^(bb) = Λ^(ab) = Λ^(ba) ≡ Λ_ij. If the probe is truly decoupled from the field, then the probe self-correlation Λ^(PP) and the cross-correlations Λ^(PA), Λ^(AP) should all vanish — only the ancilla self-correlation Λ^(AA) should be nonzero. Setting all four equal either implies the probe also couples to the field (contradicting the protected-probe setup) or forces all dissipative terms to zero (eliminating the bath). This inconsistency is load-bearing because the master equation is the starting point for every QFI and QSNR result in the paper. The authors must (i)写
  2. §IV, Eq. (42): The probe's reduced density matrix is written in terms of functions A(t) and B(t), but these functions are never explicitly defined or derived. Appendix A only solves the single-detector case (Eqs. A12–A14), not the two-detector probe+ancilla system. Since all QFI and QSNR results (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 9) depend on A(t) and B(t), their absence makes the central results unverifiable. The authors should provide the explicit analytical or numerical expressions for A(t) and B(t), or at minimum describe the procedure used to obtain them.
  3. §IV, Eq. (37) and surrounding text: The simplification 'in the regime of sufficiently small interatomic separation one may set all Kossakowski matrices equal' is stated without justification. In the present setup, the probe is protected from the field and only the ancilla couples to it; there is no 'interatomic separation' between two field-coupled detectors to justify this approximation. If the authors intend a different physical configuration than what is described (e.g., both detectors coupled to the field with different strengths), this must be clarified and the master equation rederived consistently.
minor comments (7)
  1. Notation is inconsistent throughout: the detector energy gap is denoted both ω and Ω (e.g., §III.B uses Ω in Eq. (19) but ω in Eq. (24); §IV uses ω_P and ω_A). The coupling strength is denoted both η and λ (Eq. (19) text says 'where λ denotes the coupling strength' but the equation uses η). Please unify.
  2. References are duplicated: [42] and [34] both cite Paris (2009); [43] and [35] both cite Ma and Wang (2009); [44] and [36] both cite Wu and Xu (2016); [47] and [37] both cite Fröwis (2012); [48] and [38] both cite Deffner and Campbell (2017); [49] and [39] both cite Lu et al. (2010); [50] and [41] both cite Song et al. (2015). Please consolidate.
  3. §III.B, Eqs. (25)–(28): The response functions are presented in multiple algebraically equivalent forms without clear motivation. Consider consolidating to one canonical form and stating equivalences once.
  4. §VII.B: There is a broken citation '[?]' in the text ('quantum signal-to-noise ratio (QSNR) [ ? ]').
  5. Figure captions could be more informative: several figures (e.g., Fig. 3, Fig. 4) describe panels as 'left/medium/lower' but the layout is described as 'top panel' with sub-panels. Please clarify the figure structure.
  6. §II: The sentence beginning 'we employ the information-backflow measure' has a lowercase 'we' mid-sentence. Several other sentences have grammatical issues (e.g., 'analyic' in the table of contents description of Appendix A).
  7. The abstract claims 'For the first time, we introduce an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector between the sensor and the thermal bath.' Ancilla-assisted and pseudo-mode thermometry protocols are well established in flat-space settings; the novelty claim should be scoped to the curved-spacetime/AdS context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two substantive issues: an inconsistency in the Kossakowski matrix structure of the master equation, and the absence of explicit solutions for A(t) and B(t). We agree that both must be addressed in a revised manuscript and describe below the specific corrections we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV, Eqs. (34) and (37): The paper states that χ₂ is set to zero because the probe is protected from the scalar field. This means the probe does not couple to the field at all. However, the GKSL dissipator in Eq. (34) sums over m,n = 1,2 (both probe and ancilla), and Eq. (37) then sets all Kossakowski matrices equal: Λ^(aa) = Λ^(bb) = Λ^(ab) = Λ^(ba) ≡ Λ_ij. If the probe is truly decoupled from the field, then the probe self-correlation Λ^(PP) and the cross-correlations Λ^(PA), Λ^(AP) should all vanish — only the ancilla self-correlation Λ^(AA) should be nonzero. Setting all four equal either implies the probe also couples to the field (contradicting the protected-probe setup) or forces all dissipative terms to zero (eliminating the bath). This inconsistency is load-bearing because the master equation is the starting point for every QFI and QSNR result in the paper.

    Authors: The referee is correct. In the protected-probe setup, only the ancilla couples to the scalar field (χ₂ = 0), so the Kossakowski matrices must reflect this asymmetry: Λ^(AA) is the only nonzero field-induced correlation matrix, while Λ^(PP) = Λ^(PA) = Λ^(AP) = 0. The statement in Eq. (37) that all four Kossakowski matrices are equal was carried over from a two-detector configuration (both detectors field-coupled, small separation) and is inconsistent with the protected-probe geometry. We will correct the master equation accordingly: the GKSL dissipator will be rewritten with the sum restricted so that only the ancilla indices contribute to the field-induced dissipation, and the Kossakowski matrix Λ^(AA) will be expressed in terms of the AdS Wightman function as in Appendix A. The probe-ancilla coupling κ in H_S is unaffected and remains the channel through which temperature information reaches the probe. All QFI and QSNR results will be rederived from the corrected master equation. We expect the qualitative phenomenology (ancilla-mediated thermal sensitivity, κ-enhanced non-Markovianity, low-temperature precision advantage) to persist, but the quantitative results will change and must be recomputed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §IV, Eq. (42): The probe's reduced density matrix is written in terms of functions A(t) and B(t), but these functions are never explicitly defined or derived. Appendix A only solves the single-detector case (Eqs. A12–A14), not the two-detector probe+ancilla system. Since all QFI and QSNR results (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 9) depend on A(t) and B(t), their absence makes the central results unverifiable. The authors should provide the explicit analytical or numerical expressions for A(t) and B(t), or at minimum describe the procedure used to obtain them.

    Authors: The referee is correct that A(t) and B(t) are not explicitly defined in the current manuscript and that Appendix A only covers the single-detector case. We will add a new appendix (or substantially expand Appendix A) that derives the probe-ancilla master equation solution. Concretely, the corrected master equation (with only Λ^(AA) nonzero) is a linear system for the 15 real components of the 4×4 density matrix ρ_PA(t). After tracing out the ancilla, A(t) and B(t) are expressed as linear combinations of these components with coefficients determined by κ, ω_P, ω_A, and the Kossakowski parameters A', B', C' (which themselves depend on T, a, ℓ, ζ through the AdS response function). We will present the explicit ODE system, the method of solution (analytical where tractable, numerical otherwise), and the resulting closed-form or algorithmic expressions for A(t) and B(t). This will make all figures reproducible. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §IV, Eq. (37) and surrounding text: The simplification 'in the regime of sufficiently small interatomic separation one may set all Kossakowski matrices equal' is stated without justification. In the present setup, the probe is protected from the field and only the ancilla couples to it; there is no 'interatomic separation' between two field-coupled detectors to justify this approximation. If the authors intend a different physical configuration than what is described (e.g., both detectors coupled to the field with different strengths), this must be clarified and the master equation rederived consistently.

    Authors: We agree with the referee. The 'small interatomic separation' argument is inapplicable to the protected-probe configuration, where only the ancilla couples to the field. This text was inherited from the two-detector open-system literature and was not properly adapted to our setup. In the revised manuscript we will remove this justification entirely and replace it with the correct structure: Λ^(AA) is computed from the AdS Wightman function as in Appendix A, and Λ^(PP) = Λ^(PA) = Λ^(AP) = 0 by construction (since χ₂ = 0). The physical configuration is as described in the abstract and Figure 1: the probe is shielded from the scalar field and acquires temperature information only through the coherent coupling κ to the ancilla. We will state this unambiguously and rederive the master equation from first principles for this configuration. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation for background framework; central results computed from independent model equations

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV, Eq. (32) and Section II, Eqs. (3)-(9)]
    "In the weak-coupling, Born–Markov regime one may eliminate the field degrees of freedom and derive a Gorini–Kossakowski–Lindblad master equation for the detectors' reduced state: ∂ρab(t)/∂t = −i[Heff, ρab(t)] + L[ρab(t)]. ... For any unbiased estimator ... the variance is lower-bounded by the classical Cramér–Rao inequality [45, 46]"

    References [24] (Hminat et al., Phys. Rev. E, 2025) and [45] (Hminat et al., arXiv:2509.10840, 2025) are self-citations providing the master equation framework and estimation theory background. However, these are standard, widely-available formulations (GKSL master equation, quantum Cramér–Rao bound, QFI in Bloch representation). The cited results are not unique theorems that forbid alternatives, and the paper re-derives the key equations (Eqs. 3-9, 32-42) explicitly. The self-citations serve as background pointers rather than load-bearing logical dependencies. The central results—QFI and QSNR as functions of κ, T, ω, ζ—are computed from the model equations (Eq. 30, 42) and the AdS response function (Eq. 25/28), not from the self-cited works.

full rationale

The paper has two self-citations ([24] and [45]) by the same authors, but they reference standard open quantum systems and quantum estimation theory (GKSL master equation, quantum Cramér–Rao bound). These are not unique theorems invoked to force the paper's conclusions, and the paper re-derives the relevant equations itself. The central claims about ancilla-mediated thermometric enhancement are grounded in the independently stated Hamiltonian (Eq. 30), the AdS Wightman function (Eq. 22), the response function (Eq. 25/28), and the QFI formula (Eq. 8). No prediction reduces to a fitted input by construction, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The derivation chain is largely self-contained. The score of 2 reflects the presence of self-citations that, while not load-bearing for the logical argument, do provide the framework context.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The ledger reveals a model heavily parameterized by choices (κ, ω, a, ζ, η) that are scanned to find optimal sensing regimes. The core axiom—the Born-Markov approximation for the field-detector interaction—sits in tension with the paper's central claim of non-Markovian dynamics for the probe, which arises only from the probe-ancilla coupling. This tension is not resolved.

free parameters (6)
  • κ (probe-ancilla coupling) = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.99
    Varied to study non-Markovian effects on QFI
  • ω (detector energy gap) = 0.05, 0.275, 0.5
    Varied to study coherence protection
  • a (detector acceleration) = 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 7, 10
    Varied to study acceleration effects
  • ζ (boundary condition) = -1, 0, 1
    Selects Neumann, transparent, or Dirichlet boundary conditions
  • T (temperature) = 0.4 and others
    The estimated parameter, varied in plots
  • η (coupling strength) = 1, 0.5, 0.2
    System-environment coupling strength
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation for the detector-field interaction
    Used to derive the GKSL master equation (Eq. 32) for the ancilla's dynamics, despite the paper's focus on non-Markovian probe dynamics.
  • domain assumption Pointlike detectors without switching functions
    Stated in Section III.B, simplifying the interaction model but introducing UV divergences that are not discussed.
  • domain assumption Local quantum estimation theory assumes prior coarse knowledge of T
    Stated at the end of Section II, limiting the applicability of the QFI framework to local estimation.
  • domain assumption Kossakowski matrices are equal for all detector pairs at small separation
    Assumed in Eq. 37 to simplify the master equation, limiting the validity to a specific spatial regime.
invented entities (1)
  • Ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector as a thermal intermediary no independent evidence
    purpose: To channel temperature information from the AdS bath to the protected probe while mitigating direct dissipative influence.
    This is a theoretical construct within the model. No independent experimental evidence is provided for its feasibility as described.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 26160 in / 2749 out tokens · 412317 ms · 2026-07-09T06:42:01.776789+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum thermometry based on single-qubit sensor configurations enables the precise estimation of the temperature of a cosmological Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime. In this work, we characterize the achievable estimation accuracy using the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) and the associated quantum signal-to-noise ratio. For the first time, we introduce an ancillary Unruh-DeWitt detector between the sensor and the thermal bath, enhancing thermometric sensitivity by channeling temperature-dependent information into the probe qubit's coherence. We examine how detector acceleration in AdS space and the choice of boundary conditions modify the probe's thermal sensitivity. Despite the differing geometries, a unified phenomenology emerges: we characterize the scaling of the QFI with respect to temperature, detector energy gap, spacetime curvature, and interaction time. Finally, we identify optimal state preparation and measurement strategies that maximize the QFI, thereby establishing the fundamental limits of precision for non-Markovian sensing in curved spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07562 by Abdallah Slaoui, Anass Hminat, Rachid Ahl Laamara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Estimation theory is concerned with extracting an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: We perform a comparative study of the optimal prepa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Top panel: Effects of acceleration and boundary con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Top panel: The von Neumann entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A gallery of representative time evolutions of the QFI AdS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: We analyze how the internal parameters , the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: We show the QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: b addresses the overall temperature estimability: we plot the quantum signal-to-noise ratio (QSNR) evaluated at the optimal Temperature Topt, as a function of t. At early [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The quantum signal-to-noise ratio (QSNR) is displayed as a function of the interaction time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗

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

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. B. Mann and T. C. Ralph,Class. Quant. Grav.29, 220301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    El Bouzaidi, A

    K. El Bouzaidi, A. Slaoui, L.B. Drissi, et al.,Eur. Phys. J. C, 85, 1349 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Loulijat, A

    J. Loulijat, A. Slaoui, M. Gouighri, and B. Teklu,Sci. Rep, (2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    W. G. Unruh,Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum gravity: the new synthesis, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, ed. S. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    X. Y . Huang, J. Feng, Y . Z. Zhang, and H. Fan,Ann. Phys.397, 336 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Benatti and R

    F. Benatti and R. Floreanini,Phys. Rev. A70, 012112 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Du and R

    H. Du and R. B. Mann,JHEP05, 112 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Patterson and R

    E. Patterson and R. B. Mann,JHEP06, 214 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Louko and A

    J. Louko and A. Satz,Class. Quant. Grav.25, 055012 (2008)

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Jennings,Class

    D. Jennings,Class. Quant. Grav.27, 205005 (2010)

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    G. L. Sewell,Ann. Phys.141, 201 (1982)

    work page 1982

  13. [13]

    S. W. Hawking,Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

    work page 1975

  14. [14]

    Heisenberg,Z

    W. Heisenberg,Z. Phys.43, 172 (1927)

    work page 1927

  15. [15]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Michalski, K

    L. Michalski, K. Eckersdorf, J. Kucharski, and J. McGhee,Tem- perature measurement, Meas. Sci. Technol.13, 1651 (2002)

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkil ¨a, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. Pekola,Opportunities for mesoscopics in thermometry and refrigeration: Physics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 217 (2006)

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    C. D. S. Brites, P. P. Lima, N. J. O. Silva, A. Mill´an, V . S. Ama- ral, F. Palacio, and L. D. Carlos,Thermometry at the nanoscale, Nanoscale4, 4799 (2012)

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Razavian, C

    S. Razavian, C. Benedetti, M. Bina, Y . Akbari-Kourbolagh, and M. G. A. Paris,Quantum thermometry by single-qubit dephas- ing, Eur. Phys. J. Plus134, 284 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Gebbia, C

    F. Gebbia, C. Benedetti, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, M. Bina, and M. G. A. Paris,Two-qubit quantum probes for the temperature of an Ohmic environment, Phys. Rev. A101, 032112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    De Pasquale, D

    A. De Pasquale, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and V . Giovannetti,Lo- cal quantum thermal susceptibility, Nat. Commun.7, 12782 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Lampo, C. Charalambous, L. A. Correa, M. A. Garc ´ıa-March, and M. Lewenstein,Using polarons for sub-nK quantum nondemolition thermometry in a Bose– Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 030403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    K. V . Hovhannisyan and L. A. Correa,Measuring the temper- ature of cold many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B98, 045101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Hminat, A

    A. Hminat, A. Slaoui, B. Amghar and R. Ahl Laamara,Phys. Rev. E112, 044104 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Scigliuzzo, A

    M. Scigliuzzo, A. Bengtsson, J.-C. Besse, A. Wallraff, P. Dels- ing, and S. Gasparinetti,Primary thermometry of propagating microwaves in the quantum regime, Phys. Rev. X10, 041054 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    S. S. Mirkhalaf, D. Benedicto Orenes, M. W. Mitchell, and E. Witkowska,Criticality-enhanced quantum sensing in ferro- magnetic Bose–Einstein condensates: Role of readout measure- ment and detection noise, Phys. Rev. A103, 023317 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Zhang and D

    D.-J. Zhang and D. M. Tong,Approaching Heisenberg-scalable thermometry with built-in robustness against noise, npj Quan- tum Inf.8, 81 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Brunelli, S

    M. Brunelli, S. Olivares, M. Paternostro, and M. G. A. Paris, Qubit-assisted thermometry of a quantum harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. A86, 012125 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Brunelli, S

    M. Brunelli, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris,Qubit thermom- etry for micromechanical resonators, Phys. Rev. A84, 032105 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Mancino, M

    L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, E. Roccia, and M. Bar- bieri,Quantum simulation of single-qubit thermometry using linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 130502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    M. M. Feyles, L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, and M. Bar- bieri,Dynamical role of quantum signatures in quantum ther- mometry, Phys. Rev. A99, 062114 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    M. R. Jørgensen, P. P. Potts, M. G. A. Paris, and J. B. Brask, Tight bound on finite-resolution quantum thermometry at low temperatures, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033394 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Bouton, J

    Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, D. Adam, F. Schmidt, D. Mayer, T. Lausch, E. Tiemann, and A. Widera,Single-atom quantum probes for ultracold gases boosted by nonequilibrium spin dy- namics, Phys. Rev. X10, 011018 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [35]

    Ma and X

    J. Ma and X. Wang,Fisher information and spin squeezing in the Lipkin–Meshkov–Glick model, Phys. Rev. A80, 012318 (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [36]

    Wu and J.-B

    W. Wu and J.-B. Xu,Geometric phase, quantum Fisher information, geometric quantum correlation and quantum phase transition in the cavity Bose–Einstein-condensate system, Quantum Inf. Process.15, 3695 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [38]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum speed limits: From Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control, 17 J. Phys. A50, 453001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [40]

    Dupuis, O

    F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, and S. Wehner,IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61, 1093 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [42]

    M. G. A. Paris,Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf.7, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [43]

    Ma and X

    J. Ma and X. Wang,Fisher information and spin squeezing in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. A80, 012318 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [44]

    Wu and J.-B

    W. Wu and J.-B. Xu,Geometric phase, quantum Fisher information, geometric quantum correlation and quantum phase transition in the cavity–Bose–Einstein-condensate sys- tem, Quantum Inf. Process.15, 3695 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [45]

    Hermitian vs non-Hermitian quantum thermometry

    A. Hminat, A. Slaoui, R. Ahl Laamara and M. Telmini, arXiv:2509.10840 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [46]

    S.Boulifa , A Slaoui, H El Hadfi, R Ahl Laamara, . Appl. Phys. B, 131 (2025) 174

    work page 2025

  43. [47]

    Fr ¨owis,Kind of entanglement that speeds up quantum evolu- tion, Phys

    F. Fr ¨owis,Kind of entanglement that speeds up quantum evolu- tion, Phys. Rev. A85, 052127 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [48]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum speed limits: From Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control, J. Phys. A50, 453001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [49]

    X.-M. Lu, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun,Quantum Fisher information flow and non-Markovian processes of open systems, Phys. Rev. A82, 042103 (2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [50]

    H. Song, S. Luo, and Y . Hong,Quantum non-Markovianity based on the Fisher-information matrix, Phys. Rev. A91, 042110 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [51]

    W. G. Unruh,Notes on black hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976)

    work page 1976

  48. [52]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum gravity: The new synthesis, inGen- eral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, S. Hawking and W. Israel eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 680–745 (1979)

    work page 1979

  49. [53]

    Louko and A

    J. Louko and A. Satz,Transition rate of the Unruh–DeWitt detector in curved spacetime, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 055012 (2008)

    work page 2008

  50. [54]

    Jennings,On the response of a particle detector in Anti–de Sitter spacetime, Class

    D. Jennings,On the response of a particle detector in Anti–de Sitter spacetime, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 205005 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [55]

    Deser and O

    S. Deser and O. Levin,Accelerated detectors and temperature in (anti)–de Sitter spaces, Class. Quant. Grav.14, L163 (1997)

    work page 1997

  52. [56]

    Notes on black hole evaporation,

    W. G. Unruh, “Notes on black hole evaporation,”Phys. Rev. D 14(1976) 870

    work page 1976

  53. [57]

    Quantum gravity: the new synthesis,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum gravity: the new synthesis,” inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (eds.), Cambridge University Press (1979), pp. 680– 745

    work page 1979

  54. [58]

    Transition rate of the Unruh-DeWitt detector in curved spacetime

    J. Louko and A. Satz, “Transition rate of the Unruh–DeWitt detector in curved spacetime,”Class. Quant. Grav.25(2008) 055012, arXiv:0710.5671

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  55. [59]

    On the response of a particle detector in Anti-de Sitter spacetime

    D. Jennings, “On the response of a particle detector in Anti– de Sitter spacetime,”Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 205005, arXiv:1008.2165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [60]

    Quantum fields on manifolds: PCT and gravita- tionally induced thermal states,

    G. L. Sewell, “Quantum fields on manifolds: PCT and gravita- tionally induced thermal states,”Annals Phys.141(1982) 201

    work page 1982

  57. [61]

    Cosmological event hori- zons, thermodynamics, and particle creation,

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Cosmological event hori- zons, thermodynamics, and particle creation,”Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2738

    work page 1977

  58. [62]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,”Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199 [Erratumibid.46(1976) 206]

    work page 1975

  59. [63]

    Accelerated Detectors and Temperature in (Anti) de Sitter Spaces

    S. Deser and O. Levin, “Accelerated detectors and temperature in (anti)–de Sitter spaces,”Class. Quant. Grav.14(1997) L163, arXiv:gr-qc/9706018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  60. [64]

    Louko and A

    J. Louko and A. Satz, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 055012 (2008)

    work page 2008

  61. [65]

    Jennings, Class

    D. Jennings, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 205005 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [66]

    N. D. Birrell and P. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge University Press (1982)

    work page 1982

  63. [67]

    S. J. Avis, C. J. Isham, and D. Storey, Phys. Rev. D18, 3565 (1978)

    work page 1978

  64. [68]

    Deser and O

    S. Deser and O. Levin, Class. Quant. Grav.14, L163 (1997)

    work page 1997

  65. [69]

    Quantifying Quantumness in (A)dS spacetimes with Unruh-DeWitt Detector

    L.-J. Li, X.-K. Song, Y . Liu and D. Wang, “Quantifying quan- tumness in (A)dS spacetimes with Unruh–DeWitt detector,” Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no. 6, 065007, arXiv:2502.07167 [hep- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [70]

    Li, G.-C

    C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and J. Piilo,Non-Markovian quantum dynamics: What does it mean?Europhys. Lett.127, 50001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [71]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford University Press, New York (2002)

    work page 2002

  68. [72]

    P. J. Coles and M. Piani,Phys. Rev. A89, 022112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  69. [73]

    M. L. Hu and H. Fan,Phys. Rev. A86, 032338 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [74]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin,Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 127902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [75]

    H. P. Breuer, E. M. Laine, and J. Piilo,Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  72. [76]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso,Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  73. [77]

    Wißmann, A

    S. Wißmann, A. Karlsson, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.- P. Breuer,Optimal state pairs for non-Markovian quantum dy- namics, Phys. Rev. A86, 062108 (2012)

    work page 2012