Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Quantum Many-Body Metrology of Rotation Sensing with Strong Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a few strongly interacting bosons in a ring, the quantum Fisher information for rotation stays finite at zero rotation and grows with interaction strength, a self-consistent many-body calculation shows.

desk verdict The N=2 result is solid and new, but the abstract overgeneralizes it to N=4 and N=6, and the convergence evidence for those cases is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04082 v1 pith:XPJPM5H4 submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Yong-Jun Baak , Uwe R. Fischer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords quantumFisherinformationrotationsensingultracoldbosonsringtrapstronginteractionsMCTDHsuperfluid-Motttransitionmetrology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that strong repulsive interactions, usually considered a nuisance for atom interferometers, can be turned into a resource for rotation sensing. The authors consider a few bosons trapped on a quasi-one-dimensional ring with two weak links and estimate the rotation rate from the ground state, using the quantum Fisher information as the ultimate precision bound. Their self-consistent many-body calculation shows that the quantum Fisher information at zero rotation rate stays finite and even grows with interaction strength, contradicting the fixed-orbital two-mode and mean-field models in which it vanishes. If the result holds, miniaturized few-atom gyroscopes could detect slow rotations with high spatial resolution, and the optimal operating point is near the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the self-consistently determined many-body wavefunction of the multi-configurational time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) method, in which both the orbitals and their Fock-space occupation coefficients are varied together. The argument is carried by a decomposition of the quantum Fisher information into coefficient, cross, and orbital contributions, given in Eqs. (14) and (15). The orbital term, which describes how the single-particle orbitals themselves depend on $\Omega$, is absent in fixed-orbital two-mode Bose-Hubbard treatments and is exactly what produces the finite QFI at $\Omega=0$ as well as its enhancement with interaction strength. A superimposed two-site lattice potential $V_0\cos^2\theta$ creates the two weak links, and tuning $V_0$ sweeps the system across the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition, where the QFI at $\Omega=0$ peaks.

What would settle it

Recompute the QFI at $\Omega=0$ for $N=4$ and $N=6$ with successively larger orbital numbers (for example $M=16,24,32$ for $N=4$ and $M=24,32,48$ for $N=6$) at the interaction strengths where the peaks appear in Fig. 4(b), and check whether the peak height and location remain unchanged; alternatively, diagonalize the few-body problem exactly for $N=4$ in the same trap and compare the resulting QFI at $\Omega=0$ with the MCTDH value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the many-body quantum Fisher information $F_Q$ for estimating the rotation rate $\Omega$ of a few strongly interacting bosons in a ring trap with two weak links is not degraded by interactions, but instead becomes maximal for large interaction couplings when rotation velocities and particle numbers are small. In particular, the quantum Fisher information at vanishing rotation rate remains finite, $F_Q(\Omega\to 0)=O(\Omega_0^2)$, a genuine many-body effect that arises because the single-particle orbitals of the self-consistent MCTDH solution respond to $\Omega$ even where the occupation statistics do not change. The authors find that $F_Q(\Omega=0)$ rises with the coupling $\lambda_{1D}$ and saturates for $N=2$, while for $N=4$ and $N=6$ it peaks near the fermionization crossover before decreasing; the peak height is larger for deeper lattices. They further show that for large enough coupling the sensitivity is higher for smaller particle numbers, and that the maximum QFI is reached near the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition in lattice depth.

Load-bearing premise

The reported peak positions and heights of the QFI for $N=4$ and $N=6$ depend on the $M=12$ and $M=18$ orbital truncations being converged, an assertion the paper supports only by statement, not by a systematic orbital-number scan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, ultracold boson rotation sensors should be operated at strong coupling: increasing $\lambda_{1D}$ improves the ultimate sensitivity to slow rotations instead of degrading it through phase diffusion.
  • The finite QFI at $\Omega=0$ means the ground state at rest already carries rotation information, so slow rotations can be estimated without first engineering an entangled or interferometric input state.
  • Because the sensitivity at large coupling is higher for smaller $N$, few-atom rings become viable metrological devices, and arrays of such rings could map inhomogeneous rotation fields with high spatial resolution.
  • The QFI maximum sits near the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator crossover, so tuning the lattice depth $V_0$ to this transition provides an operational recipe for optimal sensitivity.
  • Models with fixed orbitals, such as the Bose-Hubbard and mean-field descriptions, systematically underestimate the QFI and incorrectly predict zero sensitivity at $\Omega=0$; including the orbital response is necessary for correct predictions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the orbital-response mechanism is generic, then for any Hamiltonian parameter that deforms the trap or the orbitals—such as a gravity tilt, a lattice-depth change, or a field gradient—the QFI at zero parameter value should remain finite; this could extend the approach beyond rotation to other single-parameter estimation tasks.
  • The non-monotonic behavior of the QFI with $\lambda_{1D}$ for $N=4$ and $N=6$ suggests the fermionization crossover itself is a resource: an experiment could tune the interaction to the peak and use the occupation entropy as a proxy for the optimal operating point.
  • Following the paper's cited comparison between classical and quantum Fisher information for particle-distribution readout, a quantum gas microscope measurement of the two-site occupation statistics should nearly saturate the predicted QFI for rotation, giving a practical readout for few-atom sensors.
  • An immediate test of the predicted small-$N$ advantage would compare $N=2$, $4$, and $6$ sensors at fixed lattice depth and strong coupling; if the trend reverses for larger $N$, the benefit is confined to the few-atom regime studied here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for estimating the rotation rate Ω of a few strongly interacting bosons (N=2, 4, 6) in a quasi-one-dimensional ring trap with two weak links. The authors derive the two-site Bose-Hubbard limit analytically, showing that the QFI there decays as λ1D^{-2}, then compute the full many-body QFI with the multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method (MCTDH), including orbital-derivative contributions to the QFI. The central reported results are that the self-consistent many-body treatment yields a finite QFI at zero rotation, that for N=2 the QFI at Ω=0 grows and saturates with interaction strength, and that for N=4 and N=6 the QFI at Ω=0 reaches a maximum at an intermediate interaction strength near the fermionization crossover and then decreases. The paper concludes that strong interactions can enhance rotation sensitivity at small rotation rates, contrary to the Bose-Hubbard two-mode prediction.

Significance. If the corrected version of the claim holds, the paper is significant: it challenges the usual expectation that interactions always degrade interferometric rotation sensitivity, provides a concrete few-atom parameter regime where the opposite occurs, and demonstrates that self-consistently determined orbital shapes materially change the metrological prediction. The manuscript has clear strengths: an exact analytical Bose-Hubbard limit, a variational many-body method that explicitly includes orbital-derivative terms in the QFI, a convergence check for N=2 with M=2 versus M=24 orbitals, and a falsifiable prediction of an optimal intermediate coupling for N=4 and N=6. The main weakness is that the abstract and conclusion overstate the result for N>2, and the numerical convergence for N=4 and N=6 is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Conclusion; Fig. 4(b)] The abstract states that 'For both small rotation velocities and small particle numbers, the many-body quantum Fisher information becomes maximal for large interaction couplings.' This is contradicted by the paper's own Fig. 4(b) and by End Matter B: for N=4 and N=6, F_Q(Ω=0) peaks at an intermediate λ1D close to the fermionization crossover and then decreases steeply as the occupation entropy saturates to ln4 or ln6, while only the N=2 case saturates at large λ. The conclusion's sentence that 'increasing the interaction coupling enhances for small rotation rates the ultimate quantum sensitivity' is therefore also only valid up to the coupling optimum for N>2. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to state the N-dependent behavior explicitly: monotonic increase for N=2, non-monotonic with an optimal intermediate coupling for N=4 and N=6.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption; Section A of the End Matter] The caption of Fig. 4(b) states that M=12 (N=4) and M=18 (N=6) orbitals were used 'to reach convergence,' but no systematic M-scan or numerical error estimate is presented. The central claim that the optimal interaction strength is intermediate, and that the QFI decreases in the fermionized limit, depends on the location and height of the QFI peak and on the magnitude of the large-λ decrease. These quantities are particularly sensitive to the orbital-derivative terms in Eq. (15), which are the terms most affected by the truncation of the orbital space. The manuscript should provide, at minimum, M-scans for one representative N=4 curve and one representative N=6 curve, including the peak region and the largest λ1D shown, with convergence indicators for F_Q, S_occ, and |g^(1)_LR|.
  3. [Criticality-enhanced QFI; Fig. 4(b)] The sentence 'When γ is increased, the QFI peak height increases and is shifted towards shallower lattice depths' is difficult to verify from Fig. 4(b), where the horizontal axis is λ1D for fixed values of V0/Er. From the displayed data, the peak shifts to larger λ1D as the lattice depth increases, which is a different statement. Please clarify whether this sentence refers to the QFI as a function of V0/Er at fixed γ (as in Fig. 4(a)) or to the λ1D-axis of Fig. 4(b), and adjust the wording to match the figure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The notation 'F_Q(Ω→0)=O(Ω0^2)' appears dimensionally inconsistent with Eq. (6), where the prefactor is (2π/Ω0)^2, and with the QFI having dimensions of 1/Ω^2 if Ω0 is an angular frequency unit. This is likely a typo for O(Ω0^{-2}); please correct or explain the intended scaling.
  2. [Fig. 2 axis label] The vertical axis label in Fig. 2 is rendered as 'FQ­2 0', which is ambiguous. It should read F_Q/Ω0^2 or F_Q Ω0^2, depending on the normalization convention, and the same convention should be used consistently in Figs. 2, 3, and 4.
  3. [End Matter B] The statement that the QFI shows a 'steep decrease' as S_occ saturates to ln4/ln6 should be quantified, since only a few data points are visible in Fig. 4(b) at the largest couplings; a brief numerical value or a fitted trend would make the claimed decrease more transparent.
  4. [Funding statement] The sentence 'This work was still supported by the NRF of Korea...' contains an unusual use of 'still'; consider rephrasing to 'This work was supported by...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central QFI computation is first-principles numerical, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central observable is the many-body QFI computed from the first-principles Hamiltonian (1) through MCTDH-X, and the QFI is evaluated with the explicit formulas (14)-(15) derived in End Matter A; no parameter is fitted to the target QFI-versus-lambda curves. The Bose-Hubbard baseline (Eq. 6) is an independent model, and the self-consistent result contradicts it, so the main claim is not forced by the input. Self-citations appear (Ref. [68] for the self-consistent QFI framework, Refs. [67] and [76] for benchmarking and analogous transition behavior), but they are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the framework is re-derived in this paper, and Ref. [67] benchmarks MCTDH against an exact two-boson solution. Footnote [83] even discloses that Ref. [68] omitted an orbital-orthogonal term, so the paper is explicitly aware of the prior limitation rather than relying on it as an unverified authority. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Two non-circular issues should be flagged for the correctness pass: (i) the abstract's claim that the QFI 'becomes maximal for large interaction couplings' conflicts with the main text's Fig. 4(b) and End Matter B, where 'the maximal QFI is obtained at an intermediate interaction strength' for N=4,6 and the QFI shows a 'steep decrease' upon fermionization; and (ii) the N=4,6 convergence is asserted ('M=12 (M=18) orbitals were used ... to reach convergence') without a displayed M-scan. These are consistency and convergence concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the model parameters (R, ω⊥, σ, N, λ1D, V0/Er) are chosen to represent an experimentally accessible regime. No new entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard estimation theory and on two physical/numerical assumptions: the quasi-1D reduction and the convergence of the finite-orbital MCTDH calculation, the latter being the most fragile.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The radial degree of freedom is frozen and the system is effectively quasi-1D, giving the effective 1D interaction strength λ1D ≃ λ2D / sqrt(2π(a⊥² + σ²)).
    Invoked in the 'System setup' section to reduce the 2D Hamiltonian (1) to quasi-1D. If the radial trapping is not sufficiently tight, the QFI values would change.
  • domain assumption The MCTDH ansatz with a finite number M of orbitals converges to the exact ground state for the reported QFI values.
    Used in all numerical calculations; for N=2 a partial convergence check (M=2 vs M=24) is reported, but for N=4 and N=6 only a single M is used and convergence is asserted.
  • domain assumption The ground state at Ω=0 is non-degenerate so that the pure-state QFI is well-defined and finite.
    The QFI formula (3) requires a differentiable parameter-dependent state; the paper does not discuss possible degeneracy at Ω=0.
  • standard math Standard quantum estimation theory, including the quantum Cramér-Rao bound and the definition of QFI.
    Used to connect F_Q to the estimation precision limit in Eq. (4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Many-Body Metrology of Rotation Sensing with Strong Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPJPM5H4

@misc{pith2026260804082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Many-Body Metrology of Rotation Sensing with Strong Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPJPM5H4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04082}
}
read the original abstract

We study the ultimate quantum limit of rotation sensing with a few strongly interacting bosons confined in a quasi-one-dimensional ring trap with two weak links. It is demonstrated that a self-consistent many-body solution of the problem is required to correctly predict the ultimate sensitivity of this strongly correlated many-body gyroscope to rotation. For both small rotation velocities and small particle numbers, the many-body quantum Fisher information becomes maximal for large interaction couplings, showing the potential of strongly interacting miniaturized many-body sensors to precisely estimate slow rotations with high spatial resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the rotation sensing setup. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The QFI for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Convergence of QFI for large coupling, for Ω = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Left panel: Lattice-depth dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. First row: Occupation entropy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [83]

    We note that Ref. [68] omitted a term P k,q⟨χk|χq⟩ρkq =P k,q(∂2 X )kqρkq + P k,s,q(∂X )ks(∂X )sqρkq in the QFI, which corresponds to the change of orbitals orthogonal to the subspace of theMcomputational modes

    work page

  2. [1]

    Sagnac, L’´ ether lumineux d´ emontr´ e par l’effet du vent relatif d’´ ether dans un interf´ erom` etre en rotation uni- forme, C

    G. Sagnac, L’´ ether lumineux d´ emontr´ e par l’effet du vent relatif d’´ ether dans un interf´ erom` etre en rotation uni- forme, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris157, 708–710 (1913)

    1913

  3. [2]

    Sagnac, Sur la preuve de la r´ ealit´ e de l’´ ether lu- mineux par l’exp´ erience de l’interf´ erographe tournant, C

    G. Sagnac, Sur la preuve de la r´ ealit´ e de l’´ ether lu- mineux par l’exp´ erience de l’interf´ erographe tournant, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris157, 1410–1413 (1913)

    1913

  4. [3]

    Lenef, T

    A. Lenef, T. D. Hammond, E. T. Smith, M. S. Chapman, R. A. Rubenstein, and D. E. Pritchard, Rotation Sensing with an Atom Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 760 (1997)

    1997

  5. [4]

    T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, Preci- sion Rotation Measurements with an Atom Interferome- ter Gyroscope, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2046 (1997)

    1997

  6. [5]

    Gautier, M

    R. Gautier, M. Guessoum, L. A. Sidorenkov, Q. Bouton, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger, Accurate measurement of the Sagnac effect for matter waves, Science Advances8, eabn8009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    E. R. Moan, R. A. Horne, T. Arpornthip, Z. Luo, A. J. Fallon, S. J. Berl, and C. A. Sackett, Quantum Rotation Sensing with Dual Sagnac Interferometers in an Atom- Optical Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120403 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Gauguet, B

    A. Gauguet, B. Canuel, T. L´ ev` eque, W. Chaibi, and A. Landragin, Characterization and limits of a cold-atom Sagnac interferometer, Phys. Rev. A80, 063604 (2009)

    2009

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Dutta, D

    I. Dutta, D. Savoie, B. Fang, B. Venon, C. L. Gar- rido Alzar, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Continuous Cold-Atom Inertial Sensor with 1 nrad/sec Rotation Stability, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 183003 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    Ramanathan, K

    A. Ramanathan, K. C. Wright, S. R. Muniz, M. Zelan, W. T. Hill, C. J. Lobb, K. Helmerson, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Superflow in a Toroidal Bose-Einstein Condensate: An Atom Circuit with a Tunable Weak Link, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130401 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    C. Ryu, E. C. Samson, and M. G. Boshier, Quantum interference of currents in an atomtronic SQUID, Nature Communications11, 3338 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    J. Polo, W. Chetcuti, T. Haug, A. Minguzzi, K. Wright, and L. Amico, Persistent currents in ultracold gases, Physics Reports1137, 1 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Driving Phase Slips in a Superfluid Atom Circuit with a Rotating Weak Link, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 025302 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Experimental Realization of Josephson Junc- tions for an Atom SQUID, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 205301 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    R. E. Packard and S. Vitale, Principles of superfluid- helium gyroscopes, Phys. Rev. B46, 3540 (1992)

    1992

  8. [15]

    Schwab, N

    K. Schwab, N. Bruckner, and R. E. Packard, Detection of the Earth’s rotation using superfluid phase coherence, Nature386, 585 (1997)

    1997

  9. [16]

    Avenel, P

    O. Avenel, P. Hakonen, and E. Varoquaux, Detection of the Rotation of the Earth with a Superfluid Gyrometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3602 (1997)

    1997

  10. [17]

    Zapata, F

    I. Zapata, F. Sols, and A. J. Leggett, Josephson effect between trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A57, R28(R) (1998)

    1998

  11. [18]

    Raghavan, A

    S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy, Coherent oscillations between two weakly coupled Bose- Einstein condensates: Josephson effects,πoscillations, and macroscopic quantum self-trapping, Phys. Rev. A 59, 620 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    S. A. Haine, Mean-Field Dynamics and Fisher Informa- tion in Matter Wave Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 230404 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Physical Review Letters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  14. [21]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, Gen- eralized Uncertainty Relations: Theory, Examples, and Lorentz Invariance, Annals of Physics247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  15. [22]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    T´ oth and I

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

    2014

  17. [24]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher information and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states, Science345, 424 (2014)

    2014

  19. [26]

    Gross, T

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

    2010

  20. [27]

    Pezz` e, A

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

    2018

  21. [28]

    Cassens, B

    C. Cassens, B. Meyer-Hoppe, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, Entanglement-Enhanced Atomic Gravimeter, Phys. Rev. X15, 011029 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Y. Li, L. Joosten, Y. Baamara, P. Colciaghi, A. Sinatra, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Multiparameter estimation with an array of entangled atomic sensors, Science391, 374 (2026). 6

    2026

  23. [30]

    S. S. Szigeti, O. Hosten, and S. A. Haine, Improving cold- atom sensors with quantum entanglement: Prospects and challenges, Applied Physics Letters118, 140501 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Sinatra, Y

    A. Sinatra, Y. Castin, and E. Witkowska, Coherence time of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A80, 033614 (2009)

    2009

  25. [32]

    Grond, U

    J. Grond, U. Hohenester, I. Mazets, and J. Schmied- mayer, Atom interferometry with trapped Bose–Einstein condensates: impact of atom–atom interactions, New Journal of Physics12, 065036 (2010)

    2010

  26. [33]

    Zanardi, M

    P. Zanardi, M. G. A. Paris, and L. Campos Venuti, Quan- tum criticality as a resource for quantum estimation, Phys. Rev. A78, 042105 (2008)

    2008

  27. [34]

    Fr´ erot and T

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

    2018

  28. [35]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Re- view: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Physics Reports1134, 1 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Mihailescu, U

    G. Mihailescu, U. Alushi, R. Di Candia, S. Felicetti, and K. Gietka, Critical Quantum Sensing: A Tutorial on Pa- rameter Estimation Near Quantum Phase Transitions, PRX Quantum7, 020201 (2026)

    2026

  30. [37]

    Ragole and J

    S. Ragole and J. M. Taylor, Interacting Atomic Interfer- ometry for Rotation Sensing Approaching the Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 203002 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    C. Luo, J. Huang, X. Zhang, and C. Lee, Heisenberg- limited Sagnac interferometer with multiparticle states, Physical Review A95, 023608 (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    Z. Y. Ou, Fundamental quantum limit in precision phase measurement, Phys. Rev. A55, 2598 (1997)

    1997

  33. [40]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  34. [41]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  35. [42]

    Boixo, A

    S. Boixo, A. Datta, M. J. Davis, A. Shaji, A. B. Tacla, and C. M. Caves, Quantum-limited metrology and Bose- Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A80, 032103 (2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    M. C. Tsatsos and A. U. J. Lode, Resonances and Dy- namical Fragmentation in a Stirred Bose–Einstein Con- densate, Journal of Low Temperature Physics181, 171 (2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    Beinke, S

    R. Beinke, S. Klaiman, L. S. Cederbaum, A. I. Streltsov, and O. E. Alon, Many-body tunneling dynamics of Bose- Einstein condensates and vortex states in two spatial di- mensions, Physical Review A92, 043627 (2015)

    2015

  39. [46]

    R. A. Doganov, S. Klaiman, O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Two trapped particles interact- ing by a finite-range two-body potential in two spatial dimensions, Physical Review A87, 033631 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    Bhowmik, S

    A. Bhowmik, S. K. Haldar, and O. E. Alon, Impact of the transverse direction on the many-body tunneling dy- namics in a two-dimensional bosonic Josephson junction, Scientific Reports10, 21476 (2020)

    2020

  41. [48]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose–Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008)

    2008

  42. [49]

    Paredes, A

    B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. F¨ olling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Tonks–Girardeau gas of ultracold atoms in an optical lat- tice, Nature429, 277 (2004)

    2004

  43. [50]

    Dengis, N

    S. Dengis, N. Dupont, P. Schlagheck, and N. Gold- man, Vortex NOON states for rotation sensing (2026), 2606.29509 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    C. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    1967

  45. [52]

    Facchi, R

    P. Facchi, R. Kulkarni, V. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E. Sudar- shan, and F. Ventriglia, Classical and quantum Fisher information in the geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics, Physics Letters A374, 4801 (2010)

    2010

  46. [53]

    G. J. Milburn, J. Corney, E. M. Wright, and D. F. Walls, Quantum dynamics of an atomic Bose-Einstein conden- sate in a double-well potential, Physical Review A55, 4318 (1997)

    1997

  47. [54]

    Dalton and S

    B. Dalton and S. Ghanbari, Two mode theory of Bose– Einstein condensates: Interferometry and the Josephson model, Journal of Modern Optics59, 287 (2012)

    2012

  48. [55]

    Naldesi, J

    P. Naldesi, J. Polo, V. Dunjko, H. Perrin, M. Olshanii, L. Amico, and A. Minguzzi, Enhancing Sensitivity to Rotations with Quantum Solitonic Currents, SciPost Physics12, 138 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    J. Polo, W. Chetcuti, T. Haug, A. Minguzzi, K. Wright, and L. Amico, Persistent Currents in Ultracold Gases, Physics Reports1137, 1 (2025)

    2025

  50. [57]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold Bosonic Atoms in Optical Lattices, Phys- ical Review Letters81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  51. [58]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  52. [59]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  53. [60]

    Meyer, U

    H.-D. Meyer, U. Manthe, and L. Cederbaum, The multi-configurational time-dependent Hartree approach, Chemical Physics Letters165, 73 (1990)

    1990

  54. [61]

    A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Gen- eral Variational Many-Body Theory with Complete Self- Consistency for Trapped Bosonic Systems, Physical Re- view A73, 063626 (2006)

    2006

  55. [62]

    O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method for bosons: Many-body dynamics of bosonic systems, Phys- ical Review A77, 033613 (2008)

    2008

  56. [63]

    A. U. J. Lode, C. L´ evˆ eque, L. B. Madsen, A. I. Streltsov, and O. E. Alon, Colloquium: Multiconfigurational time- dependent Hartree approaches for indistinguishable par- ticles, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 011001 (2020)

    2020

  57. [64]

    Roy and O

    R. Roy and O. E. Alon, Assessing small accelerations using a bosonic Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. A111, 043307 (2025)

    2025

  58. [65]

    Roy and O

    R. Roy and O. E. Alon, Inferring rotations using a bosonic Josephson junction (2026), arXiv:2601.13344 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026

  59. [66]

    R. Lin, P. Molignini, L. Papariello, M. C. Tsatsos, C. L´ evˆ eque, S. E. Weiner, E. Fasshauer, R. Chitra, and A. U. J. Lode, MCTDH-X: The multiconfigura- tional time-dependent Hartree method for indistinguish- able particles software, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 024004 (2020)

    2020

  60. [67]

    Y. Gwak, O. V. Marchukov, and U. R. Fischer, Bench- marking the multiconfigurational Hartree method by the exact wavefunction of two harmonically trapped bosons 7 with contact interaction, Annals of Physics434, 168592 (2021)

    2021

  61. [68]

    Baak and U

    J.-G. Baak and U. R. Fischer, Self-Consistent Many- Body Metrology, Physical Review Letters132, 240803 (2024)

    2024

  62. [69]

    Sakmann, A

    K. Sakmann, A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Ceder- baum, Exact Quantum Dynamics of a Bosonic Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 220601 (2009)

    2009

  63. [70]

    Klaiman and O

    S. Klaiman and O. E. Alon, Variance as a sensitive probe of correlations, Phys. Rev. A91, 063613 (2015)

    2015

  64. [71]

    R. J. Glauber, The Quantum Theory of Optical Coher- ence, Physical Review130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  65. [72]

    R. Roy, A. Gammal, M. C. Tsatsos, B. Chatterjee, B. Chakrabarti, and A. U. J. Lode, Phases, many-body entropy measures, and coherence of interacting bosons in optical lattices, Physical Review A97, 043625 (2018)

    2018

  66. [73]

    R. Lin, L. Papariello, P. Molignini, R. Chitra, and A. U. J. Lode, Superfluid–Mott-insulator transition of ul- tracold superradiant bosons in a cavity, Physical Review A100, 013611 (2019)

    2019

  67. [74]

    Bo´ eris, L

    G. Bo´ eris, L. Gori, M. D. Hoogerland, A. Kumar, E. Lu- cioni, L. Tanzi, M. Inguscio, T. Giamarchi, C. D’Errico, G. Carleo, G. Modugno, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Mott Transition for Strongly Interacting One-Dimensional Bosons in a Shallow Periodic Potential, Physical Review A9...

    2016

  68. [75]

    O. E. Alon and L. S. Cederbaum, Pathway from Con- densation via Fragmentation to Fermionization of Cold Bosonic Systems, Physical Review Letters95, 140402 (2005)

    2005

  69. [76]

    Baak and U

    J.-G. Baak and U. R. Fischer, Classical and quantum metrology of the Lieb-Liniger model, Phys. Rev. A106, 062442 (2022)

    2022

  70. [77]

    Girardeau, Relationship between Systems of Impene- trable Bosons and Fermions in One Dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics1, 516 (1960)

    M. Girardeau, Relationship between Systems of Impene- trable Bosons and Fermions in One Dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics1, 516 (1960)

    1960

  71. [78]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting sin- gle atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  72. [79]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nature Physics17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  73. [80]

    R. Yao, S. Chi, M. Wang, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwier- lein, Measuring Pair Correlations in Bose and Fermi Gases via Atom-Resolved Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 183402 (2025)

    2025

  74. [81]

    Amico, D

    L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J.-P. Brantut, L.-C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. von Klitzing, Colloquium: Atomtronic circuits: From many-body physics to quan- tum technologies, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041001 (2022)

    2022

  75. [82]

    H¨ am¨ al¨ ainen, R

    M. H¨ am¨ al¨ ainen, R. Hari, R. J. Ilmoniemi, J. Knuu- tila, and O. V. Lounasmaa, Magnetoencephalography— theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain, Rev. Mod. Phys.65, 413 (1993)

    1993

  76. [84]

    fermionization

    O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Bose-Einstein Condensation and Liquid Helium, Phys. Rev.104, 576 (1956). END MA TTER A: QFI in the MCTDH framework The many-body wave function ansatz in the MCTDH framework for a system of interacting bosons is given as a linear combination of time-d...

    1956

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.