Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Multiparameter quantum estimation in a photon system induced by gravitational redshift

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a photon distorted by gravitational redshift and then damped or dephased, the tightest attainable two-parameter error bound is the Nagaoka bound, and precision improves in strong-coupling and sub-Ohmic regimes.

desk verdict Workmanlike application of known multiparameter bounds to a gravitational-redshift qubit model; two-parameter analytic formulas are new, but Eq. (27) appears to use the amplitude instead of the population, which undermines Sec. IV.A as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00550 v1 pith:DP32WVJT submitted 2026-08-01 quant-ph

Wei Ye , Hui Cao , Songtao Zhang , Xiang Zhu , Huan Zhang , Ying Xia , Shixun You , Daisheng Zhang
show 1 more author
Shoukang Chang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords multiparameterquantumestimationgravitationalredshiftNagaokaboundHolevoCramér–Raoamplitude-dampingchannelOhmic-likedephasingsemidefiniteprogramFisherinformation
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 asks what the fundamental precision limit is when one simultaneously estimates several properties—the weight, phase, and gravitational redshift strength—of a photon that has climbed out of a gravitational potential and then been disturbed by noise. It argues that for two-parameter estimation the standard quantum Cramér–Rao bound is not attainable, and that the Nagaoka bound is the tightest achievable error bound for single-copy measurements. The same conclusion is carried over to three-parameter estimation, where the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound plays that role. The paper also reports that, in both noise models studied, precision is better in the memory-retaining regimes: strong coupling for amplitude damping and sub-Ohmic spectra for dephasing. If true, this matters for quantum metrology in curved spacetime, because it identifies which error bound a realistic receiver should be compared against.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Nagaoka bound (NB), a lower bound on the mean-square error matrix optimized over single-copy measurements; for two-parameter qubit systems it is known to be tight, unlike the quantum Cramér–Rao bounds. The argument feeds the redshifted, noise-affected density matrices (25) and (38) through the bound hierarchy (13) and uses the semidefinite-program formulations of the Holevo, Nagaoka, and Nagaoka–Hayashi bounds for numerical evaluation. The beam-splitter overlap cosθ of the redshifted wave packet is the parameter that turns spacetime curvature into a quantum channel.

What would settle it

Recompute or experimentally realize the two-parameter bounds with the relative phase kept at its physical value instead of zero: if the Nagaoka bound drops below the analytic values in Eq. (31) or (43), or if the bound ordering of Eq. (13) is violated, the central tightness claim fails. A tabletop beam-splitter plus engineered noise can serve as the test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper considers a photonic qubit initially prepared in cos(α/2)|0⟩ + e^{iφ} sin(α/2)|1⟩, sent through Schwarzschild spacetime from Alice to Bob. Gravitational redshift is represented as a beam-splitter mixing of the signal mode with an orthogonal mode, with overlap cosθ determined by the wave-packet deformation and with relative phase set to zero. After tracing out the orthogonal mode, the photon evolves under either amplitude damping or Ohmic-like dephasing, yielding the two-qubit density matrices (25) and (38). For the two parameters α and φ, the authors find the SLD operators do not commute and the mean Uhlmann curvature is nonzero, so the quantum Cramér–Rao bound is not tight even as

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes gravitational redshift can be modeled as a beam-splitter mode-mixing with zero relative phase, and that the redshift reduction followed by the noise channel is the correct order; if either fails, the computed bounds are for a different physical situation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SLD-CRB cannot be used as the precision benchmark for simultaneous weight-and-phase estimation of a redshifted single photon; the Nagaoka bound is the correct single-copy benchmark and is larger.
  • Strong-coupling (non-Markovian) amplitude damping improves the attainable precision relative to weak coupling, so memory effects can be treated as a resource for multiparameter estimation.
  • Sub-Ohmic dephasing environments consistently give tighter attainable bounds than Ohmic or super-Ohmic environments, for both two- and three-parameter estimation.
  • In three-parameter estimation, the RLD-CRB and HCRB coincide, meaning both are asymptotically attainable, while the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound remains the tightest among the single-copy bounds considered.
  • The known hierarchy of multiparameter bounds—most informative bound, Nagaoka, Holevo, then SLD/RLD—holds quantitatively in this gravitational-redshift setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Nagaoka bound is attainable with single-copy measurements, a laboratory experiment that simulates gravitational redshift with a beam splitter and adds engineered amplitude damping or dephasing can test the predicted hierarchy and regime ordering without a space link; the quantum-optics part is the load-bearing physics, not the spacetime propagation.
  • The zero-phase choice for the beam splitter is a simplification. If the physical relative phase is nonzero, the compatibility of α and φ may change, so the tightness ranking should be re-checked before relying on these bounds for satellite-based quantum communication.
  • The improved precision in memory-retaining regimes suggests the same tools could be applied to other gravity-induced noise models, for example gravity acting as a universal dephasing channel for qubits, but those extensions are not established by this paper.
  • The numerical equality of the RLD-CRB and HCRB in the three-parameter case is reported as a numerical observation; a general proof of that equivalence would be a useful follow-up.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies multiparameter quantum estimation for a photon wave packet subject to gravitational redshift, modeled as a beam-splitter mode mixing, followed by either amplitude-damping or Ohmic-like dephasing noise. It computes the SLD-CRB, RLD-CRB, Holevo CRB, and Nagaoka bound for two-parameter estimation (initial weight and phase), and adds the Nagaoka-Hayashi bound for three-parameter estimation (adding the redshift strength). Analytic expressions are given for the two-parameter qubit bounds using known formulas, while the three-parameter bounds are computed numerically via SDP. The central claims are that the Nagaoka bound is the tightest among the considered bounds and that estimation precision is enhanced in the strong-coupling (amplitude damping) and sub-Ohmic (dephasing) regimes.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper extends multiparameter estimation bounds to a curved-spacetime photonic setting and demonstrates regimes where the SLD-CRB is non-tight. The explicit two-parameter analytic formulas are a useful contribution, and the paper correctly identifies that the NB-tightest result is consistent with the known bound hierarchy. However, the main quantitative claim for the amplitude-damping channel is compromised by an amplitude/probability error in P_t, and the three-parameter numerical results are not reproducible from the text. The NB-tightest observation is largely a consistency check of Eq. (13) rather than an independent finding.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Eq. (27)] P_t is defined as an amplitude, not a probability, yet it is used as the excited-state population in Eq. (25) and in all amplitude-damping bounds (Eqs. (30)–(31), Figs. 2–3). For a qubit in a Lorentzian reservoir the excited-state amplitude is c(t)=e^{-λt/2}[cosh(dt/2)+λ/d sinh(dt/2)], so the survival probability is |c(t)|²=e^{-λt}[cosh(dt/2)+λ/d sinh(dt/2)]². Eq. (27) prints c(t). Consequently, in the Markovian limit λ≫γ0 the printed P_t≈e^{-(λ+γ0)t/2} vanishes, making C_S∝1/P_t diverge as e^{(λ+γ0)t/2}; the correct P_t≈e^{-γ0 t} is finite. In the strong-coupling regime (d imaginary) the printed P_t can even become negative, so ρ_red^A(t) in Eq. (25) is not positive semidefinite. This propagates into the central claim that strong coupling improves estimation precision. Please replace P_t by |c(t)|², recompute Eqs. (29)–(32) and the figures, and state whether the qualitative conclusions
  2. [§IV.A/§IV.B, Figs. 3 and 5] The three-parameter results are stated to be computed 'using an SDP', but no SDP formulation, solver, tolerances, or data are given. Moreover, Eq. (11) is not a complete definition of the NHB: as printed it only imposes Hermiticity of L and L≥XX^T; it omits the unbiasedness constraints on X and the admissible-measurement conditions, so the displayed optimization is not the NHB. Without the full SDP and its implementation, the numerical comparisons underlying the three-parameter claims (strong vs weak coupling, sub-Ohmic vs Ohmic) cannot be checked. Please supply the complete SDP, code, and output data, or at least a fully specified mathematical definition and solver details.
  3. [§III, Eq. (17)] The frequency-ratio formula is stated as χ²=Ω_B/Ω_A=sqrt(f(r_B)/f(r_A)). For r_B>r_A, sqrt(f(r_B)/f(r_A))>1, so this predicts Ω_B>Ω_A, i.e., a blueshift, contradicting the sentence immediately above that 'the frequency Ω_B observed by Bob is lower than Ω_A' and the assertion that χ>1 corresponds to redshift. The standard relation is χ²=Ω_A/Ω_B=sqrt(f(r_B)/f(r_A)) (equivalently Ω_B/Ω_A=sqrt(f(r_A)/f(r_B))). Since χ enters Eq. (20) and hence the redshift parameter θ used throughout, the physical calibration of θ is affected. Correct the relation and re-examine the numerical value (χ−1)=3.5×10^{-10}.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The text says 'In Sec. V, we investigate...' but the multiparameter analysis is in Sec. IV; Sec. V is the conclusions. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The normalization denominator '4√(2πσ²)' appears to be a typo; a normalized Gaussian amplitude should use (2πσ²)^{1/4} or the equivalent normalization factor.
  3. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: [19] repeats [13], [24] repeats [15], and [53] repeats [56]. Please merge to avoid duplicate entries.
  4. [§II and Figs. 2–5] The statement that NB 'unequivocally' establishes the tightest bound is partly a consistency check with Eq. (13), since C_N≥C_H≥max(C_S,C_R) holds by construction. Please phrase this as consistency with the established hierarchy rather than an independent numerical discovery.
  5. [Eqs. (35) and (38)] In Eq. (35) γ_t is a rate, while in q_t=e^{-γ_t/2} of Eq. (38) it must be the integrated decoherence factor. The notation is confusing; please distinguish the instantaneous decay rate from the integrated decoherence exponent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: bounds are computed by inserting an imported state model into standard formulas/SDP; the NB-tightest statement is the known hierarchy (13), not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: choose a physical model (gravitational redshift as a beam splitter, Eq. (18); open-system dynamics, Eqs. (22),(26),(34)-(37)), take the resulting single-photon density matrices from the literature, Eqs. (25),(38), and then insert those states into standard estimation-bound formulas and SDPs. No step inverts this order: the density matrices are inputs, not outputs, and the bounds C^S, C^R, C^H, C^N and NHB are computed by substituting the explicit matrix elements into Eqs. (3)-(6),(10),(11), or into the published analytic qubit expressions of Refs. [45,67]. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction; alpha, phi, theta, lambda, gamma0, eta, s, omega_c and t are all chosen independently and swept for the figures. The statement that the Nagaoka bound is the tightest among the considered bounds is explicitly presented as 'consistent with the general hierarchy of multiparameter quantum estimation', i.e. the known chain (13) C_MI >= C_N >= C_H >= max(C^S,C^R), so it is a consistency check rather than a newly derived claim. The reliance on prior work, such as the state model from Ref. [18] and the numerical toolboxes, is external/model input, not a self-justifying chain; Ref. [43] is a self-citation but appears alongside independent Refs. [42,44,50] and does not carry the numerical derivation. The apparent issue in Eq. (27) — P_t defined as the amplitude rather than the squared amplitude — would affect the numerical estimates and is a correctness concern, but it does not make any result equivalent to its inputs by construction. Overall, no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the gravitational redshift beam-splitter model and the factorized noise composition, both inherited from prior work [18]; the multiparameter estimation bounds are standard theory. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • gamma_0 (amplitude-damping coupling strength) = 1
    Set by hand in Figs. 2-3; defines the strong/weak coupling threshold lambda=2*gamma_0.
  • t (evolution time) = 1
    Set by hand for all plots; bounds depend on t through P_t or q_t.
  • lambda (spectral width) = varied 0 to 3 in Fig. 2(a)
    Central claim that strong-coupling (lambda<2) gives better precision depends on this range and the choice gamma_0=1.
  • eta (dephasing coupling) = 1
    Set by hand in Figs. 4-5.
  • omega_c (cutoff frequency) = 1
    Set by hand; sets the time scale for dephasing.
  • s (Ohmic parameter) = varied (sub-Ohmic <1, Ohmic=1, super-Ohmic >1)
    Claim that sub-Ohmic gives higher precision depends on this variation.
  • Omega_B,0 and sigma (wavepacket parameters) = 700 THz, 1 MHz
    Used in Eq. (20) to make gravitational effects non-negligible; value inherited from Refs. [16-18].
  • theta (redshift angle) in two-parameter estimation = pi/3
    Fixed in two-parameter estimation; becomes an estimated parameter in three-parameter case.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gravitational redshift is a lossless two-mode beam-splitter with angle theta and zero phase (Eq. 18).
    Taken from Refs. [16-18,25]; load-bearing for how theta enters the photon state.
  • domain assumption The redshift beam-splitter/trace and the subsequent dissipative dynamics compose factorized, yielding density matrices (25) and (38).
    Assumed from Ref. [18]; if the ordering or factorization is wrong, the computed bounds apply to a different channel.
  • domain assumption The photon-reservoir interactions are described by Lorentzian amplitude damping (Eq. 23) and Ohmic-like pure dephasing (Eq. 36).
    Standard open-quantum-system models cited from Refs. [51-58].
  • standard math Known multiparameter CRB hierarchy: C_MI >= C_N >= C_H >= max[C_S, C_R] (Eq. 13).
    The paper relies on this hierarchy to interpret which bound is tightest.
  • standard math Suzuki's explicit formulas for two-parameter qubit HCRB and Nagaoka's bound (Eqs. 31 and 43) are valid.
    Assumed from Refs. [45,67] for the analytic two-parameter results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiparameter quantum estimation in a photon system induced by gravitational redshift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DP32WVJT

@misc{pith2026260800550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiparameter quantum estimation in a photon system induced by gravitational redshift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DP32WVJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00550}
}
read the original abstract

As photons propagate through curved spacetime, gravitational effects become unavoidable. In particular, gravitational redshift can induce significant distortion in photon wave packets, making it es?sential to investigate parameter estimation within this context. While previous research has focused on single-parameter estimation using the quantum Cramer-Rao bound, the multiparameter scenario remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate multiparameter quantum estimation for a photon system subject to gravitational redshift under both amplitude-damping and Ohmic-like dephasing channels. Our analysis reveals that the quantum Cramer-Rao bound fails to provide a tight error bound for the two-parameter estimation involving the initial phase and weight parameters inboth types of noisy channels. To overcome this limitation, we numerically compute two tighter error bounds, i.e., the Holevo Cramer-Rao bound and the Nagaoka bound, when utilizing a semidefinite program. We demonstrate that the Nagaoka bound yields the tightest error bound among all considered bounds, consistent with the general hierarchy of multiparameter quantum estimation. Furthermore, for the three-parameter estimation, including the initial weight parameter, the phase parameter, and the strength of gravitational redshift, we observe significantly enhanced estimation precision in the strong-coupling regime compared to the weak-coupling regime under the amplitude-damping channel. Similarly, in the Ohmic-like dephasing channel, the sub-Ohmic regime consistently affords higher precision than the Ohmic and super-Ohmic regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00550 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) The sender, Alice, located at position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Error bounds as a function of (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) Error bounds as a function of (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Error bounds as a function of (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peres and D

    A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Quantum information and rela- tivity theory , Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 93 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    In contrast to the single- parameter estimation, the SLD-CRB is generally not at- tainable

    Another crucial lower bound pertains to the RLD quantum Fisher information matrix, with elements [35, 36] J R uv =Tr ˆLR u † ˆρθ ˆLR v ,(4) where the RLD operators ˆLR u are defined by the relation ∂ˆρθ/∂θu=ˆρθ ˆLR u .The corresponding scalar forms for the SLD-CRB and the RLD-CRB are respectively given by [28, 29] C S θ =tr[(J S)−1], C R θ =tr[Re(J R)−1] ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    R. M. Wald, General relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Muller, A

    H. Muller, A. Peters, and S. Chu, A precision measurement of the gravitational redshift by the interference of matter waves, Nature463, 926–929 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Optical clocks and relativity , Science329, 1630 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    J. P. Turneaure, C. M. Will, B. F. Farrell, E. M. Mattison, and R. F. C. Vessot, Test of the principle of equivalence by a null gravitational red-shift experiment, Phys. Rev. D27, 1705 (1983)

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    M. A. Hohensee, B. Estey , P. Hamilton, A. Zeilinger, and H. Muller, Force-free gravitational redshift: Proposed gravitational Aharonov-Bohm experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230404 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Di Pumpo, C

    F. Di Pumpo, C. Ufrecht, A. Friedrich, E. Giese, W. P. Schleich, and W. G. Unruh, Gravitational Redshift Tests with Atomic Clocks and Atom Interferometers, PRX Quan- tum2, 040333 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    F. D. Marchi, G. Cascioli, T. Ely , L. Iess, E. A. Burt, S. Hensley , and E. Mazarico, Testing the gravitational red- shift with an inner Solar System probe: The VERITAS case, Phys. Rev. D107, 064032 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    C. G. Qin, Y. J. Tan, X. Y. Lu, T. Liu, Y. R. Yang, Q. Li, and C. G. Shao, Constraints on violation of Lorentz symmetry with clock-comparison redshift experiments, Phys. Rev. D 111, 055008 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    W. J. Xie, B. A. Li, and N. B. Zhang, Impact of the newly revised gravitational redshift of x-ray burster GS 1826- 24 on the equation of state of supradense neutron-rich matter, Phys. Rev. D110, 043025 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. V. Balatsky , P. Roushan, J. Schaltegger, and P. J. Wong, Quantum sensing from gravity as a universal dephasing channel for qubits, Phys. Rev. A111, 012411 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy , A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample, Nature602, 420 (2022)

    2022

  6. [15]

    D. E. Bruschi, A. Datta, R. Ursin, T. C. Ralph, and I. Fuentes, Quantum estimation of the schwarzschild space- time parameters of the earth, Phys. Rev. D90, 124001 (2014)

    2014

  7. [17]

    Z. D. Wei, W. Han, Y. J. Zhang, Z. X. Man, Y. J. Xia, and H. Fan, Effect of the gravitational redshift on the precision of phase estimation, Phys. Rev. D111, 026007 (2025)

    2025

  8. [18]

    Z. D. Wei, W. Han, Y. J. Zhang, Z. X. Man, Y. J. Xia, and Q. Y. Cai, Enhancement of the precision of phase estimation under the gravitational redshift, Phys. Rev. D111, 126002 (2025)

    2025

  9. [19]

    Z. D. Wei, W. Han, Y. J. Zhang, S. J. Du, Y. J. Xia, and H. Fan, Non-Markovian speedup dynamics of a photon in- duced by gravitational redshift, Phys. Rev. D108, 126011 (2023)

    2023

  10. [20]

    D. E. Bruschi, T. C. Ralph, I. Fuentes, T. Jennewein, and M. Razavi, Spacetime effects on satellite-based quantum communications, Phys. Rev. D90, 045041 (2014)

    2014

  11. [21]

    Borregaard and I

    J. Borregaard and I. Pikovski, Testing quantum theory on curved spacetime with quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023192 (2025)

    2025

  12. [22]

    Kohlrus, D

    J. Kohlrus, D. E. Bruschi, J. Louko, and I. Fuentes, Quantum communications and quantum metrology in the spacetime of a rotating planet, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol.4, 7 (2017)

    2017

  13. [23]

    T. Liu, S. Cao, and S. Wu, Characterization of quantum and classical correlations in the earth’s curved space-time, Sci. Rep.10, 14697 (2020)

    2020

  14. [24]

    P. P. Rohde, W. Mauerer, and C. Silberhorn, Spectral struc- ture and decompositions of optical states, and their appli- cations, New J. Phys.9, 91 (2007). 11

    2007

  15. [25]

    Q. Q. Liu, C. H. Wen, Z. H. Tian, J. L. Jing, and J. C. Wang, Gravity-enhanced quantum spatial target detection, Phys. Rev. A105, 062428 (2022)

    2022

  16. [26]

    L. A. A. Rodriguez, A. W. Schell, and D. E. Bruschi, In- troduction to gravitational redshift of quantum photons propagating in curved spacetime, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2531, 012016 (2023)

    2023

  17. [27]

    M. O. Scully , and M. S. Zubairy , Quantum optics, (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997)

    1997

  18. [28]

    D. E. Bruschi and A. W. Schell, Gravitational redshift in- duces quantum interference, Ann. Phys.535, 2200468 (2022)

    2022

  19. [29]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W. G ´oecki, and M. Gut ¸ ˘a, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher in- formation, J. Phys. A 53, 363001 (2020)

    2020

  20. [30]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imag- ing, Phys. Lett. A384, 126311 (2020)

    2020

  21. [31]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multiparam- eter quantum metrology , Adv. Phys. X1, 621 (2016)

    2016

  22. [32]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Yuan, Incompatibility measures in multiparameter quantum estimation under hierarchi- cal quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A105, 062442 (2022)

    2022

  23. [33]

    Ragy , M

    S. Ragy , M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, Com- patibility in multiparameter quantum metrology , Phys. Rev. A 94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  24. [34]

    S. L. Braunstein, and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  25. [35]

    Hayashi, Quantum information theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017)

    M. Hayashi, Quantum information theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017)

    2017

  26. [36]

    H. P. Yuen, and M. Lax, Multiple-parameter quantum es- timation and measurement of nonselfadjoint observables, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory19, 740 (1973)

    1973

  27. [37]

    Suzuki, Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quantum estimation theory , Entropy21, 703 (2019)

    J. Suzuki, Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quantum estimation theory , Entropy21, 703 (2019)

    2019

  28. [38]

    Y. Yang, G. Chiribella, and M. Hayashi, Attaining the ul- timate precision limit in quantum state estimation, Com- mun. Math. Phys.368, 223 (2019)

    2019

  29. [39]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. S. Kim, Optimal estimation of joint pa- rameters in phase space, Phys. Rev. A87, 012107 (2013)

    2013

  30. [40]

    K. Park, C. Oh, R. Filip, and P. Marek, Optimal estimation of conjugate shifts in position and momentum by classi- cally correlated probes and measurements, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied18, 014060 (2022)

    2022

  31. [41]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, and Y. Chen, Achieving the fundamental quantum limit of lin- ear waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 130801 (2024)

    2024

  32. [42]

    Bradshaw, P

    M. Bradshaw, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ultimate pre- cision of joint quadrature parameter estimation with a Gaussian probe, Phys. Rev. A97, 012106 (2018)

    2018

  33. [43]

    Albarelli, J

    F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, Evaluating the Holevo Cramer-Rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy , Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 200503 (2019)

    2019

  34. [44]

    S. K. Chang, M. G. Genoni, and F. Albarelli, Multiparam eter quantum estimation with Gaussian states: efficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cram ´er-Rao bounds, arXiv:2504.17873

    arXiv

  35. [45]

    L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ef- ficient computation of the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with separable measurements, npj Quantum Inf.7, 110 (2021)

    2021

  36. [46]

    Nagaoka, A new approach to Cramer-Rao bounds for quantum state estimation, in asymptotic theory of quan- tum statistical inference (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), pp

    H. Nagaoka, A new approach to Cramer-Rao bounds for quantum state estimation, in asymptotic theory of quan- tum statistical inference (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), pp. 100–112

    2005

  37. [47]

    B. Li, L. O. Conlon, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Optimal single-qubit tomography: Realization of locally optimal measurements on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A108, 032605 (2023)

    2023

  38. [48]

    Hayashi and Y

    M. Hayashi and Y. Ouyang, Tight Cram ´er-Rao type bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology through conic programming, Quantum7, 1094 (2023)

    2023

  39. [49]

    S. K. Yung, L. O. Conlon, J. Zhao, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Comparison of estimation limits for quantum two parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033315 (2024)

    2024

  40. [50]

    Hayashi and Y

    M. Hayashi and Y. Ouyang, Finding the optimal probe state for multiparameter quantum metrology using conic programming, npj Quantum Inf.10, 111 (2024)

    2024

  41. [51]

    Zhang, H

    M. Zhang, H. M. Yu, H. D. Yuan, X. G. Wang, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, and J. Liu, QuanEstimation: an open-source toolkit for quantum parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043057 (2022)

    2022

  42. [52]

    Maniscalco and F

    S. Maniscalco and F. Petruccione, Non-Markovian dynam- ics of a qubit, Phys. Rev. A73, 012111 (2006)

    2006

  43. [53]

    de Vega and D

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

    2017

  44. [55]

    H. Y. Yuan, W. P. Sterk, A. Kamra, and R. Duine, Pure dephasing of magnonic quantum states Phys. Rev. B106, L100403 (2022)

    2022

  45. [56]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. A. Paris, B. Vacchini, and A. Smirne, Invasiveness of non-equilibrium quantum thermometry , Phys. Rev. A 108, 062421 (2023)

    2023

  46. [57]

    F. F. Fanchini, G. Karpat, L. K. Castelano, and D. Z. Rossatto, Probing the degree of non-Markovianity for in- dependent and common environments, Phys. Rev. A88, 012105 (2013)

    2013

  47. [58]

    Z. Z. Mai and C. S. Yu, Quantum speed limit in terms of coherence variations, Phys. Rev. A110, 042425 (2024)

    2024

  48. [59]

    X. J. Cai, Y. Y. Feng J. Ren, K. Lan, S. N. Sun, X. J. Meng, and A. Czerwinski, Quantum speed limits in dephasing dynamics of a qubit system coupled to thermal environ- ments, APL Quantum2, 026102 (2025)

    2025

  49. [60]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, and D. Valenti, Uhlmann cur- vature in dissipative phase transitions, Sci. Rep.8, 9852 (2018)

    2018

  50. [61]

    Cram ´er, Mathematical methods of statistics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    H. Cram ´er, Mathematical methods of statistics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    1946

  51. [62]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X. M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  52. [63]

    A. S. Holevo, Statistical decision theory for quantum sys- tems, J. Multivar. Anal.3, 337 (1973)

    1973

  53. [64]

    R. D. Gill, and S. Massar, State estimation for large en- sembles, Phys. Rev. A61, 042312 (2000)

    2000

  54. [65]

    M. E. O. Bezerral, F. Albarelli and R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski, Simultaneous optical phase and loss estima- tion revisited: measurement and probe incompatibility , J. 12 Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 265303 (2025)

    2025

  55. [66]

    A. Das, L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, S. K. Yung, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Holevo Cramer-Rao bound: How close can we get without entangling measurements?, Quantum9, 1867 (2025)

    2025

  56. [67]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  57. [68]

    Suzuki, Explicit formula for the Holevo bound for two parameter qubit-state estimation problem, J

    J. Suzuki, Explicit formula for the Holevo bound for two parameter qubit-state estimation problem, J. Math. Phys. 57, 042201 (2016)

    2016

  58. [69]

    Haikka, T

    P. Haikka, T. H. Johnson, and S. Maniscalco, Non- Markovianity of local dephasing channels and time- invariant discord, Phys. Rev. A87, 010103(R) (2013)

    2013

  59. [70]

    Addis, G

    C. Addis, G. Brebner, P. Haikka, and S. Maniscalco, Co- herence trapping and information backflow in dephasing qubits, Phys. Rev. A89, 024101 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.