Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Multiparameter quantum estimation with Gaussian states: efficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cram\'er-Rao bounds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An SDP built from covariance data evaluates the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound for any Gaussian state.

desk verdict New SDP for the Holevo bound with Gaussian states is real and mostly sound, but the 'general Gaussian states' claim rests on an unproven regularization limit for pure normal modes. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17873 v1 pith:RZUCJRTM submitted 2025-04-24 quant-ph

Shoukang Chang , Marco G. Genoni , Francesco Albarelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords multiparameterquantumestimationHolevoCramér-RaoboundGaussianstatessemidefiniteprogrammingFisherinformationcontinuous-variablesystemsphaseandlosssqueezing
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

The paper claims that the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound (HCRB) for any multimode Gaussian state can be evaluated exactly as a finite-dimensional semidefinite program built only from the covariance matrix, the first-moment vector, and their derivatives with respect to the estimated parameters. Previously the HCRB had an SDP treatment for finite-dimensional systems and for Gaussian displacement estimation, but not for parameters encoded in the covariance matrix. The same construction yields SDP evaluations of the symmetric and right logarithmic derivative bounds, so all three precision limits live in one framework. Two worked examples, joint phase and loss estimation and joint displacement and squeezing estimation, show that the HCRB is tighter than both scalar bounds and that the gap can be substantial. The practical consequence is that the most fundamental multiparameter precision limit for infinite-dimensional Gaussian metrology platforms becomes a routine convex optimisation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the block-diagonal RLD inner-product matrix $S_\theta=\tfrac12\mathrm{diag}(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega,\,(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega)\otimes(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega))$, which encodes $\mathrm{Tr}[\hat{B}^\dagger\rho_\theta\hat{A}]=\bar{B}^\dagger S_\theta\bar{A}$ for zero-mean observables at most quadratic in the canonical operators, with $\bar{A}=(A^{(1)};\mathrm{vec}[A^{(2)}])$; its real part $\mathrm{Re}(S_\theta)$ is the SLD inner product on the same space. The mechanism is that every ingredient of the HCRB, namely the Gram matrix $Z(X)$, the local unbiasedness constraints, and the Schur-complement form of $V\ge Z(X)$, is expressed through $S_\theta$ and the derivative matrix $\bar{D}$, converting an optimisation over infinite-dimensional operators into a finite-dimensional SDP. The restriction to quadratic observables is justified through the commutation superoperator $\mathcal{D}_\rho$, defined by $\{\mathcal{D}_\rho(\hat{X}),\rho\}=i[\hat{X},\rho]$, whose action on a quadratic operator for a Gaussian state is the same calculation as an SLD for a unitarily encoded parameter and therefore stays quadratic. Inverting $\mathrm{Re}(S_\theta)$ is the step that requires all symplectic eigenvalues to exceed one, which is why pure normal modes need regularisation.

What would settle it

Take a pure single-mode displaced squeezed vacuum state, for which an analytic HCRB is known, solve the SDP with $\sigma_\epsilon=(1-\epsilon)\sigma+\epsilon I$ for $\epsilon=10^{-3},10^{-6},10^{-9}$, and check whether the optima converge to the analytic value; any systematic discrepancy as $\epsilon\to0$ would show that the regularised SDP does not reproduce the HCRB for pure Gaussian states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that for an $m$-mode Gaussian state with first moment $d_\theta$ and covariance matrix $\sigma_\theta$, the HCRB equals the optimum of the semidefinite program $$\mathrm{minimize}\ \mathrm{tr}[WV]\quad \text{subject to}\quad \begin{pmatrix} V & \bar{X}^\top R_\$\theta$^\dagger \\ R_\$\theta$ \bar{X} & I_r \end{pmatrix} \ge 0,\qquad \bar{X}^\top \bar{D}=I_p,$$ where $S_\theta=\tfrac12\mathrm{diag}(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega,\,(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega)\otimes(\sigma_\theta-i\Omega))$ is the RLD inner-product matrix on zero-mean observables at most quadratic in the canonical operators, $S_\theta=R_\theta^\dagger R_\theta$, and $\bar{D}$ collects $\partial d_\theta/\partial\theta_j$ together with $\tfrac12\mathrm{vec}[\partial\sigma_\theta/\partial\theta_j]$. The constraint $\bar{X}^\top\bar{D}=I_p$ encodes local unbiasedness, and the search over observables can be restricted to quadratic ones because the commutation superoperator of a Gaussian state maps the quadratic subspace into itself. The scalar SLD and RLD bounds are the same optimisation with, respectively, the real part of the inner product or complex-valued $\bar{X}$, so the three bounds are unified. For states with pure normal modes the matrix $S_\theta$ is not invertible; the paper's recipe is to regularise $\sigma\to(1-\epsilon)\sigma+\epsilon I$ and take $\epsilon\to0$, asserting, without a proof, that this limit gives the true HCRB.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the claim that optimal HCRB observables can be chosen among operators at most quadratic in the canonical variables; for states with pure normal modes this claim is supported only by the unproven assumption that regularising the covariance matrix as $\sigma\to(1-\epsilon)\sigma+\epsilon I$ and taking $\epsilon\to0$ gives the exact HCRB.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HCRB for Gaussian statistical models with parameters in both first moments and covariance matrix can be evaluated numerically with a global-optimality guarantee, without truncating the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.
  • The SLD-CRB and RLD-CRB are obtained from the same SDP by relaxing constraints, making comparisons among all three bounds routine for concrete metrology problems.
  • In the phase-loss example the HCRB is tighter than both scalar bounds in generic regimes; it coincides with the RLD bound for coherent probes and at specific squeezed-vacuum parameters, while elsewhere it can be substantially above it.
  • For displacement and squeezing estimation with single- and two-mode displaced squeezed thermal states, the HCRB matches the analytical upper bound in the studied regimes, and the RLD bound approaches it as the thermal photon number grows.
  • The same SDP structure extends to estimating $q\le p$ smooth functions of the parameters and to singular statistical models, provided unbiased observables for those functions exist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to read off the optimal $\bar{X}$ from the SDP solution and construct explicit quadratic measurements that attain the HCRB, something the paper does not do.
  • If the $\epsilon\to0$ regularisation is exact, the method covers pure Gaussian probes; a comparison against the known analytic pure-state HCRB would be a cheap check of that remaining assumption.
  • The phase-space inner-product formulation should transfer to fermionic Gaussian systems, where a similar quadratic-operator subspace and symplectic structure exists.
  • Because the paper notes the techniques likely apply to the Bayesian HCRB, one plausible extension is efficient evaluation of global, non-local multiparameter bounds for Gaussian states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 develops a phase-space method for evaluating multiparameter quantum Cramér-Rao bounds for Gaussian states. The central object is a finite block-diagonal matrix Sθ, Eq. (27), which represents the RLD inner product between zero-mean observables that are at most quadratic in the canonical operators. Using this inner product, the SLD and RLD QFI matrices are expressed in terms of first-moment and covariance-matrix derivatives, and the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound is reformulated as the semidefinite program in Eq. (36), with analogous SDP formulations for the SLD and RLD scalar bounds. The method is applied to joint estimation of phase and loss and to joint estimation of displacement and squeezing for single- and two-mode Gaussian states, with comparisons against analytic limits and against each other. For states with full symplectic rank the derivation is coherent. For states with pure normal modes, the paper invokes a covariance-matrix regularization, σ → (1−ε)σ + εI, and asserts that the ε→0 limit reproduces the true HCRB without proving the limit; this is the main unresolved point in the claim that the method applies to general Gaussian states.

Significance. If the result holds in the stated generality, it is a substantial contribution to continuous-variable multiparameter quantum metrology: it supplies the first general numerical SDP evaluation of the Holevo bound for Gaussian states, unifies the SLD, RLD, and Holevo bounds in one phase-space framework, and is accompanied by reproducible code and analytic consistency checks. The derivation is parameter-free and the case studies reproduce known limits, such as C^H = 2/|α|² for coherent-state phase-loss estimation. The main weakness is the unproved regularization limit for pure normal modes, which prevents the 'general Gaussian states' claim from being fully established even though the gap appears local and fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IIB, 'Pathological states with pure normal modes' and App. D] The advertised scope is 'general Gaussian states', but the proof of D-invariance of the quadratic-observable subspace is completed only when Re(Sθ) is invertible, i.e. for full symplectic rank, as stated after Eq. (D8). For states with pure normal modes, the paper asserts that σ → (1−ε)σ + εI followed by ε→0 'is equivalent' to the quotient construction, but gives no proof. This is load-bearing: the optimal value of an SDP is not automatically continuous under a rank drop of Sθ at ε=0, and kernel directions of Sθ could in principle interact with the derivative vectors D̄ and change the optimum. I ask the authors to either prove that the ε→0 limit of the regularized SDP equals the HCRB of the original state, or provide a direct derivation in the quotient space; a numerical check for the n=0 displaced-squeezed states of Ref. [61] would be useful but would not replace the proof.
  2. [§IIB, 'Optimality of quadratic observables'] The argument that Dρ-invariance follows because the SLD operators of Gaussian states are at most quadratic cites Refs. [63,66], but the explicit phase-space formulas used in those references require invertibility of Re(Sθ). For pure or partially pure states, the SLD is not unique and the cited formulas need qualification. As written, the proof of the central reduction to quadratic observables is therefore incomplete for exactly the states covered by the regularization claim. Please state explicitly the domain of validity of the cited SLD results, or prove invariance of the quadratic subspace directly on the quotient space defined by the kernel of Sθ.
  3. [§IIC and App. E, coherent-state phase-loss results] For an input coherent state (r=0) at η=1/2 the output state has σ=I, so Sθ has a kernel and the formulas (32) and (36) are not directly defined without regularization. The reported RLD and HCRB values for this case, e.g. C^R = C^H = 2/|α|², must therefore come from the same ε-regularization, but the text does not say so explicitly when presenting these results. This should be stated and justified together with the regularization proof requested above; otherwise the analytic pure-state results in Sec. IIC and App. E inherit the unproven limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (72)] The constraint in Eq. (72) is written 'barX⊤ D̄ = Ip'; the bar over X is missing in the typeset constraint and should be 5X ⊤.
  2. [§IIC, after Eq. (88)] The text says 'still by fixing η=1/2 and for a squeezed vacuum state, that is for r=0'; the phrase 'that is for r=0' should read 'that is for α=0', since a squeezed vacuum state has r≠0 in general.
  3. [Eqs. (27), (36)] The dimension z=2m(1+2m) counts the full 4m² quadratic coefficients even though A(2) is restricted to symmetric matrices; a sentence explaining that the redundant components are harmless because they do not enter D̄ and cannot reduce the optimal value would help the reader.
  4. [App. E, Figure 3 caption] The final portion of the appendix contains garbled glyphs ('/uni00000013...') that appear to be a rendering artifact; if present in the source, the caption and surrounding text should be fixed.
  5. [Ref. [84]] The companion notebook is cited as available in Ref. [84], but no URL is given; a permanent link would make the reproducibility claim actionable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Gaussian HCRB SDP is derived from the phase-space RLD inner product; the flagged pure-mode regularization gap is a missing proof, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (36), is obtained by rewriting the defining HCRB minimization (12) in the finite-dimensional basis of zero-mean observables at most quadratic in the canonical operators. The RLD inner product formula Tr[B^dag rho A] = Bbar^dag S_theta Abar, Eq. (43), is derived from first principles in Appendix A via the expectation values (A1)-(A4), and the unbiasedness condition is reduced to Xbar^T Dbar = I in Eq. (71). No parameter is fitted to data, and no target value of the HCRB is assumed as an input. The SLD and RLD QFI expressions in Eqs. (30)-(35) reproduce known results but are derived within the same framework, and the SLD-CRB/RLD-CRB SDPs are obtained by explicit relaxations of the HCRB constraints. Citations to the authors' prior work are not load-bearing: Ref. [56] is acknowledged as the finite-dimensional SDP template, Ref. [58] provides the D-invariance reduction condition, and Ref. [61] is used only as an independent analytic cross-check in the case studies. The one substantive weakness is the treatment of pure normal modes in Sec. IIB ('Pathological states with pure normal modes') and Appendix D: the authors assert, without proof, that regularizing sigma -> (1-epsilon)sigma + epsilon I and taking epsilon -> 0 gives the true HCRB, and this is needed for the advertised 'general Gaussian states' claim. However, this is a correctness/completeness gap about an unproven limit, not a circular step: the regularized SDP is not defined in terms of the target HCRB, and the gap cannot be exhibited as Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction. The paper is otherwise self-contained against external benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity verdict is no significant circularity (score 0).

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

The method introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. It relies on the standard phase-space description of Gaussian states, the known quadratic form of logarithmic derivatives for Gaussian models, Holevo's subspace reduction theorem, and an unproven regularization for pure normal modes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian states are fully characterized by first moment d and covariance matrix σ, with Gaussian characteristic function.
    Used throughout Sec. IB and IIB as the starting point for all inner-product derivations.
  • domain assumption The SLD and RLD operators of Gaussian statistical models are at most quadratic in the canonical operators.
    Invoked to write the ansatze in Eqs. (45) and (57); a known result cited to Refs. [59,63,66].
  • standard math The HCRB can be restricted to any D_ρ-invariant subspace that contains the span of the SLD operators.
    Used in Sec. IIB 'Optimality of quadratic observables' as the justification for restricting the optimization to quadratic operators; cited to Holevo [11,17].
  • ad hoc to paper For states with pure normal modes, the regularized covariance matrix σ → (1-ε)σ + εI yields the true HCRB in the limit ε→0.
    Stated in Sec. IIB 'Pathological states with pure normal modes' with only a numerical convergence check, no proof that the SDP value converges to the exact HCRB.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiparameter quantum estimation with Gaussian states: efficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cram\'er-Rao bounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZUCJRTM

@misc{pith2026250417873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiparameter quantum estimation with Gaussian states: efficiently evaluating Holevo, RLD and SLD Cram\'er-Rao bounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZUCJRTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17873}
}
read the original abstract

Multiparameter quantum estimation theory is crucial for many applications involving infinite-dimensional Gaussian quantum systems, since they can describe many physical platforms, e.g., quantum optical and optomechanical systems and atomic ensembles. In the multiparameter setting, the most fundamental estimation error (quantified by the trace of the estimator covariance matrix) is given by the Holevo Cram\'er-Rao bound (HCRB), which takes into account the asymptotic detrimental impact of measurement incompatibility on the simultaneous estimation of parameters encoded in a quantum state. However, the difficulty of evaluating the HCRB for infinite-dimensional systems weakens the practicality of applying this tool in realistic scenarios. In this paper, we introduce an efficient numerical method to evaluate the HCRB for general Gaussian states, by solving a semidefinite program involving only the covariance matrix and first moment vector and their parametric derivatives. This approach follows similar techniques developed for finite-dimensional systems, and hinges on a phase-space evaluation of inner products between observables that are at most quadratic in the canonical bosonic operators. From this vantage point, we can also understand symmetric and right logarithmic derivative scalar Cram\'er-Rao bounds under the same common framework, showing how they can similarly be evaluated as semidefinite programs. To exemplify the relevance and applicability of this methodology, we consider two paradigmatic applications, where the parameter dependence appears both in the first moments and in the covariance matrix of Gaussian states: estimation of phase and loss, and estimation of squeezing and displacement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Error bounds as a function of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Error bounds as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Error bounds as a function of the loss parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Measurement incompatibility in Bayesian multiparameter quantum estimation

    quant-ph 2025-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Measurement incompatibility at most doubles the minimum mean-square loss in Bayesian multiparameter quantum estimation, relative to the symmetric-posterior-mean bound.

  2. Efficient learning of bosonic Gaussian unitaries

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    We present the first provably efficient algorithm, in both query and time complexity, for learning arbitrary multi-mode bosonic Gaussian unitaries under the energy-constrained diamond distance.

  3. From the Hong-Ou-Mandel Effect to Quantum Sensing: Interference of Nonclassical Light with Partial Distinguishability and Noise

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    New Fock-state suppression laws, a partial-distinguishability extension of Gaussian Boson Sampling via overlap matrices, and a proof that measurement incompatibility survives even when probe incompatibility vanishes f...

  4. Stochastic Quantum Information Geometry and Speed Limits at the Trajectory Level

    quant-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors introduce a conditional quantum Fisher information whose average equals the standard QFI, and use it to derive single-trajectory speed limits with a possible negative interference term.

  5. Multiparameter quantum estimation in a photon system induced by gravitational redshift

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a photon redshifted in curved spacetime and subjected to amplitude-damping or Ohmic-like dephasing, the Nagaoka bound is the tightest multiparameter estimation limit, with best precision in the strong-coupling and...

  6. Beating joint quantum estimation limits with stepwise multiparameter metrology

    quant-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Stepwise, one-parameter-at-a-time quantum estimation can beat the joint-estimation precision limit when the quantum Fisher information matrix is near singular.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [84]

    A. S. Holevo, Commutation superoperator of a state and its applications to the noncommutative statistics, Rep. Math. Phys. 12, 251 (1977)

    work page 1977

  2. [61]

    Gianani, F

    I. Gianani, F. Albarelli, A. Verna, V. Cimini, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, and M. Barbieri, Kramers– Kronig relations and precision limits in quantum phase estimation, Optica 8, 1642 (2021), arXiv:2107.10521

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011), arXiv:1102.2318v1

    arXiv 2011

  4. [2]

    (98) We observe how in this caseCS θ≤CR θ , meaning that the RLD-CRB is always more informative than the SLD-CRB (notice that the two bounds coincide forn = 0, such that CR θ =CS θ = sinh2r + 1). Moreover, the second term of CR θ tends to a constant of1/2 when the value ofn is relatively large, so that for by increasing the number of thermal photons one o...

  5. [3]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński, Quantum Limits in Optical Inter- ferometry, in Progress in Optics, Volume 60, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015) pp. 345–435, arXiv:1405.7703

    arXiv 2015

  6. [4]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quan- tum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017), arXiv:1611.02427

    arXiv 2017

  7. [5]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018), arXiv:1609.01609

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nat. Photonics 12, 724 (2018), arXiv:1811.01969

    arXiv 2018

Show all 99 references
  1. [7]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Pho- tonic quantum metrology, AVS Quantum Sci.2, 024703 (2020), arXiv:2003.05821

    2020 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Barbieri, Optical Quantum Metrology, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri, Optical Quantum Metrology, PRX Quantum 3, 010202 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Fully-Optimized Quantum Metrology: Framework, Tools, and Appli- cations, Adv. Quantum Technol. , 2400094 (2024), arXiv:2409.07068

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski,Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, 2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation The- ory (Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  6. [12]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quan- tum Theory, 2nd ed. (Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2011)

    2011

  7. [13]

    Nagaoka, A New Approach to Cramér-Rao Bounds for Quantum State Estimation, IEICE Tech

    H. Nagaoka, A New Approach to Cramér-Rao Bounds for Quantum State Estimation, IEICE Tech. Rep.IT 89-42, 14 9 (1989)

    1989

  8. [14]

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

    1994

  9. [15]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technol- ogy, Int. J. Quantum Inf.07, 125 (2009), arXiv:0804.2981

    2009 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multi- parameter quantum metrology, Adv. Phys. X 1, 621 (2016), arXiv:1604.02615

    2016 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoreticaltoolstoapplicationsinquantumimaging,Phys. Lett. A 384, 126311 (2020), arXiv:1911.12067

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, W. Górecki, and M. Guţă, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher infor- mation, J. Phys. A53, 363001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11742

    2020 arXiv

  13. [19]

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

    1973

  14. [20]

    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), arXiv:1206.4867

    2013 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Bradshaw, P

    M. Bradshaw, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Ultimate precision of joint quadrature parameter estimation with a Gaussian probe, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012106 (2018), arXiv:1710.04817

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    K. Park, C. Oh, R. Filip, and P. Marek, Optimal Estima- tion of Conjugate Shifts in Position and Momentum by Classically Correlated Probes and Measurements, Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 014060 (2022), arXiv:2203.03348

    2022 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Hanamura, W

    F. Hanamura, W. Asavanant, S. Kikura, M. Mishima, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Yabuno, F. China, K. Fukui, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Single-Shot Single-Mode Op- tical Two-Parameter Displacement Estimation beyond Classical Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 230801 (2023), arXiv:2308.15024

    2023 arXiv

  18. [24]

    M. Zhou, H. Ma, L. Chen, W. Zhang, and C.-H. Yuan, Holevo Cramér-Rao bound for multi-parameter estimation in nonlinear interferometers (2025), arXiv:2502.02855

    2025 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Frigerio, M

    M. Frigerio, M. G. A. Paris, C. E. Lopetegui, and M. Walschaers, Joint estimation of position and momen- tum with arbitrarily high precision using non-Gaussian states (2025), arXiv:2504.01910

    2025 arXiv

  20. [26]

    J. W. Gardner, T. Gefen, S. A. Haine, J. J. Hope, and Y. Chen, Achieving the Fundamental Quantum Limit of Linear Waveform Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 130801 (2024), arXiv:2308.06253

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walms- ley, Quantum Enhanced Multiple Phase Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 070403 (2013), arXiv:1307.7653

    2013 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Pezzè, M

    L. Pezzè, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Optimal Measurements for Simultaneous Quan- tum Estimation of Multiple Phases, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 130504 (2017), arXiv:1705.03687

    2017 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Górecki and R

    W. Górecki and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Multiple- Phase QuantumInterferometry: Real and ApparentGains of Measuring All the Phases Simultaneously, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040504 (2022), arXiv:2107.10863

    2022 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Gebhart, A

    V. Gebhart, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Bayesian Quantum Multiphase Estimation Algorithm, Phys. Rev. Applied 16, 014035 (2021)

    2021

  25. [31]

    Chesi, A

    G. Chesi, A. Riccardi, R. Rubboli, L. Maccone, and C. Macchiavello, Protocol for global multiphase estima- tion, Phys. Rev. A108, 012613 (2023), arXiv:2301.07380

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Barbieri, I

    M. Barbieri, I. Gianani, A. Z. Goldberg, and L. L. Sánchez- Soto, Quantum multiphase estimation, Contemp. Phys. 65, 112 (2024), arXiv:2502.07873

    2024 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and D. Braun, Quantum parameter estimation using general single- mode Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A88, 040102 (2013), arXiv:1307.4637v1

    2013 arXiv

  28. [34]

    P. J. D. Crowley, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walms- ley, Tradeoff in simultaneous quantum-limited phase and loss estimation in interferometry, Phys. Rev. A89, 023845 (2014), arXiv:1206.0043

    2014 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Altorio, M

    M. Altorio, M. G. Genoni, M. D. Vidrighin, F. Somma, and M. Barbieri, Weak measurements and the joint es- timation of phase and phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. A92, 032114 (2015)

    2015

  30. [36]

    Roccia, V

    E. Roccia, V. Cimini, M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, L. Ruggiero, L. Mancino, M. G. Genoni, M. A. Ricci, and M. Barbieri, Multiparameter approach to quantum phase estimation with limited visibility, Optica5, 1171 (2018)

    2018

  31. [37]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Reaching for the quantum limits in the simultaneous estimation of phase and phase diffusion, Quantum Sci. Technol.2, 044004 (2017), arXiv:1701.07520

    2017 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Jayakumar, M

    J. Jayakumar, M. E. Mycroft, M. Barbieri, and M. Sto- bińska, Quantum-enhanced joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion, New J. Phys. 26, 073016 (2024), arXiv:2403.04722

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Napoli, S

    C. Napoli, S. Piano, R. Leach, G. Adesso, and T. Tufarelli, Towards Superresolution Surface Metrology: Quantum Estimation of Angular and Axial Separations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140505 (2019), arXiv:1805.04116

    2019 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Bisketzi, D

    E. Bisketzi, D. Branford, and A. Datta, Quantum limits of localisation microscopy, New J. Phys.21, 123032 (2019), arXiv:1907.11657

    2019 arXiv

  35. [41]

    L. J. Fiderer, T. Tufarelli, S. Piano, and G. Adesso, Gen- eral Expressions for the Quantum Fisher Information Matrix with Applications to Discrete Quantum Imaging, PRX Quantum 2, 020308 (2021), arXiv:2012.01572

    2021 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Tsang, Quantum limit to subdiffraction incoherent optical imaging, Phys

    M. Tsang, Quantum limit to subdiffraction incoherent optical imaging, Phys. Rev. A99, 012305 (2019)

    2019

  37. [43]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Modern description of Rayleigh’s cri- terion, Phys. Rev. A99, 013808 (2019), arXiv:1801.02917

    2019 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Huang, C

    Z. Huang, C. Lupo, and P. Kok, Quantum-Limited Esti- mation of Range and Velocity, PRX Quantum2, 030303 (2021), arXiv:2011.07081

    2021 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Reichert, Q

    M. Reichert, Q. Zhuang, and M. Sanz, Heisenberg-Limited Quantum Lidar for Joint Range and Velocity Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 130801 (2024), arXiv:2311.14546

    2024 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Vaneph, T

    C. Vaneph, T. Tufarelli, and M. G. Genoni, Quantum estimation of a two-phase spin rotation, Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol. 1, 12 (2013), arXiv:1211.7224

    2013 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Baumgratz and A

    T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Quantum Enhanced Estima- tion of a Multidimensional Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 030801 (2016), arXiv:1507.02956

    2016 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Z. Hou, Z. Zhang, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, H. Chen, L. Liu, and H. Yuan, Minimal Tradeoff and Ultimate Precision Limit of Multiparameter Quantum Magnetometry under the Parallel Scheme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 020501 (2020), arXiv:2001.02416

    2020 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Górecki and R

    W. Górecki and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Multiparam- eter quantum metrology in the Heisenberg limit regime: 15 Many-repetition scenario versus full optimization, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012424 (2022), arXiv:2203.09541

    2022 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Kaubruegger, A

    R. Kaubruegger, A. Shankar, D. V. Vasilyev, and P. Zoller, Optimal and Variational Multiparameter Quan- tum Metrology and Vector-Field Sensing, PRX Quantum 4, 020333 (2023), arXiv:2302.07785

    2023 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017)

    M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017)

    2017

  46. [52]

    V. P. Belavkin, Generalized uncertainty relations and efficient measurements in quantum systems, Theor. Math. Phys. 26, 213 (1976), arXiv:quant-ph/0412030v1

    1976 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Suzuki, Information Geometrical Characterization of Quantum Statistical Models in Quantum Estimation The- ory, Entropy21, 703 (2019), arXiv:1807.06990

    J. Suzuki, Information Geometrical Characterization of Quantum Statistical Models in Quantum Estimation The- ory, Entropy21, 703 (2019), arXiv:1807.06990

    2019 arXiv

  48. [54]

    S.Ragy, M.Jarzyna,andR.Demkowicz-Dobrzański,Com- patibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052108 (2016), arXiv:1608.02634

    2016 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Y. Yang, G. Chiribella, and M. Hayashi, Attaining the Ultimate Precision Limit in Quantum State Estimation, Commun. Math. Phys.368, 223 (2019), arXiv:1802.07587

    2019 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J

    K. Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J. Phys. Math. Gen.35, 3111 (2002)

    2002

  51. [57]

    Albarelli, J

    F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, Evaluating the Holevo Cramér-Rao Bound for Multiparameter Quan- tum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 200503 (2019), arXiv:1906.05724

    2019 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables : A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables : A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017)

    2017

  53. [59]

    Tsang, F

    M. Tsang, F. Albarelli, and A. Datta, Quantum Semi- parametric Estimation, Phys. Rev. X10, 031023 (2020), arXiv:1906.09871

    2020 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Nichols, P

    R. Nichols, P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, P. A. Knott, and G. Adesso, Multiparameter Gaussian quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012114 (2018), arXiv:1711.09132

    2018 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Bressanini, M

    G. Bressanini, M. G. Genoni, M. S. Kim, and M. G. A. Paris, Multi-parameter quantum estimation of single- and two-mode pure Gaussian states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57, 315305 (2024), arXiv:2403.03919

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Bradshaw, S

    M. Bradshaw, S. M. Assad, and P. K. Lam, A tight Cramér–Rao bound for joint parameter estimation with a pure two-mode squeezed probe, Phys. Lett. A381, 2598 (2017), arXiv:1702.02271

    2017 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states (2013), arXiv:1303.3682

    A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states (2013), arXiv:1303.3682

    2013 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Gao and H

    Y. Gao and H. Lee, Bounds on quantum multiple- parameter estimation with Gaussian state, Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 347 (2014), arXiv:1407.7352v1

    2014 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Jiang, Quantum Fisher information for states in expo- nential form, Phys

    Z. Jiang, Quantum Fisher information for states in expo- nential form, Phys. Rev. A89, 032128 (2014)

    2014

  60. [67]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, second edition ed

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, second edition ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2023)

    2023

  61. [68]

    Šafránek, Estimation of Gaussian quantum states, J

    D. Šafránek, Estimation of Gaussian quantum states, J. Phys. A 52, 035304 (2019), arXiv:1801.00299

    2019 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Cramér,Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    H. Cramér,Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    1946

  63. [70]

    C. W. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of esti- mates in quantum statistics, Phys. Lett. A25, 101 (1967)

    1967

  64. [71]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A 53, 023001 (2020), arXiv:1907.08037

    2020 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Hayashi and Y

    M. Hayashi and Y. Ouyang, Tight Cramér-Rao type bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology through conic programming, Quantum 7, 1094 (2023), arXiv:2209.05218

    2023 arXiv

  66. [73]

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

    1973

  67. [74]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estima- tion, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp.2019, 094010 (2019), arXiv:1911.11621

    2019 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Razavian, M

    S. Razavian, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, On the Quantumness of Multiparameter Estimation Prob- lems for Qubit Systems, Entropy 22, 1197 (2020), arXiv:2010.12630

    2020 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Candeloro, M

    A. Candeloro, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, On the properties of the asymptotic incompatibility measure in multiparameter quantum estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 485301 (2021)

    2021

  70. [77]

    M. G. Genoni, L. Lami, and A. Serafini, Conditional and unconditional Gaussian quantum dynamics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 331 (2016), arXiv:1607.02619

    2016 arXiv

  71. [78]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0410100

    2005 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012), arXiv:1110.3234

    2012 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Adesso, Generic Entanglement and Standard Form for $N$-Mode Pure Gaussian States, Phys

    G. Adesso, Generic Entanglement and Standard Form for $N$-Mode Pure Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 130502 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0606190

    2006 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2004)

    2004

  75. [82]

    Skrzypczyk and D

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti,Semidefinite Program- ming in Quantum Information Science:(IOP Publishing, 2023)

    2023

  76. [83]

    Diamond and S

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1 (2016), arXiv:1603.00943

    2016 arXiv

  77. [85]

    S.Chang, M.G.Genoni,andF.Albarelli,GaussianHCRB- SDP (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    L. O. Conlon, J. Suzuki, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Efficient computation of the Nagaoka–Hayashi bound for multiparameter estimation with separable measurements, npj Quantum Inf.7, 1 (2021), arXiv:2008.02612

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nat. Phys.16, 1050 (2020), arXiv:2002.08953

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Gandhari, V

    S. Gandhari, V. V. Albert, T. Gerrits, J. M. Taylor, and M. J. Gullans, Precision Bounds on Continuous-Variable State Tomography Using Classical Shadows, PRX Quan- tum 5, 010346 (2024), arXiv:2211.05149

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Becker, N

    S. Becker, N. Datta, L. Lami, and C. Rouze, Classical Shadow Tomography for Continuous Variables Quantum Systems, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory70, 3427 (2024), arXiv:2202.10717

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Suzuki, Bayesian Nagaoka-Hayashi Bound for Mul- tiparameter Quantum-State Estimation Problem, IE- 16 ICE Trans

    J. Suzuki, Bayesian Nagaoka-Hayashi Bound for Mul- tiparameter Quantum-State Estimation Problem, IE- 16 ICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. E107.A, 510 (2024), arXiv:2302.14223

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Zhang and J

    J. Zhang and J. Suzuki, Bayesian Logarithmic Deriva- tive Type Lower Bounds for Quantum Estimation (2024), arXiv:2405.10525

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Morelli, A

    S. Morelli, A. Usui, E. Agudelo, and N. Friis, Bayesian parameter estimation using Gaussian states and mea- surements, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025018 (2021), arXiv:2009.03709

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Mukhopadhyay, M

    C. Mukhopadhyay, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Sat- urable global quantum sensing with Gaussian probes (2024), arXiv:2410.12050

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. S. França, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, Quantum metrology in the finite-sample regime (2023), arXiv:2307.06370

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    F. A. Mele, A. A. Mele, L. Bittel, J. Eisert, V. Giovan- netti, L. Lami, L. Leone, and S. F. E. Oliviero, Learning quantum states of continuous variable systems (2024), arXiv:2405.01431

    2024

  88. [96]

    Monras, Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaus- sian states, Phys

    A. Monras, Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaus- sian states, Phys. Rev. A73, 033821 (2006), arXiv:quant- ph/0509018

    2006

  89. [97]

    C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, and S.-Y. Lee, Optimal Gaussian measurements for phase estimation in single-mode Gaussian metrology, Npj Quan- tum Inf. 5, 10 (2019), arXiv:1805.08495

    2019 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Branford, C

    D. Branford, C. N. Gagatsos, J. Grover, A. J. Hickey, and A. Datta, Quantum enhanced estimation of diffusion, Phys. Rev. A100, 022129 (2019), arXiv:1901.02497

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    M. F. B. Cenni, L. Lami, A. Acín, and M. Mehboudi, Ther- mometry of Gaussian quantum systems using Gaussian measurements, Quantum6, 743 (2022), arXiv:2110.02098. APPENDICES In the appendices we extensively use Einstein’s summation convention, whereby repeated indexes in an exp...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.