Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 72 references

The Unruh effect degrades the precision of estimating parameters in thermal attenuator and amplifier Gaussian channels.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 16:46 UTC pith:SAZLD4IQ

load-bearing objection Extends standard QFI methods to Unruh-modified Gaussian channels and reports precision loss, but the effective thermal model may miss frame-dependent transformations on states and detectors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.08905 v1 pith:SAZLD4IQ submitted 2026-06-08 quant-ph

Impact of the Unruh effect on the estimation precision of Gaussian channel parameters

Shoukang Chang , Yawen Tang , Wei Ye , Shao-Ming Fei , Zunlue Zhu , Xingdong Zhao This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Unruh effectGaussian quantum channelsparameter estimationquantum Cramér-Rao boundthermal attenuatorthermal amplifierheterodyne detection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper studies how acceleration-induced Unruh noise affects estimates of parameters in two common Gaussian channels. It treats the effect as extra thermal noise that alters the channel maps and computes the resulting quantum Fisher information for coherent and squeezed vacuum input states. The calculation shows lower precision bounds for single-parameter estimation and confirms that the quantum Cramér-Rao bound remains the tight limit for simultaneous estimation of two parameters. Heterodyne detection reaches near-optimal performance when acceleration or thermal occupation becomes large. These results matter for any quantum sensing task performed by accelerated observers.

Core claim

When the Unruh effect is included as an effective thermal contribution to the thermal attenuator and thermal amplifier channels, the quantum Fisher information for the channel parameters drops for both coherent and squeezed-vacuum probes. Consequently the estimation variance bounds rise in the single-parameter case. In the two-parameter case the quantum Cramér-Rao bound stays asymptotically achievable and the same degradation appears. Heterodyne measurement becomes nearly optimal once acceleration or mean thermal photon number is large.

What carries the argument

Quantum Fisher information extracted from the covariance matrix of the output state of an Unruh-modified thermal attenuator or amplifier channel.

Load-bearing premise

The Unruh effect can be captured entirely by increasing the thermal noise parameters of the Gaussian channels, without further relativistic transformations on the input states or on the measurement apparatus.

What would settle it

An explicit computation of the quantum Fisher information for a fixed channel transmissivity or gain at two different acceleration parameters that shows no increase in the bound when acceleration rises.

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

If this is right

  • Precision loss appears for both coherent states and squeezed vacuum states.
  • The quantum Cramér-Rao bound is asymptotically tight for joint estimation of two channel parameters.
  • Heterodyne detection approaches the optimal precision at high acceleration or large thermal mean photon number.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same noise model may limit other quantum metrology protocols performed by uniformly accelerated observers.
  • Analog simulation of the Unruh effect in table-top optical systems could test the predicted precision loss directly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the effect of the Unruh effect, modeled as an effective thermal noise contribution, on the precision of estimating parameters of thermal attenuator and thermal amplifier Gaussian channels. Using coherent states and squeezed vacuum states as inputs, it computes the quantum Fisher information for single-parameter estimation and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound for two-parameter estimation, concluding that the Unruh effect degrades estimation precision in both cases, that the QCRB is asymptotically achievable, and that heterodyne detection is near-optimal in the high-acceleration or large-thermal-mean-number limit.

Significance. If the effective thermal model fully captures the noninertial physics, the results extend Gaussian quantum metrology to accelerated frames and provide guidance on measurement optimality for relativistic quantum channels. The explicit demonstration of QCRB achievability and heterodyne near-optimality would be concrete contributions to the literature on relativistic quantum information.

major comments (2)
  1. [Unruh effect modeling / channel definitions] The central claim that the Unruh effect degrades estimation precision rests on modeling it solely as an additive thermal contribution that rescales the parameters of the attenuator/amplifier channels (see the channel definitions and Unruh modeling paragraph). It is unclear whether Bogoliubov transformations are applied to the covariance matrices of the coherent or squeezed input states when transforming to the accelerated frame; if omitted, the reported QFI degradation may be incomplete or misattributed to the channel alone rather than the full noninertial transformation.
  2. [Two-parameter estimation section] For the two-parameter estimation, the statement that the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is an asymptotically achievable precision limit requires explicit identification of the measurement achieving it and the precise asymptotic regime (e.g., number of copies or acceleration parameter). Without this, it is difficult to verify that the bound is not merely a formal lower bound but is attained under the same Unruh-modified channel model used for the single-parameter case.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the thermal mean photon number and acceleration parameter should be defined once at first use and used consistently; several symbols appear without prior definition in the abstract and early sections.
  2. Figure captions should explicitly state the input state (coherent vs. squeezed) and the value of the acceleration parameter used for each curve to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below with clarifications based on the manuscript content. We believe the points can be resolved through these explanations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Unruh effect modeling / channel definitions] The central claim that the Unruh effect degrades estimation precision rests on modeling it solely as an additive thermal contribution that rescales the parameters of the attenuator/amplifier channels (see the channel definitions and Unruh modeling paragraph). It is unclear whether Bogoliubov transformations are applied to the covariance matrices of the coherent or squeezed input states when transforming to the accelerated frame; if omitted, the reported QFI degradation may be incomplete or misattributed to the channel alone rather than the full noninertial transformation.

    Authors: The Unruh effect is modeled via the standard Bogoliubov transformations between Minkowski and Rindler modes, which produce the effective thermal noise contribution that rescales the attenuator and amplifier parameters. The covariance matrices of the coherent and squeezed-vacuum inputs are transformed to the accelerated frame using these Bogoliubov coefficients before the channel acts; this is the procedure underlying the channel definitions and Unruh modeling paragraph. Consequently the reported QFI degradation already incorporates the full noninertial transformation of both states and channel. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Two-parameter estimation section] For the two-parameter estimation, the statement that the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is an asymptotically achievable precision limit requires explicit identification of the measurement achieving it and the precise asymptotic regime (e.g., number of copies or acceleration parameter). Without this, it is difficult to verify that the bound is not merely a formal lower bound but is attained under the same Unruh-modified channel model used for the single-parameter case.

    Authors: In the two-parameter section we demonstrate that heterodyne detection saturates the QCRB in the high-acceleration (large thermal mean-number) limit, where the classical Fisher information matrix from heterodyne coincides with the quantum Fisher information matrix. This is the same Unruh-modified channel model employed for the single-parameter results, and the asymptotic regime is the large-acceleration limit already used throughout the paper. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on standard QFI/QCRB for Gaussian channels with external Unruh modeling

full rationale

The provided abstract and reader's summary contain no equations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no self-citations that bear the central claim. The analysis applies the quantum Cramér-Rao bound to thermal attenuator/amplifier channels after modeling Unruh as effective thermal noise—an external physical assumption, not a self-referential definition or fit. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the QCRB is invoked as an independent asymptotic limit rather than derived from the paper's own data. This is the normal case of a self-contained calculation against standard quantum estimation benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no information on free parameters, background axioms, or new entities; ledger left empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5749 in / 1113 out tokens · 19769 ms · 2026-06-27T16:46:56.381273+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gaussian quantum channels constitute a pivotal physical framework for characterizing the dynamics of Gaussian quantum states. Extensive scholarly attention has been devoted to the estimation of parameters associated with Gaussian channels. However, while previous research has predominantly focused on parameter estimation within inertial frames, the noninertial scenario, particularly in the context of the Unruh effect, remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we analyze the impact of the Unruh effect on the estimation precision of Gaussian channel parameters, with a specific focus on thermal attenuator and thermal amplifier channels. Our findings reveal that the Unruh effect significantly degrades the precision of single-parameter estimation for Gaussian channel parameters when employing both the input coherent state and squeezed vacuum state. For the two-parameter estimation, we further demonstrate that the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound serves as an asymptotically achievable precision limit. Consistent with the single-parameter case, the Unruh effect exerts a detrimental impact on the precision of two-parameter estimation. Notably, heterodyne measurement is near-optimal for both single- and two-parameter estimation in the limit of high acceleration or large thermal mean numbers. These results provide crucial theoretical insights and practical guidance for advancing quantum parameter estimation in a relativistic context.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08905 by Shao-Ming Fei, Shoukang Chang, Wei Ye, Xingdong Zhao, Yawen Tang, Zunlue Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (Color online) Schematic diagram of the field mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (Color online) The QFI with respect to the attenua [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) The QFI with respect to the attenuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (Color online) The QFI with respect to the attenuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) The QCRB with respect to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) The QCRB with respect to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) The QCRB with respect to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a), the ratio R˜ exhibits a significant and mono￾tonic increase with r, starting from a sub-optimal value around 0.7 at the inertial limit (r → 0). As the acceler￾ation effects become pronounced, R˜ rapidly climbs and asymptotically approaches the theoretical maximum 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online) The QFI with respect to the ampli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: (Color online) The QFI with respect to the amplifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: (Color online) The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a), the ratio for heterodyne measurement starts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: (Color online) The QCRB with respect to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: (Color online) The QCRB with respect to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: (Color online) The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2011

  2. [2]

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

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    Pirandola, B

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

    2018

  4. [4]

    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, Phys. Rep.1134, 1-62 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

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

    1994

  6. [6]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołody´nski, Quantum limits in optical interferome- try , Prog. Opt.60, 345 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

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

    2009

  8. [8]

    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)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Gessner, and A

    M. Gessner, and A. Smerzi, Hierarchies of frequentist bounds for quantum metrology: From Cramér-Rao to Barankin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 260801 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    J. R. Hervas, A. Z. Goldberg, A. S. Sanz, Z. Hradil, J. ˇReháˇcek, and L. L. Sáchez-Soto, Beyond the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010804 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Y. Xia, W. Li, Q. T. Zhuang, and Z. S. Zhang, Quantum- enhanced data classification with a variational entangled sensor network, Phys. Rev. X11, 021047 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-variable entangled network, Nat. Phys. 16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Quantum speed limit for physical processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050402 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    L. P. Garcí-Pintos, S. B. Nicholson, J. R. Green, A. Campo, and A. V. Gorshkov, Unifying quantum and classical speed limits on observables, Phys. Rev. X12, 011038 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    D. P. Xuan, Z. X. Shen, W. Zhou, S. M. Fei, and Z. X. Wang, Quantum-imaginarity-based quantum speed limit, Phys. 21 Rev. A112, 052202 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Tsang, R

    M. Tsang, R. Nair, and X. M. Lu, Quantum theory of super- resolution for two incoherent optical point sources, Phys. Rev. X6, 031033 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    C. H. Oh, S. S. Zhou, Y. Wong, and L. Jiang, Quantum limits of superresolution in a noisy environment, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 120502 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Naimy , A

    A. Naimy , A. Slaoui, A. Lakhfif, H. E. Hadfi, and R. A. Laamara, Achieving optimal multiparameter quantum es- timation in optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A,112, 052604 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Nichols, P

    R. Nichols, P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, P. A. Knott, and G. Adesso, Multiparameter Gaussian quantum metrology , Phys. Rev. A98, 012114 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Gao and H

    Y. Gao and H. Lee, Bounds on quantum multiple- parameter estimation with Gaussian state, Eur. Phys. J. D68, 1 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states

    A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estima- tion of Gaussian states, arXiv:1303.3682

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

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

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Šafráek, Estimation of Gaussian quantum states, J

    D. Šafráek, Estimation of Gaussian quantum states, J. Phys. A52, 035304 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Monras, and M

    A. Monras, and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal quantum esti- mation of loss in bosonic channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160401 (2007)

    2007

  25. [25]

    Monras and F

    A. Monras and F. Illuminati, Measurement of damping and temperature: Precision bounds in Gaussian dissipa- tive channels, Phys. Rev. A83, 012315 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Šafráek, and I

    D. Šafráek, and I. Fuentes, Optimal probe states for the estimation of Gaussian unitary channels, Phys. Rev. A94, 062313 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Monras and F

    A. Monras and F. Illuminati, Information geometry of Gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A81, 062326 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    J. F. G. Santos, C. H. S. Vieira, and W. R. Cardoso, Im- proving parameter estimation in Gaussian channels using quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A111, 052404 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Nair, Quantum-limited loss sensing: multiparameter estimation and bures distance between loss channels, Phys

    R. Nair, Quantum-limited loss sensing: multiparameter estimation and bures distance between loss channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 230801 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    J. Wang, L. Davidovich, and G. S. Agarwal, Quantum sensing of open systems: estimation of damping constants and temperature, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033389 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Binder, and D

    P. Binder, and D. Braun, Quantum parameter estimation of the frequency and damping of a harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. A102, 012223 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, In- dividual quantum probes for optimal thermometry , Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 220405 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. A. Paris, B. Vacchini, and A. Smirne, Invasiveness of non-equilibrium quantum thermometry , Phys. Rev. A108, 062421 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    S. K. Chang, Y. Yan, L. Wang, W. Ye, X. Rao, H. Zhang, L. Huang, M. Luo, Y. Chen, Q. Ma, and S. Gao, Global quan tum thermometry based on the optimal biased bound, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043171 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    J. X. Peng, P. Djorwe, H. T. Cui, N. Akhtar, I. U. Haq, C. Zhao, and D. Li, Quantum estimation for improv- ing optomechanical coupling strength, Phys. Rev. A111, 012607 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Adesso, F

    G. Adesso, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, F. Illuminati, and L. A. M. Souza, Optimal estimation of losses at the ultimate quantum limit with non-Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A79, 040305(R) (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    Samantaray , J

    N. Samantaray , J. C. F. Matthews, and J. G. Rarity , Pois- sonian twin-beam states and the effect of symmetrical photon subtraction in loss estimations, Phys. Rev. A104, 063718 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Y. Tao, X. Li, L. Li, J. Huang, H. Li, T. Wang, L. Zhou, and G. Zeng, Surpassing the quantum limit in bosonic loss estimation without quantum probes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 060801 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Belsley , E

    A. Belsley , E. J. Allen, A. Datta, and J. C. F. Matthews, Advantage of coherent states in ring resonators over any quantum probe single-pass absorption estimation strat- egy , Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 230501 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Peres, and D

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

    2004

  41. [41]

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, The Unruh effect and its applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 787 (2008)

    2008

  42. [42]

    J. Wang, H. Cao, J. Jing, and H. Fan, Gaussian quantum steering and its asymmetry in curved spacetime, Phys. Rev. D93, 125011 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  44. [44]

    S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravita- tional collapse, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976)

    1976

  45. [45]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  46. [46]

    P. M. Alsing, I. Fuentes-Schuller, R. B. Mann, and T. E. Tessier, Entanglement of Dirac fields in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A74, 032326 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    Fuentes-Schuller, and R

    I. Fuentes-Schuller, and R. B. Mann, Alice falls into a black hole: entanglement in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 120404 (2005)

    2005

  48. [48]

    Harikrishnan, S

    S. Harikrishnan, S. Jambulingam, P. P. Rohde, and C. Rad- hakrishnan, Accessible and inaccessible quantum coher- ence in relativistic quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A105, 052403 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    J. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Jing, and H. Fan, Irreversible degra- dation of quantum coherence under relativistic motion, Phys. Rev. A93, 062105 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Hosler, C

    D. Hosler, C. Bruck, and P. Kok, Information gap for clas- sical and quantum communication in a Schwarzschild spacetime, Phys. Rev. A85, 042312 (2012)

    2012

  51. [51]

    T. G. Downes, T. C. Ralph, and N. Walk, Quantum com- munication with an accelerated partner, Phys. Rev. A87, 012327 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    P. T. Grochowski, G. Rajchel, F. Kiałka, and A. Dragan, Effect of relativistic acceleration on continuous variable quantum teleportation and dense coding, Phys. Rev. D95, 105005 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Aspachs, G

    M. Aspachs, G. Adesso, and I. Fuentes, Optimal quantum estimation of the Unruh-Hawking effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 151301 (2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, X. Wang, and C. Sun, Quantum Fisher information in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A89, 042336 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    Hosler, and P

    D. Hosler, and P. Kok, Parameter estimation using NOON states over a relativistic quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052112 (2013)

    2013

  56. [56]

    Friis, M

    N. Friis, M. Skotiniotis, I. Fuentes, and W. Dür, Heisenberg scaling in Gaussian quantum metrology , Phys. Rev. A92, 022106 (2015)

    2015

  57. [57]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. E. Bruschi, and I. Fuentes, Quantum 22 metrology for relativistic quantum fields, Phys. Rev. D89, 065028 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    Montero and E

    M. Montero and E. Martín-Martínez, The entangling side of the Unruh-Hawking effect, J. High Energy Phys.07006 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    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

  60. [60]

    Carollo, B

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

    2018

  61. [61]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W. Góecki, and M. Gut ˇa, Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum Fisher in formation, J. Phys. A53, 363001 (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  63. [63]

    Weedbrook, S

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

    2012

  64. [64]

    Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods (Taylor & Francis, Oxford, 2017)

    A. Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods (Taylor & Francis, Oxford, 2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    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)

    2024

  66. [66]

    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)

    2017

  67. [67]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, Y. Zhou, and A. N. Jordan, Optimal mea- surements for quantum multiparameter estimation with general states, Phys. Rev. A100, 032104 (2019)

    2019

  68. [68]

    Ragy , M

    S. Ragy , M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, Com- patibility in multiparameter quantum metrology , Phys. Rev. A94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    J. O. de Almeida, M. Lewenstein, and M. Skotiniotis, Superresolving collective quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A112, 052605 (2025)

    2025

  70. [70]

    D. E. Bruschi, J. Louko, E. Martín-Martínez, A. Dragan, and I. Fuentes, Unruh effect in quantum information be- yond the single-mode approximation, Phys. Rev. A82, 042332 (2010)

    2010

  71. [71]

    Dragan, J

    A. Dragan, J. Doukas, E. Martín-Martínez, and D. E. Br- uschi, Localized projective measurement of a quantum field in non-inertial frames, Class. Quantum Grav.30 235006 (2013)

    2013

  72. [72]

    Ahmadi, K

    M. Ahmadi, K. Lorek, A. Ch˛ eci´nska, A. R. H. Smith, R. B. Mann, and A. Dragan, Effect of relativistic acceleration on localized two-mode Gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. D93, 124031 (2016)

    2016