Quantum Speed Limits and the Ultimate Scaling of the Quantum Sensors

Yusef Maleki

The true Heisenberg limit is a quantum speed limit on the generator, not a 1/n photon-count ceiling.

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-4.5

2026-07-30 18:27 UTC pith:JUJIIU66

load-bearing objection Clean pedagogical synthesis: multiphoton Rabi gives n^{-m/2} clocks, QSL resource counting dissolves the super-HL language, and an ON state shows 1/n without mode entanglement.

arxiv 2607.23573 v1 pith:JUJIIU66 submitted 2026-07-26 quant-ph

Quantum Speed Limits and the Ultimate Scaling of the Quantum Sensors

Yusef Maleki This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords quantum metrologyHeisenberg limitquantum speed limitsquantum Fisher informationmultiphoton Rabi oscillationsNOON statesresource countingsuper-Heisenberg scaling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that quantum sensing’s ultimate precision is set by how fast a probe can become distinguishable under the actual Hamiltonian that encodes the unknown parameter. Apparent “super-Heisenberg” laws, such as time error scaling as n to the minus m/2 in multiphoton Rabi clocks, are ordinary Heisenberg scaling once the resource is counted as the expectation of that generator (for example ⟨n^m⟩), not bare photon number. Framing metrology through quantum speed limits—energy variance (Mandelstam–Tamm) and mean energy above the ground state (Margolus–Levitin)—gives operational bounds that reconcile these protocols with the standard interpretation. The same resource view shows that 1/n phase sensitivity does not by itself prove mode entanglement is required: a single-mode ON state reaches the same scaling. A sympathetic reader cares because this replaces slogan limits with a consistent way to decide when a strategy is truly better and what physical resource it is spending.

Core claim

The Heisenberg limit is best read as an information-theoretic form of the quantum speed limit: with ground-state energy set to zero, precision is bounded as ~1/⟨H⟩ by a Margolus–Levitin-type relation, while variance bounds recover Mandelstam–Tamm. In an m-photon Rabi protocol the phase/time error can scale as n^{-m/2}, but the operative resource is the generator’s norm (e.g. ⟨n^m⟩), so the scaling saturates rather than violates the true Heisenberg bound. Separately, a single-mode ON state |0⟩+|n⟩ achieves 1/n sensitivity without mode entanglement, so that scaling alone does not certify entanglement as the enabling resource.

What carries the argument

Quantum speed limits tied to Fisher information: the Bures speed V = (1/2)√F_Q is bounded by ΔH/ℏ (Mandelstam–Tamm) and by ⟨H′⟩ (Margolus–Levitin with ground energy zeroed), so the Cramér–Rao time error is limited by the generator’s variance and mean rather than by photon number alone.

Load-bearing premise

The multiphoton clock is treated as an ideal effective coupling whose strength does not itself depend badly on photon number, with coherent evolution long enough to read the fast Rabi flops before loss and decoherence win.

What would settle it

In a controlled m-photon atom–field setup, measure whether the observed time resolution tracks 1/Ω_{n−m,m} ~ n^{-m/2} while the extracted Fisher information stays within the speed-limit bounds set by the measured ⟨H⟩ and ΔH; if λ collapses with n, intermediate states cannot be eliminated, or decoherence cuts off the oscillations before that scaling appears, the resource story fails as stated.

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

If this is right

Resource tables for sensors should list the generator’s mean and variance (or operator norm), not only average photon or particle number.
Claims of super-Heisenberg scaling must be restated as ordinary Heisenberg scaling under a nonlinear generator, or withdrawn.
Benchmarking entanglement as a metrological resource requires controls that a single-mode ON-like probe cannot match on equal footing.
Platform design should target strong effective multiphoton couplings and coherence times longer than one fast Rabi cycle if the n^{-m/2} advantage is the goal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Sensor roadmaps that still advertise “beyond 1/n” as a free lunch may be mis-selling resource redefinitions rather than new physics.
The same generator-first accounting should re-rank interaction-based and many-body metrology proposals that currently quote only particle number.
If ON-state preparation via multiphoton Rabi plus atomic projection is practical, it offers a simpler path to 1/n interferometry than two-mode NOON states in lossy settings—worth a direct head-to-head loss study.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Clean pedagogical synthesis: multiphoton Rabi gives n^{-m/2} clocks, QSL resource counting dissolves the super-HL language, and an ON state shows 1/n without mode entanglement.

read the letter

The useful core is straightforward. Maleki works out m-photon Rabi dynamics as a metrological clock: for the effective interaction V=λ(a†^m σ− + a^m σ+), the pure-state QFI is Ω_{n−m,m}^2 so δt scales as n^{-m/2} at large n. He then folds that into the usual Bures/QFI speed and MT/ML bounds and argues that the right resource is the generator (effectively ⟨n^m⟩ once ground energy is zeroed), so the “super-Heisenberg” label is mostly bad accounting. Separately he gives a concrete preparation path to the single-mode ON state (|0⟩+|n⟩)/√2 and shows the standard 1/n phase error without mode entanglement.

That package is not a first discovery of QSL–metrology links or of nonlinear generators—Taddei, Deffner–Campbell, Boixo, Beltrán–Luis, Napolitano, and Zwierz already sit in the bibliography—but the multiphoton Rabi illustration and the ON-state generation route are concrete and cleanly calculated. The analytics check out in the ideal model: F_Q=Ω^2, error propagation on ⟨P⟩=cos(nφ), and the usual speed-limit inequalities applied in the ordinary way. Citation pattern is appropriate; self-cites are not load-bearing for the central claims.

Soft spots are real but limited. Identifying the Rabi resource with H=(a†a)^m is an interpretive modeling choice rather than a derived necessity; λ is treated as n-independent after adiabatic elimination, and decoherence/loss are acknowledged only qualitatively. If λ(n) is strong or intermediate states cannot be dropped, both the scaling and the resource story weaken. None of that breaks the ideal-case math or the pedagogical point.

This is for people who write or referee quantum-sensing claims and want a short, equation-level reminder that HL language should track the actual generator. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. I would bring it to reading group as a clarifying note, cite the Rabi/ON pieces if I am writing on multiphoton or single-mode probes, and treat the broader “true HL = ML-type 1/⟨H⟩” line as useful framing rather than a settled theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: scalings are derived from the multiphoton Hamiltonian and standard QSL/QFI bounds; resource redefinition is interpretive, not definitional forcing.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is self-contained and externally anchored. The m-photon Rabi frequency Ω_{n,m}=2λ√((n+m)!/n!) and the asymptotic δt∝n^{-m/2} follow from solving the effective Hamiltonian (Eqs. 15–28) by standard quantum optics, not from fitting or from defining the answer into the input. The link F_Q↔Bures speed and the CRB δt≥1/√F_Q are textbook relations (with primary citations to Helstrom, Taddei et al., Mandelstam–Tamm, Margolus–Levitin). Identifying the metrological resource with ⟨H⟩ for H=(a†a)^m is an explicit interpretive stance about resource accounting after the dynamics are already solved; it reconciles apparent super-Heisenberg laws with 1/⟨H⟩ bounds rather than smuggling the scaling in by definition. The ON-state 1/n calculation is a direct error-propagation exercise on a single-mode superposition. Self-citations to the author’s prior QFI/QSL papers exist but are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. No fitted-input-as-prediction, no self-definitional loop, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

Load-bearing content is almost entirely standard quantum estimation and QSL theory plus one effective multiphoton model. No parameters are fitted to data. The only paper-specific modeling moves are the effective m-photon Hamiltonian with constant λ, the choice to score resources as ⟨(a†a)^m⟩ (ground zeroed), and naming the vacuum–n superposition an ON state. Invented physical entities are absent.

axioms (7)

domain assumption Quantum Cramér–Rao bound δt ≥ 1/√F_Q with F_Q from the symmetric logarithmic derivative (or pure-state formula Eq. 12).
Taken as the precision definition throughout Secs. 2 and 5; standard but still an estimation-theory premise (unbiased estimators, sufficient regularity).
domain assumption Infinitesimal Bures distance satisfies dS_B/dt = (1/2)√F_Q, so metrological sensitivity equals dynamical speed in state space.
Sec. 2, Eqs. 11–14; imports the geometric QFI–speed link (cited Taddei et al.) as the bridge to QSLs.
domain assumption Mandelstam–Tamm and Margolus–Levitin quantum speed limits bound evolution time by energy variance and mean excess energy ⟨H−h_min⟩ respectively.
Sec. 5; used to declare 1/⟨H⟩ the ‘true’ Heisenberg scaling. Standard theorems under their usual Hamiltonian assumptions.
domain assumption Near m-photon resonance, dynamics reduce to the effective Hamiltonian V=λ(a†m σ− + a^m σ+) with λ treated as an n-independent constant after adiabatic elimination.
Sec. 3, Eq. 15 and surrounding text; validity requires large detuning of lower-order transitions and λ above decoherence—stated but not derived microscopically here.
domain assumption Ideal closed unitary evolution over the interrogation time; loss, dephasing, and detection inefficiency only reduce prefactors and do not change the resource-counting moral.
Explicit idealization in Sec. 5 caveats; required for F_Q=Ω^2 and δφ=1/n as written.
ad hoc to paper Metrological resource is identified with the expectation of a chosen generator (e.g. H=(a†a)^m with h_min=0), not bare photon number n.
Sec. 5 resource paragraphs; this accounting choice is what converts n^{-m/2} into ‘not super-Heisenberg.’ It is motivated by ML bounds but is not forced uniquely for every figure of merit.
standard math Standard pure-state overlap and error-propagation formulas for phase estimation (NOON, coherent state, ON state).
Secs. 2 and 4; textbook quantum optics.

invented entities (1)

ON state (name for (|0⟩+|n⟩)/√2) independent evidence
purpose: Single-mode probe used to show 1/n phase scaling without mode entanglement; generated via m-photon Rabi plus atomic projection.
Physically the same vacuum–Fock superposition already discussed in cited Zwierz et al.; the paper mainly supplies a name and a generation protocol, not a new degree of freedom or particle.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 18591 in / 4293 out tokens · 96961 ms · 2026-07-30T18:27:37.225997+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Quantum metrology promises sensitivity beyond classical strategies, yet it remains unsettled how quantum-enabled precision should scale with physical resources and how to interpret quantum advantage. We provide a physically grounded resource accounting that clarifies the true Heisenberg limit and resolves apparent super-Heisenberg paradoxes. We demonstrate that the Heisenberg limit is best viewed as an information-theoretic manifestation of the quantum speed limit. We illustrate these ideas with a simple, super-resolving phase-estimation protocol based on Rabi oscillations in two-level atoms driven on an $m$-photon resonance. In this setting, the phase error scales as $n^{-m/2}$, where $n$ is the average photon number. Recasting metrological sensitivity through quantum dynamical speed limits yields operational bounds that reconcile such super-resolution strategies with the standard Heisenberg interpretation and identify the relevant resources in the norm of the generator. We also revisit the common attribution of the NOON state's $1/n$ scaling to quantum entanglement. We show that such an attribution is not generic and the Heisenberg $1/n$ scaling does not, by itself, certify entanglement as the enabling resource.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23573 by Yusef Maleki.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

At the core of these capabilities lies the ability to estimate unknown parameters from experimental data using optimally designed measurement protocols

Introduction Advances in precision measurements have transformed our understanding of nature, enabling technologies that range from gravitational wave observatories [1, 2] to super-resolved biological imaging [3–5]. At the core of these capabilities lies the ability to estimate unknown parameters from experimental data using optimally designed measurement...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

This choice provides a clear benchmark against which the dynamical bounds derived later can be compared

Quantum Speed Limits and Fisher Information: A Dynamical Perspective on the Metrological Scaling To ground the discussion in a familiar metrological setting, we begin with a canonical probe that attains the Heisenberg 1/nscaling in phase estimation. This choice provides a clear benchmark against which the dynamical bounds derived later can be compared. To...
[3]

Superresolving Rabi Oscillations We now adopt an effectivem-photon atom-field interac- tion that captures super-resolving dynamics while remain- ing experimentally realistic. Operating at large detuning from single-photon resonance, we adopt an effectivem-photon description with couplingλ, which governs the dynamics and reaches experimentally realistic va...
[4]

(25) can lead to an interesting scenario

Generation of the ON State The simple configuration described in Eq. (25) can lead to an interesting scenario. ForΩ n−m,mt=π/2, the system evolves into a specific entangled state between the atom and the field, |ψ⟩= 1√ 2 (|b,n⟩−i|a,n−m⟩ ).(29) If the atom is subsequently measured in the superposition state (|b⟩−i|a⟩)/ √ 2, the field collapses into a super...
[5]

For a pure state|Ψ(t)⟩, the QFI with re- spect to time is given by Eq

From Quantum Speed Limit to Ultimate Metrological Scaling To gain a deeper understanding of the sensitivity of Rabi oscillations, it is instructive to analyze the system from the 6 perspective of QFI. For a pure state|Ψ(t)⟩, the QFI with re- spect to time is given by Eq. (12). Applying this expression to the state in Eq. (25) yieldsF Q(t)= Ω 2 n−m,m. This...
[6]

Conclusions We presented a resource-consistent framework that ties metrological precision directly to quantum dynamical speed, clarifying when and how super-Heisenberg-like scalings arise. By analyzing multiphoton Rabi dynamics, we showed that the time (or phase) uncertainty can scale asδt∝n −m/2 with aver- age photon numbernand nonlinearity orderm, and w...
[7]

M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. Blair, D. Brown, S. Dwyer, A. Effler,et al., Phys- ical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

2019
[8]

W. Jia, V . Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, N. Mavalvala, L. S. Collaboration, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, et al., Science385, 1318 (2024)

2024
[9]

M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Physics Reports615, 1 (2016)

2016
[10]

Khashami,Fundamentals of NMR and MRI: From Quantum Principles to Medical Applications(Springer Nature, 2024)

F. Khashami,Fundamentals of NMR and MRI: From Quantum Principles to Medical Applications(Springer Nature, 2024)

2024
[11]

Couteau, S

C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Nature Reviews Physics5, 354 (2023)

2023
[12]

Giovannetti, S

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature photonics5, 222 (2011)

2011
[13]

Maleki and M

Y . Maleki and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A105, 032428 (2022)

2022
[14]

C. W. Helstrom, Physics letters A25, 101 (1967)

1967
[15]

C. M. Caves, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

1981
[16]

C.-J. Yu, S. von Kugelgen, D. W. Laorenza, and D. E. Freed- man, ACS central science7, 712 (2021)

2021
[17]

Aslam, H

N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 157 (2023)

2023
[18]

Khashami and S

F. Khashami and S. Gl ¨oggler, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics27, 16996 (2025)

2025
[19]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of mod- ern physics89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[20]

Pirandola, B

S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photonics12, 724 (2018)

2018
[21]

Braun, G

D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035006 (2018)

2018
[22]

Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, W

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, W. Gorecki, and M. Guta, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 363001 (2020)

2020
[23]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, Physics Letters A384, 126311 (2020)

2020
[24]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2020)

2020
[25]

J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, A VS Quantum Science2(2020)

2020
[26]

Huang, M

J. Huang, M. Zhuang, and C. Lee, Applied Physics Reviews11 (2024)

2024
[27]

Montenegro, C

V . Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. Paris, and A. Bayat, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15323

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[28]

Fadel, N

M. Fadel, N. Roux, and M. Gessner, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 106001 (2025)

2025
[29]

S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Nature Reviews Physics6, 329 (2024)

2024
[30]

J. J. Meyer, Quantum5, 539 (2021)

2021
[31]

W. Feng, K. Jiang, M. L.-J. Lollie, M. S. Zubairy, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A89, 043824 (2014)

2014
[32]

Maleki, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

Y . Maleki, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

2021
[33]

Xiang, B

G.-Y . Xiang, B. L. Higgins, D. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and G. Pryde, Nature Photonics5, 43 (2011)

2011
[34]

S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nature communi- cations9, 1 (2018)

2018
[35]

A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review Letters85, 2733 (2000)

2000
[36]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Physical Review A97, 012312 (2018)

2018
[37]

Pezze, A

L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[38]

P. R. Hemmer, A. Muthukrishnan, M. O. Scully, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review Letters96, 163603 (2006)

2006
[39]

Z. Liao, M. Al-Amri, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review Let- ters105, 183601 (2010). 9

2010
[40]

W ¨olk, W

S. W ¨olk, W. Ge, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A86, 053833 (2012)

2012
[41]

Beltr ´an and A

J. Beltr ´an and A. Luis, Physical Review A72, 045801 (2005)

2005
[42]

Napolitano, M

M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature471, 486 (2011)

2011
[43]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. M. Geremia, Physical Review Letters98, 090401 (2007)

2007
[44]

M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Za- krzewski, Physical Review X8, 021022 (2018)

2018
[45]

M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Physical Review Letters110, 050402 (2013)

2013
[46]

Maleki, B

Y . Maleki, B. Ahansaz, and A. Maleki, Scientific Reports13, 12031 (2023)

2023
[47]

S. C. Carrasco, M. H. Goerz, Z. Li, S. Colombo, V . Vuletic, W. P. Schleich, and V . S. Malinovsky, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06308 (2026)

arXiv 2026
[48]

Holland and K

M. Holland and K. Burnett, Physical Review Letters71, 1355 (1993)

1993
[49]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Laser Physics Letters15, 056201 (2018)

2018
[50]

G. Ness, M. R. Lam, W. Alt, D. Meschede, Y . Sagi, and A. Al- berti, Science advances7, eabj9119 (2021)

2021
[51]

C.-F. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 116001 (2023)

2023
[52]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. Maleki, Physics Letters B810, 135700 (2020)

2020
[53]

Zwierz, C

M. Zwierz, C. A. P ´erez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Physical Review Letters105, 180402 (2010)

2010
[54]

M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

1997
[55]

Maleki, M

Y . Maleki, M. O. Scully, and A. M. Zheltikov, Physical Review A104, 053712 (2021)

2021
[56]

Bures, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 135, 199 (1969)

D. Bures, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 135, 199 (1969)

1969
[57]

Uhlmann, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273 (1976)

A. Uhlmann, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273 (1976)

1976
[58]

Jozsa, Journal of modern optics41, 2315 (1994)

R. Jozsa, Journal of modern optics41, 2315 (1994)

1994
[59]

Maleki and M

Y . Maleki and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A110, 052415 (2024)

2024
[60]

Deffner and E

S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Physical Review Letters111, 010402 (2013)

2013
[61]

C. J. Villas-Boas and D. Z. Rossatto, Physical Review Letters 122, 123604 (2019)

2019
[62]

Felicetti, D

S. Felicetti, D. Rossatto, E. Rico, E. Solano, and P. Forn-D ´ıaz, Physical Review A97, 013851 (2018)

2018
[63]

Zou, X.-Y

F. Zou, X.-Y . Zhang, X.-W. Xu, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao, Physical Review A102, 053710 (2020)

2020
[64]

Toor and M

A. Toor and M. Zubairy, Physical Review A45, 4951 (1992)

1992
[65]

Mandelstam and I

L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, inSelected papers(Springer,
[66]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical50, 453001 (2017)

2017
[67]

D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y .-S. Kim, K. Oh, S.-Y . Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Physical review letters135, 050802 (2025)

2025
[68]

Breit and E

G. Breit and E. Wigner, Physical review49, 519 (1936)

1936
[69]

J. B. Uffink, American Journal of Physics61, 935 (1993)

1993
[70]

Margolus and L

N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenom- ena120, 188 (1998)

1998
[71]

I. K. Kominis, Physical Review Letters133, 263201 (2024)

2024
[72]

Campaioli, F

F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, and K. Modi, Physi- cal Review Letters120, 060409 (2018)

2018
[73]

A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters109, 233601 (2012)

2012
[74]

C. Zhou, Y . Maleki, Z. Liao, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Re- view A108, 013708 (2023)

2023
[75]

Shaji and C

A. Shaji and C. M. Caves, Physical Review A ˆa€”Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics76, 032111 (2007)

2007
[76]

Datta, L

A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review Aˆa€”Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics83, 063836 (2011)

2011

[1] [1]

At the core of these capabilities lies the ability to estimate unknown parameters from experimental data using optimally designed measurement protocols

Introduction Advances in precision measurements have transformed our understanding of nature, enabling technologies that range from gravitational wave observatories [1, 2] to super-resolved biological imaging [3–5]. At the core of these capabilities lies the ability to estimate unknown parameters from experimental data using optimally designed measurement...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[2] [2]

This choice provides a clear benchmark against which the dynamical bounds derived later can be compared

Quantum Speed Limits and Fisher Information: A Dynamical Perspective on the Metrological Scaling To ground the discussion in a familiar metrological setting, we begin with a canonical probe that attains the Heisenberg 1/nscaling in phase estimation. This choice provides a clear benchmark against which the dynamical bounds derived later can be compared. To...

[3] [3]

Superresolving Rabi Oscillations We now adopt an effectivem-photon atom-field interac- tion that captures super-resolving dynamics while remain- ing experimentally realistic. Operating at large detuning from single-photon resonance, we adopt an effectivem-photon description with couplingλ, which governs the dynamics and reaches experimentally realistic va...

[4] [4]

(25) can lead to an interesting scenario

Generation of the ON State The simple configuration described in Eq. (25) can lead to an interesting scenario. ForΩ n−m,mt=π/2, the system evolves into a specific entangled state between the atom and the field, |ψ⟩= 1√ 2 (|b,n⟩−i|a,n−m⟩ ).(29) If the atom is subsequently measured in the superposition state (|b⟩−i|a⟩)/ √ 2, the field collapses into a super...

[5] [5]

For a pure state|Ψ(t)⟩, the QFI with re- spect to time is given by Eq

From Quantum Speed Limit to Ultimate Metrological Scaling To gain a deeper understanding of the sensitivity of Rabi oscillations, it is instructive to analyze the system from the 6 perspective of QFI. For a pure state|Ψ(t)⟩, the QFI with re- spect to time is given by Eq. (12). Applying this expression to the state in Eq. (25) yieldsF Q(t)= Ω 2 n−m,m. This...

[6] [6]

Conclusions We presented a resource-consistent framework that ties metrological precision directly to quantum dynamical speed, clarifying when and how super-Heisenberg-like scalings arise. By analyzing multiphoton Rabi dynamics, we showed that the time (or phase) uncertainty can scale asδt∝n −m/2 with aver- age photon numbernand nonlinearity orderm, and w...

[7] [7]

M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. Blair, D. Brown, S. Dwyer, A. Effler,et al., Phys- ical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

W. Jia, V . Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, N. Mavalvala, L. S. Collaboration, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, et al., Science385, 1318 (2024)

2024

[9] [9]

M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Physics Reports615, 1 (2016)

2016

[10] [10]

Khashami,Fundamentals of NMR and MRI: From Quantum Principles to Medical Applications(Springer Nature, 2024)

F. Khashami,Fundamentals of NMR and MRI: From Quantum Principles to Medical Applications(Springer Nature, 2024)

2024

[11] [11]

Couteau, S

C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Nature Reviews Physics5, 354 (2023)

2023

[12] [12]

Giovannetti, S

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature photonics5, 222 (2011)

2011

[13] [13]

Maleki and M

Y . Maleki and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A105, 032428 (2022)

2022

[14] [14]

C. W. Helstrom, Physics letters A25, 101 (1967)

1967

[15] [15]

C. M. Caves, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

1981

[16] [16]

C.-J. Yu, S. von Kugelgen, D. W. Laorenza, and D. E. Freed- man, ACS central science7, 712 (2021)

2021

[17] [17]

Aslam, H

N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 157 (2023)

2023

[18] [18]

Khashami and S

F. Khashami and S. Gl ¨oggler, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics27, 16996 (2025)

2025

[19] [19]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of mod- ern physics89, 035002 (2017)

2017

[20] [20]

Pirandola, B

S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photonics12, 724 (2018)

2018

[21] [21]

Braun, G

D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035006 (2018)

2018

[22] [22]

Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, W

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, W. Gorecki, and M. Guta, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 363001 (2020)

2020

[23] [23]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, Physics Letters A384, 126311 (2020)

2020

[24] [24]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2020)

2020

[25] [25]

J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, A VS Quantum Science2(2020)

2020

[26] [26]

Huang, M

J. Huang, M. Zhuang, and C. Lee, Applied Physics Reviews11 (2024)

2024

[27] [27]

Montenegro, C

V . Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. Paris, and A. Bayat, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15323

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[28] [28]

Fadel, N

M. Fadel, N. Roux, and M. Gessner, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 106001 (2025)

2025

[29] [29]

S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Nature Reviews Physics6, 329 (2024)

2024

[30] [30]

J. J. Meyer, Quantum5, 539 (2021)

2021

[31] [31]

W. Feng, K. Jiang, M. L.-J. Lollie, M. S. Zubairy, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A89, 043824 (2014)

2014

[32] [32]

Maleki, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

Y . Maleki, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

2021

[33] [33]

Xiang, B

G.-Y . Xiang, B. L. Higgins, D. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and G. Pryde, Nature Photonics5, 43 (2011)

2011

[34] [34]

S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nature communi- cations9, 1 (2018)

2018

[35] [35]

A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review Letters85, 2733 (2000)

2000

[36] [36]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Physical Review A97, 012312 (2018)

2018

[37] [37]

Pezze, A

L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035005 (2018)

2018

[38] [38]

P. R. Hemmer, A. Muthukrishnan, M. O. Scully, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review Letters96, 163603 (2006)

2006

[39] [39]

Z. Liao, M. Al-Amri, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review Let- ters105, 183601 (2010). 9

2010

[40] [40]

W ¨olk, W

S. W ¨olk, W. Ge, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A86, 053833 (2012)

2012

[41] [41]

Beltr ´an and A

J. Beltr ´an and A. Luis, Physical Review A72, 045801 (2005)

2005

[42] [42]

Napolitano, M

M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature471, 486 (2011)

2011

[43] [43]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. M. Geremia, Physical Review Letters98, 090401 (2007)

2007

[44] [44]

M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Za- krzewski, Physical Review X8, 021022 (2018)

2018

[45] [45]

M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Physical Review Letters110, 050402 (2013)

2013

[46] [46]

Maleki, B

Y . Maleki, B. Ahansaz, and A. Maleki, Scientific Reports13, 12031 (2023)

2023

[47] [47]

S. C. Carrasco, M. H. Goerz, Z. Li, S. Colombo, V . Vuletic, W. P. Schleich, and V . S. Malinovsky, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06308 (2026)

arXiv 2026

[48] [48]

Holland and K

M. Holland and K. Burnett, Physical Review Letters71, 1355 (1993)

1993

[49] [49]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Laser Physics Letters15, 056201 (2018)

2018

[50] [50]

G. Ness, M. R. Lam, W. Alt, D. Meschede, Y . Sagi, and A. Al- berti, Science advances7, eabj9119 (2021)

2021

[51] [51]

C.-F. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 116001 (2023)

2023

[52] [52]

Maleki and A

Y . Maleki and A. Maleki, Physics Letters B810, 135700 (2020)

2020

[53] [53]

Zwierz, C

M. Zwierz, C. A. P ´erez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Physical Review Letters105, 180402 (2010)

2010

[54] [54]

M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

1997

[55] [55]

Maleki, M

Y . Maleki, M. O. Scully, and A. M. Zheltikov, Physical Review A104, 053712 (2021)

2021

[56] [56]

Bures, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 135, 199 (1969)

D. Bures, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 135, 199 (1969)

1969

[57] [57]

Uhlmann, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273 (1976)

A. Uhlmann, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273 (1976)

1976

[58] [58]

Jozsa, Journal of modern optics41, 2315 (1994)

R. Jozsa, Journal of modern optics41, 2315 (1994)

1994

[59] [59]

Maleki and M

Y . Maleki and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Review A110, 052415 (2024)

2024

[60] [60]

Deffner and E

S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Physical Review Letters111, 010402 (2013)

2013

[61] [61]

C. J. Villas-Boas and D. Z. Rossatto, Physical Review Letters 122, 123604 (2019)

2019

[62] [62]

Felicetti, D

S. Felicetti, D. Rossatto, E. Rico, E. Solano, and P. Forn-D ´ıaz, Physical Review A97, 013851 (2018)

2018

[63] [63]

Zou, X.-Y

F. Zou, X.-Y . Zhang, X.-W. Xu, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao, Physical Review A102, 053710 (2020)

2020

[64] [64]

Toor and M

A. Toor and M. Zubairy, Physical Review A45, 4951 (1992)

1992

[65] [65]

Mandelstam and I

L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, inSelected papers(Springer,

[66] [66]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical50, 453001 (2017)

2017

[67] [67]

D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y .-S. Kim, K. Oh, S.-Y . Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Physical review letters135, 050802 (2025)

2025

[68] [68]

Breit and E

G. Breit and E. Wigner, Physical review49, 519 (1936)

1936

[69] [69]

J. B. Uffink, American Journal of Physics61, 935 (1993)

1993

[70] [70]

Margolus and L

N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenom- ena120, 188 (1998)

1998

[71] [71]

I. K. Kominis, Physical Review Letters133, 263201 (2024)

2024

[72] [72]

Campaioli, F

F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, and K. Modi, Physi- cal Review Letters120, 060409 (2018)

2018

[73] [73]

A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters109, 233601 (2012)

2012

[74] [74]

C. Zhou, Y . Maleki, Z. Liao, and M. S. Zubairy, Physical Re- view A108, 013708 (2023)

2023

[75] [75]

Shaji and C

A. Shaji and C. M. Caves, Physical Review A ˆa€”Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics76, 032111 (2007)

2007

[76] [76]

Datta, L

A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review Aˆa€”Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics83, 063836 (2011)

2011