- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Nonequilibrium thermometry via an ensemble of initially correlated qubits

Enrico Trombetti1,2, Marco Malitesta1,3, Marco Pezzutto1, and Stefano Gherardini1,4,*

  • *Contact author: stefano.gherardini@ino.cnr.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 113, 062208 – Published 9 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bb24-kfrz

Abstract

We investigate a nonequilibrium quantum thermometry protocol in which an ensemble of qubits, acting as temperature probes, is weakly coupled to a macroscopic thermal bath. The temperature of the bath, the parameter of interest, is encoded in the dissipator of a Markovian thermalization process. For some relevant initial states, we observe a peak in the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) during the transient of the thermalization, indicating enhanced sensitivity in early-time dynamics. This effect becomes more pronounced at higher bath temperatures and is further enhanced when the initial reduced state of the qubits has a large ground-state population and/or it is highly coherent. We also focus on the role of initial quantum correlations in the thermometric performance, which emerge as a central feature of this work. We find strong numerical evidence that, given same single-qubit reduced states, the inclusion of quantum correlations among the qubits of the ensemble always yields an enhanced QFI. Moreover, even if none of the considered states outperform the (pure, separable) ground state, maximally entangled states display QFIs values remarkably close to the standard quantum limit when probing extremely hot thermal baths. Finally, although the Markovian dynamics does not permit superlinear scaling of the QFI with the number of probes, we identify the most effective initial states for designing high-precision quantum thermometers within this setting. We also provide concrete guidelines for experimental implementations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (76)

  1. M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 07, 125 (2009).
  2. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
  3. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011).
  4. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  5. J. Aasi et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photon. 7, 613 (2013).
  6. V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Phys. Rep. 1134, 1 (2025).
  7. M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermometry in the quantum regime: Recent theoretical progress, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 303001 (2019).
  8. P. Abiuso, P. Andrea Erdman, M. Ronen, F. Noé, G. Haack, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal thermometers with spin networks, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035008 (2024).
  9. M. Brunelli, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Qubit thermometry for micromechanical resonators, Phys. Rev. A 84, 032105 (2011).
  10. M. Brunelli, S. Olivares, M. Paternostro, and M. G. A. Paris, Qubit-assisted thermometry of a quantum harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012125 (2012).
  11. V. Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. A. Paris, Mechanical oscillator thermometry in the nonlinear optomechanical regime, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043338 (2020).
  12. S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, D. Grimmer, J. P. Santos, V. Scarani, and G. T. Landi, Collisional quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180602 (2019).
  13. E. O'Connor, B. Vacchini, and S. Campbell, Stochastic collisional quantum thermometry, Entropy 23, 1634 (2021).
  14. T. M. Mendonça, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and M. Paternostro, Information flow-enhanced precision in collisional quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043203 (2025).
  15. G. O. Alves, M. A. F. Santos, and G. T. Landi, Collisional thermometry for Gaussian systems, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052421 (2024).
  16. S. Jevtic, D. Newman, T. Rudolph, and T. M. Stace, Single-qubit thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012331 (2015).
  17. S. Razavian, C. Benedetti, M. Bina, Y. Akbari-Kourbolagh, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum thermometry by single-qubit dephasing, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 284 (2019).
  18. W. K. Tham, H. Ferretti, A. V. Sadashivan, and A. M. Steinberg, Simulating and optimising quantum thermometry using single photons, Sci. Rep. 6, 38822 (2016).
  19. L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, E. Roccia, and M. Barbieri, Quantum simulation of single-qubit thermometry using linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130502 (2017).
  20. C. Sabín, A. White, L. Hackermuller, and I. Fuentes, Impurities as a quantum thermometer for a Bose-Einstein condensate, Sci. Rep. 4, 6436 (2014).
  21. T. H. Johnson, F. Cosco, M. T. Mitchison, D. Jaksch, and S. R. Clark, Thermometry of ultracold atoms via nonequilibrium work distributions, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053619 (2016).
  22. M. T. Mitchison, T. Fogarty, G. Guarnieri, S. Campbell, T. Busch, and J. Goold, In situ thermometry of a cold Fermi gas via dephasing impurities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 080402 (2020).
  23. A. Sultanov, M. Kuzmanović, A. V. Lebedev, and G. S. Paraoanu, Protocol for temperature sensing using a three-level transmon circuit, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 144002 (2021).
  24. O. P. de Sá Neto, H. A. S. Costa, G. A. Prataviera, and M. C. de Oliveira, Temperature estimation of a pair of trapped ions, Sci. Rep. 12, 6697 (2022).
  25. J.-M. Yang, H. Yang, and L. Lin, Quantum dot nano thermometers reveal heterogeneous local thermogenesis in living cells, ACS Nano 5, 5067 (2011).
  26. Y. Wu and T. Weil, Recent developments of nanodiamond quantum sensors for biological applications, Adv. Sci. 9, 2200059 (2022).
  27. Y. Aiache, C. Seida, K. El Anouz, and A. El Allati, Non-Markovian enhancement of nonequilibrium quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. E 110, 024132 (2024).
  28. V. Cavina, L. Mancino, A. De Pasquale, I. Gianani, M. Sbroscia, R. I. Booth, E. Roccia, R. Raimondi, V. Giovannetti, and M. Barbieri, Bridging thermodynamics and metrology in nonequilibrium quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 98, 050101(R) (2018).
  29. G. Frazão, M. Pezzutto, Y. Omar, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, and S. Gherardini, Coherence-enhanced single-qubit thermometry out of equilibrium, Entropy 26, 568 (2024).
  30. G. O. Alves and G. T. Landi, Bayesian estimation for collisional thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012212 (2022).
  31. P. Sekatski and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal nonequilibrium thermometry in Markovian environments, Quantum 6, 869 (2022).
  32. R. Ravell Rodríguez, M. Mehboudi, M. Horodecki, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Strongly coupled fermionic probe for nonequilibrium thermometry, New J. Phys. 26, 013046 (2024).
  33. G. Salvatori, A. Mandarino, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum metrology in Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick critical systems, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022111 (2014).
  34. S. Mirkhalaf, M. Mehboudi, Z. Nafari Qaleh, and S. Rahimi-Keshari, Operational significance of nonclassicality in nonequilibrium Gaussian quantum thermometry, New J. Phys. 26, 023046 (2024).
  35. A. Fujiwara, Estimation of a generalized amplitude-damping channel, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012317 (2004).
  36. A. Monras and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal quantum estimation of loss in Bosonic channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160401 (2007).
  37. A. Shu, S. Seah, and V. Scarani, Surpassing the thermal Cramér-Rao bound with collisional thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042417 (2020).
  38. A. Fujiwara, Quantum channel identification problem, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042304 (2001).
  39. S. Boixo and A. Monras, Operational interpretation for global multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 100503 (2008).
  40. J. Rubio, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Global quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 190402 (2021).
  41. M. Mehboudi, M. R. Jørgensen, S. Seah, J. B. Brask, J. Kołodyński, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Fundamental limits in Bayesian thermometry and attainability via adaptive strategies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 130502 (2022).
  42. J. Glatthard, J. Rubio, R. Sawant, T. Hewitt, G. Barontini, and L. A. Correa, Optimal cold atom thermometry using adaptive Bayesian strategies, PRX Quantum 3, 040330 (2022).
  43. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  44. V. Mukherjee, A. Zwick, A. Ghosh, X. Chen, and G. Kurizki, Enhanced precision bound of low-temperature quantum thermometry via dynamical control, Commun. Phys. 2, 162 (2019).
  45. L. A. Correa, M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, S. Hernández-Santana, M. Mehboudi, and A. Sanpera, Enhancement of low-temperature thermometry by strong coupling, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062103 (2017).
  46. N. Zhang, C. Chen, and P. Wang, Enhancing low-temperature quantum thermometry via sequential measurements, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 044008 (2025).
  47. P. P. Potts, J. B. Brask, and N. Brunner, Fundamental limits on low-temperature quantum thermometry with finite resolution, Quantum 3, 161 (2019).
  48. A. Ullah, M. T. Naseem, and O. E. Müstecaplıoğlu, Low-temperature quantum thermometry boosted by coherence generation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043184 (2023).
  49. A. Fujiwara and H. Imai, A fibre bundle over manifolds of quantum channels and its application to quantum statistics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 255304 (2008).
  50. J. Kołodyński and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Efficient tools for quantum metrology with uncorrelated noise, New J. Phys. 15, 073043 (2013).
  51. C. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Phys. Lett. A 25, 101 (1967).
  52. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020).
  53.  A more formal way to write the quantum Cramér-Rao bound involves the standard deviation Δβ̃, where β̃ is an estimator of β. An estimator is any function that associates an estimate of β with every possible set of outcomes obtained from measurements performed on the output state. Moreover, the form of the quantum Cramér-Rao bound holds only for unbiased estimators, which satisfy 〈β̃〉−β=0.
  54. Interestingly, the standard thermometry scheme that involves measurements of the mean energy and error propagation is sufficient to saturate the quantum Cramér-Rao bound when applied to thermal states (and to any state diagonal in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis) [28].
  55. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Commun. 3, 1063 (2012).
  56. Absence of quantum correlation defines the set of separable states: ρ̂sep=∑qpqρ̂q(1)⊗⋯⊗ρ̂q(N), where ∑qpq=1. Due to the convexity of the QFI and to its additivity on product states, we have FQ((Φβ(t))⊗Nρ̂sep)≤∑qpq∑j=1NFQ(Φβ(t)ρ̂q(j))≤Nmaxρ(1)FQ(Φβ(t)ρ̂(1)). Since the last term in the inequality chain corresponds to the QFI of a product state, which belongs to the set of separable states, we actually have maxρ̂sepFQ((Φβ(t))⊗Nρ̂sep)=Nmaxρ(1)FQ(Φβ(t)ρ̂(1)). This justifies the definition of the Standard Quantum Limit given in the main text.
  57. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced positioning and clock synchronization, Nature (London) 412, 417 (2001).
  58. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond Bell's theorem, Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe (Springer, 1989), pp. 69–72.
  59. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell's theorem without inequalities, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
  60. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4206 (1999).
  61. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  62. N. Li, S. Luo, and Y. Sun, Information-theoretic aspects of Werner states, Ann. Phys. 424, 168371 (2021).
  63. L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018).
  64. J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011).
  65. W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with Rydberg interactions in an optical clock, Nature (London) 621, 734 (2023).
  66. M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993).
  67. These evaluations are primarily carried out using Wolfram Mathematica software v. 14.2. The state evolution is implemented analytically. This approach allows for the analytical computation of the derivative of the state with respect to β, required to solve the Lyapunov equation (10) and determine the SLD. This step, as well as the final numerical evaluation of the QFI, is performed numerically.
  68. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  69. Strictly speaking, the scaling of the maximal QFI with N does not coincide exactly with the quantity bounded by Eq. (16), as the optimal time t* is allowed to vary independently for each value of N. However, the resulting discrepancies in the QFI are negligible. Furthermore, when increasing N the optimal time exhibits a clear tendency to stabilize around a characteristic value for each input state. Importantly, the fluctuations in the maximal QFI reported in this section continue to appear even when a fixed evolution time t* is used for each qubit number.
  70. L. Buffoni, S. Gherardini, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, and Y. Omar, Third law of thermodynamics and the scaling of quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 150602 (2022).
  71. L. Buffoni and M. Campisi, Cooperative quantum information erasure, Quantum 7, 961 (2023).
  72. L. Buffoni and M. Campisi, Collective preparation of large quantum registers with high fidelity, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 025053 (2025).
  73. T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014).
  74. J. Boeyens, S. Seah, and S. Nimmrichter, Uninformed Bayesian quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052214 (2021).
  75. E. Trombetti, M. Malitesta, M. Pezzutto, and S. Gherardini, Figure data for Nonequilibrium thermometry via an ensemble of initially correlated qubits, GitHub, 2025, https://github.com/EnricoTrombetti/plots_nonequilibrium_thermometry_via_an_ensemble_of_initially_correlated_qubits.
  76. S. Kurdziałek, W. Górecki, F. Albarelli, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Using adaptiveness and causal superpositions against noise in quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 090801 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 113, 062208– Published 9 June, 2026
  • Received 24 July 2025
  • Revised 22 January 2026
  • Accepted 18 May 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation