- 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

Achieving optimal multiparameter quantum estimation in optomechanics

A. Naimy1, A. Slaoui1,2,*, A. Lakhfif1,2, H. El Hadfi1,2, and R. Ahl Laamara1,2

  • *Contact author: abdallah.slaoui@fsr.um5.ac.ma
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 112, 052604 – Published 3 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/sf3p-3g7n

Abstract

Accurate simultaneous estimation of temperature and effective detuning is crucial for understanding, controlling, and optimizing optomechanical systems. Temperature characterizes the thermal state and mechanical properties, while detuning governs the light-motion interaction, influencing stability and enabling diverse quantum applications. Precise estimates of these parameters are therefore essential to exploit the full potential of such systems in high-precision metrology and the exploration of macroscopic quantum phenomena. In this work we investigate the simultaneous estimation of the effective detuning Δ and the mirror temperature T in a Fabry-Pérot cavity system, with a particular focus on the performance of heterodyne detection. Using analytical expressions for the quantum Fisher information matrices (QFIM) derived from the symmetric logarithmic derivative (SLD) and the right logarithmic derivative (RLD), we demonstrate that the quantum Cramér-Rao bound associated with the RLD is consistently lower than that based on the SLD, highlighting superior estimation precision. This gap between the SLD- and RLD-based bounds becomes especially pronounced in certain physical regimes, emphasizing the relevance of choosing the appropriate formalism in noncommutative estimation scenarios. From a physical perspective, the improved estimation performance stems from the fact that temperature directly influences thermal fluctuations in the mechanical mode, while the effective detuning modulates the strength of the optomechanical interaction, shaping the information exchange between optical and mechanical subsystems. We showed that using higher optical power, greater cavity decay rate, increased photon and phonon numbers, and reduced coupling strength improves the precision of both parameter estimates. These physical mechanisms affect the available quantum resources in the system—such as squeezing, entanglement, and state purity—which in turn determine the ultimate sensitivity achievable. Furthermore, our analysis shows that heterodyne detection can, under certain conditions, approach the ultimate precision set by the QFIM. Thus, a measurement strategy based on heterodyne detection could enable the efficient estimation of temperature, achieving performance close to that of ideal quantum-limited strategies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (110)

  1. A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory, Springer Sci. Bus. Media 1, 324 (2011).
  2. C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969).
  3. M. Hayashi, Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), pp. 178–214.
  4. N. Abouelkhir, H. E. Hadfi, A. Slaoui, and R. A. Laamara, A simple analytical expression of quantum Fisher and skew information and their dynamics under decoherence channels, Physica A 612, 128479 (2023).
  5. M. El Bakraoui, A. Slaoui, H. El Hadfi, and M. Daoud, Enhancing the estimation precision of an unknown phase shift in multipartite Glauber coherent states via skew information correlations and local quantum Fisher information, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 1297 (2022).
  6. M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 07, 125 (2009).
  7. K. Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 3111 (2002).
  8. M. D. Vidrighin, G. Donati, M. G. Genoni, X. M. Jin, W. S. Kolthammer, M. S. Kim, and I. A. Walmsley, Joint estimation of phase and phase diffusion for quantum metrology, Nat. Commun. 5, 3532 (2014).
  9. C. Vaneph, T. Tufarelli, and M. G. Genoni, Quantum estimation of a two-phase spin rotation, Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol. 1, 12 (2013).
  10. P. J. Crowley, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Tradeoff in simultaneous quantum-limited phase and loss estimation in interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023845 (2014).
  11. N. E. Abouelkhir, A. Slaoui, H. El Hadfi, and R. Ahl Laamara, Estimating phase parameters of a three-level system interacting with two classical monochromatic fields in simultaneous and individual metrological strategies, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40, 1599 (2023).
  12. S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052108 (2016).
  13. D. Šafránek, Simple expression for the quantum Fisher information matrix, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042322 (2018).
  14. A. Naimy, A. Slaoui, A. Ali, H. El Hadfi, R. A. Laamara, and S. Al-Kuwari, Dynamic evolution of quantum Fisher and skew information under decoherence in three-qubit x-states, Phys. Lett. A. 547, 130536 (2025).
  15. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994).
  16. M. A. Ballester, Entanglement is not very useful for estimating multiple phases, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032310 (2004).
  17. A. Monras, Optimal phase measurements with pure Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033821 (2006).
  18. M. Aspachs, J. Calsamiglia, R. Muñoz-Tapia, and E. Bagan, Phase estimation for thermal Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 79, 033834 (2009).
  19. A. Slaoui, B. Amghar, and R. Ahl Laamara, Interferometric phase estimation and quantum resource dynamics in Bell coherent-state superpositions generated via a unitary beam splitter, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40, 2013 (2023).
  20. A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum metrology in non-Markovian environments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233601 (2012).
  21. P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 070403 (2013).
  22. N. M. Nusran and M. V. Gurudev Dutt, Optimizing phase-estimation algorithms for diamond spin magnetometry, Phys. Rev. B 90, 024422 (2014).
  23. C. Sparaciari, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris, Bounds to precision for quantum interferometry with Gaussian states and operations, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, 1354 (2015).
  24. L. Pezzè, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, and A. Smerzi, Optimal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130504 (2017).
  25. A. Monras and F. Illuminati, Measurement of damping and temperature: Precision bounds in Gaussian dissipative channels, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012315 (2011).
  26. L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, Individual quantum probes for optimal thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220405 (2015).
  27. P. P. Hofer, J. B. Brask, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and N. Brunner, Quantum thermal machine as a thermometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 090603 (2017).
  28. Y. L. Zhang, Y. R. Zhang, L. Z. Mu, and H. Fan, Criterion for remote clock synchronization with Heisenberg-scaling accuracy, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052314 (2013).
  29. P. Komar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nat. Phys. 10, 582 (2014).
  30. B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, R. Adhikari, P. Ajith, B. Allen, G. Allen, and K. D. Giardina, LIGO: The laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 076901 (2009).
  31. F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Allemandou, A. Allocca, and J. Meidam, Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 024001 (2014).
  32. G. J. Milburn, W. Y. Chen, and K. R Jones, Hyperbolic phase and squeeze-parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. A 50, 801 (1994).
  33. G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi, Optimal estimation of squeezing, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062103 (2006).
  34. R. Gaiba and M. G. Paris, Squeezed vacuum as a universal quantum probe, Phys. Lett. A 373, 934 (2009).
  35. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and U. Marzolino, Entanglement and squeezing with identical particles: Ultracold atom quantum metrology, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 091001 (2011).
  36. D. Šafránek and I. Fuentes, Optimal probe states for the estimation of Gaussian unitary channels, Phys. Rev. A 94, 062313 (2016).
  37. B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, and E. Cesarini, GW150914: The advanced LIGO detectors in the era of first discoveries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 131103 (2016).
  38. W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 133601 (2010).
  39. J. Cai and M. B. Plenio, Chemical compass model for avian magnetoreception as a quantum coherent device, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230503 (2013).
  40. Y. L. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Jing, L. Z. Mu, and H. Fan, Fitting magnetic field gradient with Heisenberg-scaling accuracy, Sci. Rep. 4, 7390 (2014).
  41. R. Nair and M. Tsang, Far-field superresolution of thermal electromagnetic sources at the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190801 (2016).
  42. M. Aspachs, G. Adesso, and I. Fuentes, Optimal quantum estimation of the Unruh-Hawking effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 151301 (2010).
  43. C. C. Liu, J. D. Shi, Z. Y. Ding, J. He, T. Wu, and L. Ye, Quantum estimation for Dirac particles with the Hawking effect in the background of a Schwarzschild black hole, Laser Phys. Lett. 16, 085206 (2019).
  44. P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Measuring multipartite entanglement through dynamic susceptibilities, Nat. Phys. 12, 778 (2016).
  45. Y. M. Zhang, X. W. Li, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, Quantum Fisher information of entangled coherent states in the presence of photon loss, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043832 (2013).
  46. C. C. Liu, D. Wang, W. Y. Sun, and L. Ye, Quantum Fisher information, quantum entanglement and correlation close to quantum critical phenomena, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 1 (2017).
  47. A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris, Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information, arXiv:0503237.
  48. S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005).
  49. U. L. Andersen, G. Leuchs, and C. Silberhorn, Continuous-variable quantum information processing, Laser Photonics Rev. 4, 337 (2010).
  50. K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010).
  51. S. Olivares, M. G. Paris, and A. R. Rossi, Optimized teleportation in Gaussian noisy channels, Phys. Lett. A 319, 32 (2003).
  52. M. M. Wolf, D. Pérez-García, and G. Giedke, Quantum capacities of bosonic channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 130501 (2007).
  53. A. Nunnenkamp, K. Børkje, and S. M. Girvin, Single-photon optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 063602 (2011).
  54. J. X. Peng, P. Djorwe, H. T. Cui, N. Akhtar, I. U. Haq, C. Zhao, and D. Li, Quantum estimation for improving optomechanical coupling strength, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012607 (2025).
  55. L. Tian and H. Wang, Optical wavelength conversion of quantum states with optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 82, 053806 (2010).
  56. M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014).
  57. M. Frimmer, J. Gieseler, and L. Novotny, Cooling mechanical oscillators by coherent control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 163601 (2016).
  58. J. Huang, D. G. Lai, C. Liu, J. F. Huang, F. Nori, and J. Q. Liao, Multimode optomechanical cooling via general dark-mode control, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013526 (2022).
  59. A. Lakhfif, A. Hidki, A. Slaoui, and R. A. Laamara, Maximum enhancement of entanglement in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Lett. A 518, 129678 (2024).
  60. D. G. Lai, J. Huang, B. P. Hou, F. Nori, and J. Q. Liao, Domino cooling of a coupled mechanical-resonator chain via cold-damping feedback, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063509 (2021).
  61. S. Weis, R. Rivière, S. Deléglise, E. Gavartin, O. Arcizet, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kippenberg, Optomechanically induced transparency, Science 330, 1520 (2010).
  62. G. S. Agarwal and S. Huang, Electromagnetically induced transparency in mechanical effects of light, Phys. Rev. A 81, 041803(R) (2010).
  63. J. X. Peng, Z. Chen, Q. Z. Yuan, and X. L. Feng, Optomechanically induced transparency in a Laguerre-Gaussian rotational-cavity system and its application to the detection of orbital angular momentum of light fields, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043817 (2019).
  64. H. Xiong, L. G. Si, A. S. Zheng, X. Yang, and Y. Wu, Higher-order sidebands in optomechanically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A 86, 013815 (2012).
  65. D.-G. Lai, X. Wang, W. Qin, B.-P. Hou, F. Nori, and J.-Q. Liao, Tunable optomechanically induced transparency by controlling the dark-mode effect, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023707 (2020).
  66. P. Rabl, Photon blockade effect in optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 063601 (2011).
  67. H. Xie, C. G. Liao, X. Shang, M. Y. Ye, and X. M. Lin, Phonon blockade in a quadratically coupled optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013861 (2017).
  68. L. L. Zheng, T. S. Yin, Q. Bin, X. Y. Lü, and Y. Wu, Single-photon-induced phonon blockade in a hybrid spin-optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A 99, 013804 (2019).
  69. P. G. Kevrekidis, G. Theocharis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and B. A. Malomed, Feshbach resonance management for Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 230401 (2003).
  70. A. C. J. Wade, J. F. Sherson, and K. Mølmer, Manipulation of collective quantum states in Bose-Einstein condensates by continuous imaging, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023610 (2016).
  71. C. Gross, H. Strobel, E. Nicklas, T. Zibold, N. Bar-Gill, G. Kurizki, and M. K. Oberthaler, Atomic homodyne detection of continuous-variable entangled twin-atom states, Nature (London) 480, 219 (2011).
  72. M. Chegnizadeh, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Youssefi, S. Kono, E. Guzovskii, and T. J. Kippenberg, Quantum collective motion of macroscopic mechanical oscillators, Science 386, 1383 (2024).
  73. D. G. Lai, J. Q. Liao, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Noise-tolerant optomechanical entanglement via synthetic magnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 063602 (2022).
  74. S. Gröblacher, K. Hammerer, M. R. Vanner, and M. Aspelmeyer, Observation of strong coupling between a micromechanical resonator and an optical cavity field, Nature (London) 460, 724 (2009).
  75. J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, and R. W. Simmonds, Sideband cooling of micromechanical motion to the quantum ground state, Nature (London) 475, 359 (2011).
  76. J. Chan, T. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gröblacher, and O. Painter, Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state, Nature (London) 478, 89 (2011).
  77. T. P. Purdy, R. W. Peterson, and C. A. Regal, Observation of radiation pressure shot noise on a macroscopic object, Science 339, 801 (2013).
  78. A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. Chan, J. T. Hill, T. P. M. Alegre, A. Krause, and O. Painter, Observation of quantum motion of a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 033602 (2012).
  79. M. Pinard, Y. Hadjar, and A. Heidmann, Effective mass in quantum effects of radiation pressure, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 107 (1999).
  80. D. Vitali1, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. R. Böhm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. Aspelmeyer, Optomechanical entanglement between a movable mirror and a cavity field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030405 (2007).
  81. F. Marquardt, J. P. Chen, A. A. Clerk, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum theory of cavity-assisted sideband cooling of mechanical motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093902 (2007).
  82. T. P. Purdy, P. L. Yu, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, and C. A. Regal, Strong optomechanical squeezing of light, Phys. Rev. X 3, 031012 (2013).
  83. D. Šafránek, Estimation of Gaussian quantum states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor 52, 035304 (2018).
  84. A. S. Holevo, Some statistical problems for quantum Gaussian states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IT-21, 533 (1975).
  85. A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982), Originally published in Russian (1980).
  86. C. K. Law, Interaction between a moving mirror and radiation pressure: A Hamiltonian formulation, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2537 (1995).
  87. V. Giovannetti and D. Vitali, Phase-noise measurement in a cavity with a movable mirror undergoing quantum Brownian motion, Phys. Rev. A 63, 023812 (2001).
  88. C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2004).
  89. S. Mancini and P. Tombesi, Quantum noise reduction by radiation pressure, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4055 (1994).
  90. E. X. DeJesus and C. Kaufman, Routh-Hurwitz criterion in the examination of eigenvalues of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations, Phys. Rev. A 35, 5288 (1987).
  91. C. Genes, A. Mari, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Quantum effects in optomechanical systems, Adv. At Mol. Opt. Phys 57, 33 (2009).
  92. Z. Gajic and M. T. J. Qureshi, Lyapunov Matrix Equation in System Stability and Control (Courier Corporation, North Chelmsford, MA, 2008).
  93. M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, G. Adesso, H. Nha, P. L. Knight, and M. S. Kim, Optimal estimation of joint parameters in phase space, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012107 (2013).
  94. Y. Gao and H. Lee, Bounds on quantum multiple-parameter estimation with Gaussian state, Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 1 (2014).
  95. A. Fujiwara, Multi-parameter pure state estimation based on the right logarithmic derivative, Math. Eng. Tech. Rep. 94, 94 (1994).
  96. M. H. Gordon, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Covariance matrix preparation for quantum principal component analysis, PRX Quantum 3, 030334 (2022).
  97. R. Nichols, P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, P. A. Knott, and G. Adesso, Multiparameter Gaussian quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012114 (2018).
  98. R. Penrose, A generalized inverse for matrices, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 51, 406 (1955).
  99. A. Ben-Israel and T. N. Greville, Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications (Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2006).
  100. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  101. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011).
  102. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
  103. 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).
  104. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and N. Mavalvala, Quantum noise in laser-interferometer gravitational-wave detectors with a heterodyne readout scheme, Phys. Rev. D 67, 122005 (2003).
  105. A. Pontin, J. E. Lang, A. Chowdhury, P. Vezio, F. Marino, B. Morana, and T. S. Monteiro, Imaging correlations in heterodyne spectra for quantum displacement sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 020503 (2018).
  106. A. Monras, Phase space formalism for quantum estimation of Gaussian states, arXiv:1303.3682.
  107. S. M. Meenehan, J. D. Cohen, S. Gröblacher, J. T. Hill, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, Silicon optomechanical crystal resonator at millikelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. A 90, 011803(R) (2014).
  108. M. Yuan, M. A. Cohen, and G. A. Steele, Silicon nitride membrane resonators at millikelvin temperatures with quality factors exceeding 108, Appl. Phys. Lett 107, 263501 (2015).
  109. K. Børkje, Heterodyne photodetection measurements on cavity optomechanical systems: Interpretation of sideband asymmetry and limits to a classical explanation, Phys. Rev. A 94, 043816 (2016).
  110. G. S. Agarwal, Rotating-wave approximation and spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 4, 1778 (1971).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 112, 052604– Published 3 November, 2025
  • Received 8 May 2025
  • Accepted 17 October 2025
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