- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

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

Universal Precision Limits in General Open Quantum Systems

Tan Van Vu1,*, Ryotaro Honma1, and Keiji Saito2

  • *Contact author: tan.vu@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 190401 – Published 11 May, 2026Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 129901 (2026)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/kldv-l3wl

Abstract

The intuition that the precision of observables is constrained by thermodynamic costs has recently been formalized through thermodynamic and kinetic uncertainty relations. While such trade-offs have been extensively studied in Markovian systems, corresponding constraints in the non-Markovian regime remain largely unexplored. In this Letter, we derive universal bounds on the precision of generic observables in open quantum systems that interact with their environments at arbitrary coupling strengths and are subjected to two-point measurements. By introducing an asymmetry term that quantifies the disparity between forward and backward processes, we show that the relative fluctuation of any time-antisymmetric current is constrained not only by entropy production but also by this asymmetry. For general observables, we further prove that their relative fluctuation is always bounded from below by a generalized activity term that characterizes environmental changes. These results establish a comprehensive framework for understanding the fundamental limits of precision in a broad class of open quantum systems, beyond the traditional Markovian setting.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Erratum

Erratum: Universal Precision Limits in General Open Quantum Systems [Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 190401 (2026)]

Tan Van Vu, Ryotaro Honma, and Keiji Saito
Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 129901 (2026)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (81)

  1. J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations constrain non-equilibrium fluctuations, Nat. Phys. 16, 15 (2020).
  2. A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 158101 (2015).
  3. T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Dissipation bounds all steady-state current fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016).
  4. J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Proof of the finite-time thermodynamic uncertainty relation for steady-state currents, Phys. Rev. E 96, 020103(R) (2017).
  5. Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Uncertainty relations in stochastic processes: An information inequality approach, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062126 (2019).
  6. T. Koyuk and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for time-dependent driving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260604 (2020).
  7. V. T. Vo, T. Van Vu, and Y. Hasegawa, Unified thermodynamic-kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A 55, 405004 (2022).
  8. J. P. Garrahan, Simple bounds on fluctuations and uncertainty relations for first-passage times of counting observables, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032134 (2017).
  9. I. Di Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A 52, 02LT03 (2019).
  10. K. Prech, G. T. Landi, F. Meier, N. Nurgalieva, P. P. Potts, R. Silva, and M. T. Mitchison, Optimal time estimation and the clock uncertainty relation for stochastic processes, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031068 (2025).
  11. P. Pietzonka and U. Seifert, Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 190602 (2018).
  12. D. Hartich and A. c. v. Godec, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation bounds the extent of anomalous diffusion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080601 (2021).
  13. J. Li, J. M. Horowitz, T. R. Gingrich, and N. Fakhri, Quantifying dissipation using fluctuating currents, Nat. Commun. 10, 1666 (2019).
  14. S. K. Manikandan, D. Gupta, and S. Krishnamurthy, Inferring entropy production from short experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120603 (2020).
  15. T. Van Vu, V. T. Vo, and Y. Hasegawa, Entropy production estimation with optimal current, Phys. Rev. E 101, 042138 (2020).
  16. B. K. Agarwalla and D. Segal, Assessing the validity of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155438 (2018).
  17. K. Ptaszyński, Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quantum thermoelectric generator, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085425 (2018).
  18. K. Brandner, T. Hanazato, and K. Saito, Thermodynamic bounds on precision in ballistic multiterminal transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 090601 (2018).
  19. J. Liu and D. Segal, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum thermoelectric junctions, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062141 (2019).
  20. S. Saryal, H. M. Friedman, D. Segal, and B. K. Agarwalla, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in thermal transport, Phys. Rev. E 100, 042101 (2019).
  21. L. M. Cangemi, V. Cataudella, G. Benenti, M. Sassetti, and G. De Filippis, Violation of thermodynamics uncertainty relations in a periodically driven work-to-work converter from weak to strong dissipation, Phys. Rev. B 102, 165418 (2020).
  22. H. M. Friedman, B. K. Agarwalla, O. Shein-Lumbroso, O. Tal, and D. Segal, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in atomic-scale quantum conductors, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195423 (2020).
  23. A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts, Violating the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in the three-level maser, Phys. Rev. E 104, L012103 (2021).
  24. P. Menczel, E. Loisa, K. Brandner, and C. Flindt, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations for coherently driven open quantum systems, J. Phys. A 54, 314002 (2021).
  25. A. Rignon-Bret, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and M. T. Mitchison, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nanomachines, Phys. Rev. E 103, 012133 (2021).
  26. M. F. Sacchi, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations for bosonic Otto engines, Phys. Rev. E 103, 012111 (2021).
  27. J. Lu, Z. Wang, J. Peng, C. Wang, J.-H. Jiang, and J. Ren, Geometric thermodynamic uncertainty relation in a periodically driven thermoelectric heat engine, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115428 (2022).
  28. M. Gerry and D. Segal, Absence and recovery of cost-precision tradeoff relations in quantum transport, Phys. Rev. B 105, 155401 (2022).
  29. A. Das, S. Mahunta, B. K. Agarwalla, and V. Mukherjee, Precision bound and optimal control in periodically modulated continuous quantum thermal machines, Phys. Rev. E 108, 014137 (2023).
  30. G. Manzano and R. López, Quantum-enhanced performance in superconducting Andreev reflection engines, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043041 (2023).
  31. V. Singh, V. Shaghaghi, O. E. Müstecapl𝚤oğlu, and D. Rosa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in nondegenerate and degenerate maser heat engines, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032203 (2023).
  32. D. Farina, B. Benazout, F. Centrone, and A. Acín, Thermodynamic precision in the nonequilibrium exchange scenario, Phys. Rev. E 109, 034112 (2024).
  33. G. Guarnieri, G. T. Landi, S. R. Clark, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nonequilibrium steady states, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033021 (2019).
  34. F. Carollo, R. L. Jack, and J. P. Garrahan, Unraveling the large deviation statistics of Markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130605 (2019).
  35. Y. Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation for continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 050601 (2020).
  36. Harry J. D. Miller, M. H. Mohammady, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and G. Guarnieri, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in slowly driven quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210603 (2021).
  37. T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Thermodynamics of precision in Markovian open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140602 (2022).
  38. K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Role of quantum coherence in kinetic uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 020401 (2025).
  39. T. Van Vu, Fundamental bounds on precision and response for quantum trajectory observables, PRX Quantum 6, 010343 (2025).
  40. K. Macieszczak, Ultimate kinetic uncertainty relation and optimal performance of stochastic clocks, arXiv:2407.09839.
  41. E. Kwon and J. S. Lee, A unified framework for classical and quantum uncertainty relations using stochastic representations, Commun. Phys. 8, 444 (2025).
  42. S. V. Moreira, M. Radaelli, A. Candeloro, F. C. Binder, and M. T. Mitchison, Precision bounds for multiple currents in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 111, 064107 (2025).
  43. H. Yunoki and Y. Hasegawa, Quantum speed limit and quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation under feedback control, arXiv:2502.09081.
  44. T. Nishiyama and Y. Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relations without quantum corrections: A coherent-incoherent correspondence approach, arXiv:2505.09973.
  45. K. Yoshimura and R. Hamazaki, Quasiprobability thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 120406 (2026).
  46. G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum systems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quantum 5, 020201 (2024).
  47. D. Palmqvist, L. Tesser, and J. Splettstoesser, Kinetic uncertainty relations for quantum transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 166302 (2025).
  48. G. Blasi, R. R. Rodríguez, M. Moskalets, R. López, and G. Haack, Quantum kinetic uncertainty relations in mesoscopic conductors at strong coupling, arXiv:2505.13200.
  49. K. Brandner and K. Saito, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations for coherent transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 046302 (2025).
  50. Y. Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for general open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010602 (2021).
  51. N. Ishida and Y. Hasegawa, Quantum-computer-based verification of quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. E 112, 034124 (2025).
  52. S. Campbell et al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics, Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 012501 (2026).
  53. Y. Hasegawa, Irreversibility, Loschmidt echo, and thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 240602 (2021).
  54. M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 07, 125 (2009).
  55. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011).
  56. 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).

  57. Fluctuations of trajectory-dependent observables stem from both temporal correlations and measurement randomness, tying them to the cost of the entire process. In contrast, trajectory-independent observables—typically defined via measurements on final quantum states—fluctuate solely due to measurement uncertainty and reflect the geometry of the final states.

  58. G. Manzano, J. M. Horowitz, and Juan M. R. Parrondo, Quantum fluctuation theorems for arbitrary environments: Adiabatic and nonadiabatic entropy production, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031037 (2018).

  59. We note that scenario Fig. 1 can reproduce any completely positive trace-preserving map via the Stinespring dilation theorem, provided that the environment is initialized in a pure state. More generally, it can capture a wide range of non-Markovian dynamics, as long as both the system and environment are finite-dimensional.

  60. While we assume that the system interacts with a single thermal bath during each interaction for simplicity, the formulation extends straightforwardly to multiple heat baths at different temperatures.

  61. M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. V. den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New J. Phys. 12, 013013 (2010).
  62. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/kldv-l3wl for further analytical calculations and the generalization of the main results, which includes Refs. [63–69].
  63. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  64. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 17, 821 (1976).
  65. N. Shiraishi, K. Saito, and H. Tasaki, Universal trade-off relation between power and efficiency for heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190601 (2016).
  66. U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126001 (2012).
  67. L. P. Fischer, P. Pietzonka, and U. Seifert, Large deviation function for a driven underdamped particle in a periodic potential, Phys. Rev. E 97, 022143 (2018).
  68. T. Van Vu and Y. Hasegawa, Uncertainty relations for underdamped Langevin dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032130 (2019).
  69. J. S. Lee, J.-M. Park, and H. Park, Universal form of thermodynamic uncertainty relation for Langevin dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 104, L052102 (2021).
  70. M. Campisi, P. Hänggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011).
  71. Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Fluctuation theorem uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 110602 (2019).
  72. A. M. Timpanaro, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and G. T. Landi, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations from exchange fluctuation theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090604 (2019).
  73. T. Van Vu and Y. Hasegawa, Uncertainty relation under information measurement and feedback control, J. Phys. A 53, 075001 (2020).
  74. P. P. Potts and P. Samuelsson, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations including measurement and feedback, Phys. Rev. E 100, 052137 (2019).
  75. F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions, Phys. Rep. 954, 1 (2022).
  76. J. M. Horowitz and J. M. R. Parrondo, Entropy production along nonequilibrium quantum jump trajectories, New J. Phys. 15, 085028 (2013).
  77. S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005).
  78. I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017).
  79. J. M. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015).
  80. Y. Hasegawa, Fundamental precision limits in finite-dimensional quantum thermal machines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 200404 (2025).
  81. A. S. Hegde, A. M. Timpanaro, and G. T. Landi, Tightening the thermodynamic uncertainty relations with null-entropy events: What we learn when nothing happens, Phys. Rev. E 113, 034111 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 190401– Published 11 May, 2026
  • Received 6 October 2025
  • Accepted 26 March 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