- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Non-Hermitian sensing from the perspective of postselected measurements

Neng Zeng1, Tao Liu1, Keyu Xia2,3, Yu-Ran Zhang1,*, and Franco Nori4,5

  • *Contact author: yuranzhang@scut.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043219 – Published 24 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/g3n3-gh49

Abstract

By employing the Naimark dilation, we establish a fundamental connection between non-Hermitian quantum sensing and postselected measurements. The sensitivity of non-Hermitian quantum sensors is determined by the effective quantum Fisher information (QFI), which incorporates the success probability of postselection. We demonstrate that non-Hermitian sensors, regardless of the specific form of decoherence or the choice of probe states, cannot outperform their Hermitian counterpart when all information is harnessed, since the total QFI for the extended system constrains the effective QFI of the non-Hermitian subsystem. Moreover, we quantify the efficiency of non-Hermitian sensors with the ratio of the effective QFI to the total QFI, which can be optimized within the framework of postselected measurements with minimal experimental trials. In addition, the performances of non-Hermitian sensors versus different types of technical noises can be judged using our framework. Our work provides a distinctive theoretical framework for investigating non-Hermitian quantum sensing and designing noise-resilient quantum metrological protocols.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (96)

  1. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
  2. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011).
  3. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  4. J. Kitching, S. Knappe, and E. A. Donley, Atomic sensors—a review, IEEE Sens. J. 11, 1749 (2011).
  5. S. Aigner, L. D. Pietra, Y. Japha, O. Entin-Wohlman, T. David, R. Salem, R. Folman, and J. Schmiedmayer, Long-range order in electronic transport through disordered metal films, Science 319, 1226 (2008).
  6. O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Observation of the spin Hall effect of light via weak measurements, Science 319, 787 (2008).
  7. L. Pezzè, M. Gabbrielli, L. Lepori, and A. Smerzi, Multipartite entanglement in topological quantum phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 250401 (2017).
  8. Y.-R. Zhang, Y. Zeng, H. Fan, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Characterization of topological states via dual multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 250501 (2018).
  9. M. Brenes, S. Pappalardi, J. Goold, and A. Silva, Multipartite entanglement structure in the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040605 (2020).
  10. X. Zhao, Y. Yang, and G. Chiribella, Quantum metrology with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 190503 (2020).
  11. J.-Y. Desaules, F. Pietracaprina, Z. Papić, J. Goold, and S. Pappalardi, Extensive multipartite entanglement from SU(2) quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 020601 (2022).
  12. Z. Li, S. Colombo, C. Shu, G. Velez, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, R. Schmied, S. Choi, M. Lukin, E. Pedrozo-Peñafiel, and V. Vuletić, Improving metrology with quantum scrambling, Science 380, 1381 (2023).
  13. M. P. Hokmabadi, A. Schumer, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Non-Hermitian ring laser gyroscopes with enhanced Sagnac sensitivity, Nature (London) 576, 70 (2019).
  14. S. Yu, Y. Meng, J.-S. Tang, X.-Y. Xu, Y.-T. Wang, P. Yin, Z.-J. Ke, W. Liu, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, G. Chen, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental investigation of quantum PT-enhanced sensor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240506 (2020).
  15. Y.-H. Lai, Y.-K. Lu, M.-G. Suh, Z. Yuan, and K. Vahala, Observation of the exceptional-point-enhanced Sagnac effect, Nature (London) 576, 65 (2019).
  16. H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Enhanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points, Nature (London) 548, 187 (2017).
  17. W. Chen, Ş. K. Özdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity, Nature (London) 548, 192 (2017).
  18. J. Wiersig, Enhancing the sensitivity of frequency and energy splitting detection by using exceptional points: Application to microcavity sensors for single-particle detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203901 (2014).
  19. C. Wang, C. Zhao, X. Li, E. Zhou, H. Miao, Y. Chen, and Y. Ma, Boosting the sensitivity of high-frequency gravitational wave detectors using PT-symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 106, 082002 (2022).
  20. Z.-P. Liu, J. Zhang, Ş. K. Özdemir, B. Peng, H. Jing, X.-Y. Lü, C.-W. Li, L. Yang, F. Nori, and Y.-X. Liu, Metrology with PT-symmetric cavities: Enhanced sensitivity near the PT-phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110802 (2016).
  21. M. I. Rosa, M. Mazzotti, and M. Ruzzene, Exceptional points and enhanced sensitivity in PT-symmetric continuous elastic media, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 149, 104325 (2021).
  22. Y. Tang, C. Liang, X. Wen, W. Li, A.-N. Xu, and Y. C. Liu, PT-symmetric feedback induced linewidth narrowing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 193602 (2023).
  23. Z. Li, C. Li, Z. Xiong, G. Xu, Y. R. Wang, X. Tian, X. Yang, Z. Liu, Q. Zeng, R. Lin, Y. Li, J. K. W. Lee, J. S. Ho, and C. W. Qiu, Stochastic exceptional points for noise-assisted sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 227201 (2023).
  24. J. Xu, Y. Mao, Z. Li, Y. Zuo, J. Zhang, B. Yang, W. Xu, N. Liu, Z. J. Deng, W. Chen et al., Single-cavity loss-enabled nanometrology, Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 1472 (2024).
  25. Y.-P. Ruan, J.-S. Tang, Z. Li, H. Wu, W. Zhou, L. Xiao, J. Chen, S.-J. Ge, W. Hu, H. Zhang, C.-W. Qiu, W. Liu, H. Jing, Y.-Q. Lu, and K. Xia, Observation of loss-enhanced magneto-optical effect, Nat. Photon. 19, 109 (2025).
  26. C. E. Rüter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Observation of parity–time symmetry in optics, Nat. Phys. 6, 192 (2010).
  27. B. Peng, Ş. K. Özdemir, F. Lei, F. Monifi, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender, and L. Yang, Parity–time-symmetric whispering-gallery microcavities, Nat. Phys. 10, 394 (2014).
  28. L. Chang, X. Jiang, S. Hua, C. Yang, J. Wen, L. Jiang, G. Li, G. Wang, and M. Xiao, Parity–time symmetry and variable optical isolation in active–passive-coupled microresonators, Nat. Photon. 8, 524 (2014).
  29. Ş. K. Özdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Parity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics, Nat. Mater. 18, 783 (2019).
  30. M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. D. Stone, and L. Jiang, Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplifying sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180501 (2019).
  31. H. Wang, Y.-H. Lai, Z. Yuan, M.-G. Suh, and K. Vahala, Petermann-factor sensitivity limit near an exceptional point in a Brillouin ring laser gyroscope, Nat. Commun. 11, 1610 (2020).
  32. R. Kononchuk, J. Cai, F. Ellis, R. Thevamaran, and T. Kottos, Exceptional-point-based accelerometers with enhanced signal-to-noise ratio, Nature (London) 607, 697 (2022).
  33. K. J. H. Peters and S. R. K. Rodriguez, Exceptional precision of a nonlinear optical sensor at a square-root singularity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 013901 (2022).
  34. W. Langbein, No exceptional precision of exceptional-point sensors, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023805 (2018).
  35. J. Wiersig, Prospects and fundamental limits in exceptional point-based sensing, Nat. Commun. 11, 2454 (2020).
  36. H. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Exceptional-point sensors offer no fundamental signal-to-noise ratio enhancement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 243601 (2024).
  37. X. Zheng and Y. D. Chong, Noise constraints for nonlinear exceptional point sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133801 (2025).
  38. J. Naikoo, R. W. Chhajlany, and J. Kołodyński, Multiparameter estimation perspective on non-Hermitian singularity-enhanced sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220801 (2023).
  39. Y. Chu, Y. Liu, H. Liu, and J. Cai, Quantum sensing with a single-qubit pseudo-Hermitian system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 020501 (2020).
  40. L. Xiao, Y. Chu, Q. Lin, H. Lin, W. Yi, J. Cai, and P. Xue, Non-Hermitian sensing in the absence of exceptional points, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 180801 (2024).
  41. J. Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photon. Res. 8, 1457 (2020).
  42. H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, Fundamental limits and non-reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quantum sensing, Nat. Commun. 9, 4320 (2018).
  43. L. Bao, B. Qi, D. Dong, and F. Nori, Fundamental limits for reciprocal and nonreciprocal non-Hermitian quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042418 (2021).
  44. W. Ding, X. Wang, and S. Chen, Fundamental sensitivity limits for non-Hermitian quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160801 (2023).
  45. C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007).
  46. Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Adv. Phys. 69, 249 (2020).
  47. C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, PT–symmetric quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 045002 (2024).
  48. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994).
  49. J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011).
  50. B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, N. Zagury, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Quantum metrological limits via a variational approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 190404 (2012).
  51. B. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Phys. 7, 406 (2011).
  52. G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014).
  53. Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988).
  54. A. G. Kofman, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Nonperturbative theory of weak pre- and post-selected measurements, Phys. Rep. 520, 43 (2012).
  55. J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Colloquium: Understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 307 (2014).
  56. S. Pang, J. Dressel, and T. A. Brun, Entanglement-assisted weak value amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 030401 (2014).
  57. J. Dressel, S. Agarwal, and A. N. Jordan, Contextual values of observables in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240401 (2010).
  58. N. Dalla Pozza and M. G. A. Paris, Naimark extension for the single-photon canonical phase measurement, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032126 (2019).
  59. R. Beneduci, Notes on Naimark’s dilation theorem, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1638, 012006 (2020).
  60. M. Huang, R.-K. Lee, L. Zhang, S.-M. Fei, and J. Wu, Simulating broken PT-symmetric Hamiltonian systems by weak measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080404 (2019).
  61. U. Günther and B. F. Samsonov, Naimark-dilated PT-symmetric brachistochrone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 230404 (2008).
  62. Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Observation of parity-time symmetry breaking in a single-spin system, Science 364, 878 (2019).
  63. F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Hybrid-Liouvillian formalism connecting exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Liouvillians via postselection of quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062112 (2020).
  64. C. Ferrie and J. Combes, Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 040406 (2014).
  65. G. C. Knee and E. M. Gauger, When amplification with weak values fails to suppress technical noise, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011032 (2014).
  66. L. Zhang, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Precision metrology using weak measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 210801 (2015).
  67. J. Harris, R. W. Boyd, and J. S. Lundeen, Weak value amplification can outperform conventional measurement in the presence of detector saturation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070802 (2017).
  68. N. Brunner and C. Simon, Measuring small longitudinal phase shifts: Weak measurements or standard interferometry? Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 010405 (2010).
  69. D. J. Starling, P. B. Dixon, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio of a beam-deflection measurement with interferometric weak values, Phys. Rev. A 80, 041803(R) (2009).
  70. S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Improving the precision of weak measurements by postselection measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 120401 (2015).
  71. A. N. Jordan, J. Martínez-Rincón, and J. C. Howell, Technical advantages for weak-value amplification: When less is more, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011031 (2014).
  72. G. C. Knee, J. Combes, C. Ferrie, and E. M. Gauger, Weak-value amplification: State of play, Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol. 3, 32 (2016).
  73. S. Tanaka and N. Yamamoto, Information amplification via postselection: A parameter-estimation perspective, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042116 (2013).
  74. Y. Kim, S.-Y. Yoo, and Y.-H. Kim, Heisenberg-limited metrology via weak-value amplification without using entangled resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040503 (2022).
  75. R. Jozsa, Complex weak values in quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. A 76, 044103 (2007).
  76. Y.-T. Wang, J.-S. Tang, G. Hu, J. Wang, S. Yu, Z.-Q. Zhou, Z.-D. Cheng, J.-S. Xu, S.-Z. Fang, Q.-L. Wu et al., Experimental demonstration of higher precision weak-value-based metrology using power recycling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 230801 (2016).
  77. L. Vaidman, Weak value controversy, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 375, 20160395 (2017).
  78. Y. Aharonov, S. Massar, S. Popescu, J. Tollaksen, and L. Vaidman, Adiabatic measurements on metastable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 983 (1996).
  79. K. Lyons, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, J. C. Howell, and P. G. Kwiat, Power-recycled weak-value-based metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 170801 (2015).
  80. C. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969).
  81. H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
  82. J. Yang, Theory of compression channels for postselected quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 250802 (2024).
  83. N. Okuma and M. Sato, Non-Hermitian topological phenomena: A review, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 83 (2023).
  84. I. Rotter, A non-Hermitian Hamilton operator and the physics of open quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 153001 (2009).
  85. A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982).
  86. A. S. Holevo, Statistical Structure of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001).
  87. Y. Yu, L.-W. Yu, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, and X. Ouyang, Experimental unsupervised learning of non-Hermitian knotted phases with solid-state spins, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 116 (2022).
  88. M.-A. Miri and A. Alù, Exceptional points in optics and photonics, Science 363, eaar7709 (2019).
  89. R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, and S. Rotter, Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018).
  90. M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum state tomography across the exceptional point in a single dissipative qubit, Nat. Phys. 15, 1232 (2019).
  91. B. Peng, Ş. K. Özdemir, S. Rotter, H. Yilmaz, M. Liertzer, F. Monifi, C. M. Bender, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Loss-induced suppression and revival of lasing, Science 346, 328 (2014).
  92. P. Wang, C. Chen, and R.-B. Liu, Classical-noise-free sensing based on quantum correlation measurement, Chinese Phys. Lett. 38, 010301 (2021).
  93. Y. Shen, P. Wang, C. T. Cheung, J. Wrachtrup, R.-B. Liu, and S. Yang, Detection of quantum signals free of classical noise via quantum correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 070802 (2023).
  94. N. Bobroff, Position measurement with a resolution and noise‐limited instrument, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 57, 1152 (1986).
  95. M. Tsang, Ziv-Zakai error bounds for quantum parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230401 (2012).
  96. N. Zeng, Codes for non-Hermitian sensing from the perspective of post-selected measurements.nb, figshare. Software. (2025), https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29040953.v1.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043219– Published 24 November, 2025
  • Received 12 May 2025
  • Accepted 31 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