Symmetry: a fundamental resource for quantum coherence and metrology

Irénée Frérot [email protected] Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, ENS-PSL Research University, Collège de France, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France    Tommaso Roscilde [email protected] Univ Lyon, Ens de Lyon, CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique, F-69342 Lyon, France
(July 1, 2024)
Abstract

We introduce a new paradigm for the preparation of deeply entangled states useful for quantum metrology. We show that when the quantum state is an eigenstate of an operator A𝐴Aitalic_A, observables G𝐺Gitalic_G which are completely off-diagonal with respect to A𝐴Aitalic_A have purely quantum fluctuations, as quantified by the quantum Fisher information, namely FQ(G)=4G2subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2F_{Q}(G)=4\langle G^{2}\rangleitalic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = 4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. This property holds regardless of the purity of the quantum state, and it implies that off-diagonal fluctuations represent a metrological resource for phase estimation. In particular, for many-body systems such as quantum spin ensembles or bosonic gases, the presence of off-diagonal long-range order (for a spin observable, or for bosonic operators) directly translates into a metrological resource, provided that the system remains in a well-defined symmetry sector. The latter is defined e.g. by one component of the collective spin or by its parity in spin systems; and by a particle-number sector for bosons. Our results establish the optimal use for metrology of arbitrarily non-Gaussian quantum correlations in a large variety of many-body systems.

Introduction.– Many-body entanglement Horodecki et al. (2009) is a striking feature of composite quantum systems: it is responsible for the fundamental complexity of quantum mechanics; and it represents the main resource offered by quantum devices based on the coherent control of many-body systems. Among all currently envisioned quantum technologies, quantum metrology Pezzè et al. (2018); Degen et al. (2017) represents one of the most concrete applications of entangled states. The metrological task of interest to this work is phase estimation Pezzé and Smerzi (2014), namely the reconstruction of the phase θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ associated with a unitary transformation Uθ=eiθGsubscript𝑈𝜃superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃𝐺U_{\theta}=e^{-i\theta G}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_θ italic_G end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acting on the state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ of the system, where G𝐺Gitalic_G is a Hermitian operator. Atomic clocks, gravimeters, magnetometers etc. are all based on this functioning principle. It is well established Pezzè et al. (2018) that systems of uncorrelated quantum particles do not give access to the ultimate precision on the phase θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ allowed by quantum mechanics, but they are bounded by the so-called standard quantum limit of metrology. The ultimate precision (the so-called Heisenberg limit) can only be achieved in the presence of multipartite entanglement between the degrees of freedom Hyllus et al. (2012); Tóth (2012); Pezzè et al. (2018).

It is generally believed that entanglement useful for metrology is associated with states of high purity and small fluctuations of a specific observable, whose paradigmatic example is offered by squeezed states Wineland et al. (1992); Ma et al. (2011); Pezzè et al. (2018). Here, we unveil a different paradigm to produce arbitrarily mixed, yet highly valuable entangled states for metrology. The basic mechanism is the combination of two ingredients: the states of interest are eigenstates of a symmetry operator; and at the same time they display strong correlations in observables which are completely off-diagonal in the eigenbasis of the symmetry operator.

The sensitivity of a state to the unitary transformation Uθsubscript𝑈𝜃U_{\theta}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is fundamentally related to its quantum Fisher information (QFI) FQ(G)subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺F_{Q}(G)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) Braunstein and Caves (1994) associated with the generator G𝐺Gitalic_G of the unitary transformation, defined as

FQ(G)=2nm(pnpm)2pn+pm|n|G|m|2.subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺2subscript𝑛𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑚2subscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑚superscriptquantum-operator-product𝑛𝐺𝑚2F_{Q}(G)=2\sum_{nm}\frac{(p_{n}-p_{m})^{2}}{p_{n}+p_{m}}|\langle n|G|m\rangle|% ^{2}~{}.italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = 2 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | ⟨ italic_n | italic_G | italic_m ⟩ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (1)

Here |n,|mket𝑛ket𝑚|n\rangle,|m\rangle| italic_n ⟩ , | italic_m ⟩ are eigenstates of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ with eigenvalues pn,pmsubscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑚p_{n},p_{m}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The uncertainty δθ𝛿𝜃\delta\thetaitalic_δ italic_θ on the estimation of the phase θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ allowed by the state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ is bounded by the QFI as per the quantum Cramér-Rao bound (δθ)21/FQ(G)superscript𝛿𝜃21subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺(\delta\theta)^{2}\geq 1/F_{Q}(G)( italic_δ italic_θ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 1 / italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ). Hence a central task in quantum metrology is to prepare input states possessing a large QFI; and to identify observables O𝑂Oitalic_O whose θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ dependence Oθ=Tr(UθOUθρ)subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝜃Trsubscriptsuperscript𝑈𝜃𝑂subscript𝑈𝜃𝜌\langle O\rangle_{\theta}={\rm Tr}(U^{\dagger}_{\theta}OU_{\theta}\rho)⟨ italic_O ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr ( italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ) can best reveal the sensitivity of the state to the unitary transformation of interest. This is expressed by the fact that the inequality FQ(G)ξO2subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2F_{Q}(G)\geq\xi_{O}^{-2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ≥ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is tight, where ξO2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2\xi_{O}^{-2}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT corresponds to the squared signal-to-noise ratio:

ξO2=|[O,G]θ|2Var(O)θ.superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2superscriptsubscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝐺𝜃2Varsubscript𝑂𝜃\xi_{O}^{-2}=\frac{|\langle[O,G]\rangle_{\theta}|^{2}}{{\rm Var}(O)_{\theta}}~% {}.italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG | ⟨ [ italic_O , italic_G ] ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Var ( italic_O ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (2)

Here Var(O)θ=O2θOθ2Varsubscript𝑂𝜃subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscript𝑂2𝜃superscriptsubscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝜃2{\rm Var}(O)_{\theta}=\langle O^{2}\rangle_{\theta}-\langle O\rangle_{\theta}^% {2}roman_Var ( italic_O ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_O start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_O ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and we have used the fact that iθOθ=[O,G]θ𝑖subscript𝜃subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝜃subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝐺𝜃i\partial_{\theta}\langle O\rangle_{\theta}=\langle[O,G]\rangle_{\theta}italic_i ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_O ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ [ italic_O , italic_G ] ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. O𝑂Oitalic_O is an optimal observable for phase estimation when ξO2=FQ(G)superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺\xi_{O}^{-2}=F_{Q}(G)italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Different paradigms of metrological resources. (a) Squeezing of an observable O𝑂Oitalic_O with respect to that of separable states with large contrast (see text); (b) symmetry projection, with projector P𝑃Pitalic_P. In both panels p(A)𝑝𝐴p(A)italic_p ( italic_A ) (A=O,P𝐴𝑂𝑃A=O,Pitalic_A = italic_O , italic_P) is the probability of finding a given eigenvalue of the operator A𝐴Aitalic_A.

From squeezing to symmetry projection.– An important paradigm for the use of entangled states to improve metrological sensitivity is offered by squeezing – see Fig. 1(a) for a cartoon. Squeezing is typically formulated for observables O𝑂Oitalic_O which are expressed as sums of local observables for a system of N𝑁Nitalic_N degrees of freedom, O=i=1NOi𝑂superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑂𝑖O=\sum_{i=1}^{N}O_{i}italic_O = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Squeezing – as associated with entanglement – occurs when the parameter ξO2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2\xi_{O}^{-2}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is larger than that of all separable states, i.e. of mixtures of factorized states i=1N|ψisuperscriptsubscripttensor-product𝑖1𝑁absentketsubscript𝜓𝑖\otimes_{i=1}^{N}|\psi_{i}\rangle⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩. For the latter states, the parameter ξO2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2\xi_{O}^{-2}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is typically maximized by maximizing the “contrast” |[O,G]|delimited-⟨⟩𝑂𝐺|\langle[O,G]\rangle|| ⟨ [ italic_O , italic_G ] ⟩ | – this is the case e.g. in ensembles of spin-1/2 particles Pezzè et al. (2018). Since the contrast is generically not commuting with O𝑂Oitalic_O, one has that for these states Var(O)=iVar(Oi)NVar𝑂subscript𝑖Varsubscript𝑂𝑖similar-to𝑁{\rm Var}(O)=\sum_{i}{\rm Var}(O_{i})\sim Nroman_Var ( italic_O ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Var ( italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∼ italic_N. On the other hand, entangled squeezed states are associated with a reduction of Var(O)Var𝑂{\rm Var}(O)roman_Var ( italic_O ) compared to that of separable states, while preserving a finite contrast. Entangled squeezed states of spin ensembles have been obtained in a large variety of platforms Estève et al. (2008); Riedel et al. (2010); Muessel et al. (2014); Bohnet et al. (2016); Bornet et al. (2023); Franke et al. (2023); Eckner et al. (2023), and their first uses to increase the performance of e.g. atomic clocks have been recently demonstrated Louchet-Chauvet et al. (2010); Pedrozo-Peñafiel et al. (2020); Eckner et al. (2023).

In this work, we propose a paradigm which is alternative to squeezing of the fluctuations of local observables. Our paradigm is based on symmetry projection: the observable O𝑂Oitalic_O of metrological interest becomes a projector P𝑃Pitalic_P onto a subspace of the Hilbert space, which can be generically associated with the eigenspace of a further observable A𝐴Aitalic_A. As a concrete example, for spin ensembles one can define the collective-spin operator 𝐉=i=1N𝐒𝐢𝐉superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝐒𝐢{\bf J}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\bf S_{i}}bold_J = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where 𝐒𝐢subscript𝐒𝐢\bf S_{i}bold_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the i𝑖iitalic_i-th spin operator. P𝑃Pitalic_P can be thought of as the projector onto a subspace of well-defined magnetization along e.g. the z𝑧zitalic_z axis, in which case A=Jz𝐴superscript𝐽𝑧A=J^{z}italic_A = italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; or of well-defined parity of the magnetization, in which case A=(1)NSJz𝐴superscript1𝑁𝑆superscript𝐽𝑧A=(-1)^{NS-J^{z}}italic_A = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_S - italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (for N𝑁Nitalic_N spins of length S𝑆Sitalic_S). The states of our interest are states ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ (pure or mixed) which live entirely in the sector projected by P𝑃Pitalic_P, namely

ρ=Pρ(=ρP=PρP)\rho=P\rho~{}(=\rho P=P\rho P)italic_ρ = italic_P italic_ρ ( = italic_ρ italic_P = italic_P italic_ρ italic_P ) (3)

so that P=Tr(ρP)=1delimited-⟨⟩𝑃Tr𝜌𝑃1\langle P\rangle={\rm Tr}(\rho P)=1⟨ italic_P ⟩ = roman_Tr ( italic_ρ italic_P ) = 1 and Var(P)=PP2=0Var𝑃delimited-⟨⟩𝑃superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑃20{\rm Var}(P)=\langle P\rangle-\langle P\rangle^{2}=0roman_Var ( italic_P ) = ⟨ italic_P ⟩ - ⟨ italic_P ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0. Clearly these states are “squeezed” in terms of the fluctuations of P𝑃Pitalic_P compared with a generic state (see Fig. 1(b)); we shall specify below under which circumstances they exhibit superior metrological properties compared to separable states. The difference with conventional squeezing is that P𝑃Pitalic_P can be a highly non-local operator – this is clearly the case when P𝑃Pitalic_P is the projector on a parity sector. In the following we denote such states as symmetry projected.

In general, quantum states ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ are especially sensitive to a transformation Uθsubscript𝑈𝜃U_{\theta}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whose generator G𝐺Gitalic_G has a large variance in ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ, provided that the uncertainty is of quantum origin, namely that it stems from the fact that [ρ,G]0𝜌𝐺0[\rho,G]\neq 0[ italic_ρ , italic_G ] ≠ 0 (as captured by the QFI). For symmetry-projected states, this condition is best realized when G𝐺Gitalic_G connects different symmetry sectors, namely when

PGP=0PGQ+QGP=Gformulae-sequence𝑃𝐺𝑃0𝑃𝐺𝑄𝑄𝐺𝑃𝐺PGP=0~{}~{}~{}~{}PGQ+QGP=Gitalic_P italic_G italic_P = 0 italic_P italic_G italic_Q + italic_Q italic_G italic_P = italic_G (4)

where Q=𝟙P𝑄1𝑃Q=\mathbb{1}-Pitalic_Q = blackboard_1 - italic_P. In this case G𝐺Gitalic_G is completely off-diagonal on the eigenbasis of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ. Our main result is that, in this case, all fluctuations of G𝐺Gitalic_G in ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ are of quantum-mechanical origin; that they are metrologically useful, regardless of the purity of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ, that is: 4Var(G)=FQ(G)4Var𝐺subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺4{\rm Var}(G)=F_{Q}(G)4 roman_V roman_a roman_r ( italic_G ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ); and that the sensitivity of the projector to the unitary transformation, ξP2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑃2\xi_{P}^{-2}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (defined as in Eq. (2)) equals FQ(G)subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺F_{Q}(G)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ). Our result generalizes and strengthens a similar theorem reported in Ref. Nolan et al. (2017) in the context of spin systems, in which the classical Fisher information of the magnetization distribution in parity eigenstates is shown to coincide with the QFI.

Our results show that symmetry-projected states with strong off-diagonal correlations (namely with a large Var(G)Var𝐺{\rm Var}(G)roman_Var ( italic_G ), ideally scaling as N2similar-toabsentsuperscript𝑁2\sim N^{2}∼ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if G𝐺Gitalic_G is the sum of local quantities) are highly entangled; that this holds true regardless of their purity; and that they represent fundamental resources for quantum metrology. Below, we shall offer examples for the relevance of such states in the context of Bose-Einstein condensates and of quantum spin ensembles. Many recent experiments on quantum many-body devices have demonstrated the capability of preparing correlated states Richerme et al. (2014); Jurcevic et al. (2014); Alaoui et al. (2022); Chen et al. (2023a, b). Symmetry preservation can then act as a very effective tool to certify which experiments prepare highly entangled states, as opposed to states with classical correlations Frérot et al. (2023).

Symmetry-projection theorem.– We begin the discussion of our results with the following

Theorem. Consider a projector P𝑃Pitalic_P on a subspace, and a state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ having support only in that subspace – i.e. fulfilling Eq. (3). Consider then a unitary transformation Uθ=eiθGsubscript𝑈𝜃superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃𝐺U_{\theta}=e^{-i\theta G}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_θ italic_G end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT whose generator G𝐺Gitalic_G sends vectors in the support of P𝑃Pitalic_P onto the orthogonal subspace: PGP=0𝑃𝐺𝑃0PGP=0italic_P italic_G italic_P = 0. Then

Pθ=Tr(UθPUθρ)=1θ2G2+𝒪(θ3),subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑃𝜃Trsuperscriptsubscript𝑈𝜃𝑃subscript𝑈𝜃𝜌1superscript𝜃2delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2𝒪superscript𝜃3\langle P\rangle_{\theta}={\rm Tr}(U_{\theta}^{\dagger}PU_{\theta}\rho)=1-% \theta^{2}\langle G^{2}\rangle+{\cal O}(\theta^{3})~{},⟨ italic_P ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ) = 1 - italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ + caligraphic_O ( italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (5)

where =Tr(ρ)delimited-⟨⟩Tr𝜌\langle...\rangle={\rm Tr}(\rho...)⟨ … ⟩ = roman_Tr ( italic_ρ … ). As a consequence:

ξP2=4G2=FQ(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜉2𝑃4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2subscript𝐹Q𝐺\xi^{-2}_{P}=4\langle G^{2}\rangle=F_{\rm Q}(G)italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) (6)

where ξP2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑃2\xi_{P}^{-2}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is defined as in Eq. (2) in the limit θ0𝜃0\theta\to 0italic_θ → 0.

Proof.

We Tailor-expand Pθ=UθPUθ=P+iθ(GPPG)+θ2GPG(θ2/2)(G2P+PG2)+𝒪(θ3)subscript𝑃𝜃superscriptsubscript𝑈𝜃𝑃subscript𝑈𝜃𝑃𝑖𝜃𝐺𝑃𝑃𝐺superscript𝜃2𝐺𝑃𝐺superscript𝜃22superscript𝐺2𝑃𝑃superscript𝐺2𝒪superscript𝜃3P_{\theta}=U_{\theta}^{\dagger}PU_{\theta}=P+i\theta(GP-PG)+\theta^{2}GPG-(% \theta^{2}/2)(G^{2}P+PG^{2})+{\cal O}(\theta^{3})italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P + italic_i italic_θ ( italic_G italic_P - italic_P italic_G ) + italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G italic_P italic_G - ( italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 ) ( italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P + italic_P italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + caligraphic_O ( italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and evaluate Pθ=Tr[Pθρ]subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑃𝜃Trdelimited-[]subscript𝑃𝜃𝜌\langle P\rangle_{\theta}={\rm Tr}[P_{\theta}\rho]⟨ italic_P ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr [ italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ]. Since Pρ=ρ=ρP𝑃𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑃P\rho=\rho=\rho Pitalic_P italic_ρ = italic_ρ = italic_ρ italic_P, using circular invariance of the trace we have that Tr[ρ(GPPG)]=Tr[G(PρρP)]=0Trdelimited-[]𝜌𝐺𝑃𝑃𝐺Trdelimited-[]𝐺𝑃𝜌𝜌𝑃0{\rm Tr}[\rho(GP-PG)]={\rm Tr}[G(P\rho-\rho P)]=0roman_Tr [ italic_ρ ( italic_G italic_P - italic_P italic_G ) ] = roman_Tr [ italic_G ( italic_P italic_ρ - italic_ρ italic_P ) ] = 0. Similarly, we have Tr(ρPG2)=Tr(G2Pρ)=G2Tr𝜌𝑃superscript𝐺2Trsuperscript𝐺2𝑃𝜌delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2{\rm Tr}(\rho PG^{2})={\rm Tr}(G^{2}P\rho)=\langle G^{2}\rangleroman_Tr ( italic_ρ italic_P italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = roman_Tr ( italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P italic_ρ ) = ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. Then Tr(GPGρ)=Tr(GPGPρ)=0Tr𝐺𝑃𝐺𝜌Tr𝐺𝑃𝐺𝑃𝜌0{\rm Tr}(GPG\rho)={\rm Tr}(GPGP\rho)=0roman_Tr ( italic_G italic_P italic_G italic_ρ ) = roman_Tr ( italic_G italic_P italic_G italic_P italic_ρ ) = 0 where we used Pρ=ρ𝑃𝜌𝜌P\rho=\rhoitalic_P italic_ρ = italic_ρ and PGP=0𝑃𝐺𝑃0PGP=0italic_P italic_G italic_P = 0. Hence Eq. (5) follows. From this, we find [θP(θ)]2=4θ2G22+𝒪(θ3)superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝜃delimited-⟨⟩𝑃𝜃24superscript𝜃2superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺22𝒪superscript𝜃3[\partial_{\theta}\langle P(\theta)\rangle]^{2}=4\theta^{2}\langle G^{2}% \rangle^{2}+{\cal O}(\theta^{3})[ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_P ( italic_θ ) ⟩ ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 4 italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + caligraphic_O ( italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Since P2=Psuperscript𝑃2𝑃P^{2}=Pitalic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_P, we also have that Var[P(θ)]=PP2=θ2G2+𝒪(θ3)Vardelimited-[]𝑃𝜃delimited-⟨⟩𝑃superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑃2superscript𝜃2delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2𝒪superscript𝜃3{\rm Var}[P(\theta)]=\langle P\rangle-\langle P\rangle^{2}=\theta^{2}\langle G% ^{2}\rangle+{\cal O}(\theta^{3})roman_Var [ italic_P ( italic_θ ) ] = ⟨ italic_P ⟩ - ⟨ italic_P ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ + caligraphic_O ( italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), from which ξP2=4G2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑃24delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2\xi_{P}^{-2}=4\langle G^{2}\rangleitalic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. Since for an arbitrary observable O𝑂Oitalic_O we have ξO2FQ(G)4Var(G)4G2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑂2subscript𝐹Q𝐺4Var𝐺4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2\xi_{O}^{-2}\leq F_{\rm Q}(G)\leq 4{\rm Var}(G)\leq 4\langle G^{2}\rangleitalic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ≤ 4 roman_V roman_a roman_r ( italic_G ) ≤ 4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ Pezzé and Smerzi (2014); Pezzè et al. (2018), we conclude that for O=P𝑂𝑃O=Pitalic_O = italic_P this chain of inequalities becomes a chain of equalities, and hence Eq. (6) follows. ∎

We emphasize that in general 4G2FQ(G)4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2subscript𝐹Q𝐺4\langle G^{2}\rangle\geq F_{\rm Q}(G)4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ≥ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ), while the equality 4G2=FQ(G)4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2subscript𝐹Q𝐺4\langle G^{2}\rangle=F_{\rm Q}(G)4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) is always realized by pure states ρ=|ψψ|𝜌ket𝜓bra𝜓\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|italic_ρ = | italic_ψ ⟩ ⟨ italic_ψ | with G=0delimited-⟨⟩𝐺0\langle G\rangle=0⟨ italic_G ⟩ = 0. Finding mixed states that satisfy this equality is instead highly non-trivial. From a physical point of view, the equality implies that all fluctuations of G𝐺Gitalic_G in state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ have a quantum-coherent origin, as they stem from G𝐺Gitalic_G being completely off-diagonal in the basis of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ, and this independently of the purity of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ. In turn, all fluctuations of G𝐺Gitalic_G have an immediate metrological relevance, as they translate into the sensitivity of the average projector Pdelimited-⟨⟩𝑃\langle P\rangle⟨ italic_P ⟩ to the Uθsubscript𝑈𝜃U_{\theta}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT transformation. Moreover our result has immediate implications for entanglement certification Frérot et al. (2023). Indeed, if G𝐺Gitalic_G is a sum of local observables G=iGi𝐺subscript𝑖subscript𝐺𝑖G=\sum_{i}G_{i}italic_G = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the QFI serves as a witness for multipartite entanglement, excluding separability of the state when FQ(G)>4iVar(Gi)subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺4subscript𝑖Varsubscript𝐺𝑖F_{Q}(G)>4\sum_{i}{\rm Var}(G_{i})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) > 4 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Var ( italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) Gessner et al. (2017). In the case of symmetry-projected states, if one further assumes that PGiP=0𝑃subscript𝐺𝑖𝑃0PG_{i}P=0italic_P italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P = 0 for all i𝑖iitalic_i, this criterion simply becomes G2>iGi2delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2subscript𝑖delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐺𝑖2\langle G^{2}\rangle>\sum_{i}\langle G_{i}^{2}\rangle⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ > ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩, which is automatically verified in the presence of positive correlations GiGj>0delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝐺𝑖subscript𝐺𝑗0\langle G_{i}G_{j}\rangle>0⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ > 0 between degrees of freedom ij𝑖𝑗i\neq jitalic_i ≠ italic_j. Hence symmetry projection translates positive correlations for off-diagonal local observables into an entanglement witness.

The remaining question is then the following: where can one find symmetry-projected states which have significant off-diagonal correlations, implying strong multipartite and metrologically useful entanglement? In the next sections, we show that symmetry projection can be enforced in at least three ways: relying on super-selection rules; relying on the symmetry of Hamiltonians; or projecting the state of the system on a specific symmetry sector by non-destructive post-selection. We will illustrate these various possibilities in the case of Bose-Einstein condensates in a system of coupled bosonic modes; and in the case of interacting quantum spin (or qubits).

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Preparation of long-range correlated quantum states in a fixed parity sector. (a,b) Preparing an initial state polarized along the transverse field ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω, and then ram** down ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω towards low-energy states of the parity-preserving Hamiltonian, allows one to prepare resource-states for metrology even at finite energy density and extensive entropy. The critical energy density difference ΔecΔsubscript𝑒𝑐\Delta e_{c}roman_Δ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to the ground-state energy density egssubscript𝑒gse_{\rm gs}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_gs end_POSTSUBSCRIPT marks the loss of long-range order. (c) Quantum-circuit projection of an arbitrary qubit state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ onto a well-defined parity sector, depending on the measurement MZsubscript𝑀𝑍M_{Z}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of σzsuperscript𝜎𝑧\sigma^{z}italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the ancilla qubit.

Heisenberg-scaling sensitivity of tunneling rates with Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC).– We consider the metrological task of estimating the tunneling rate J𝐽Jitalic_J between two sets of bosonic modes A𝐴Aitalic_A and B𝐵Bitalic_B. The tunneling process is described by the Hamiltonian H=JG𝐻𝐽𝐺H=JGitalic_H = italic_J italic_G where G=12i=1N(aibi+biai)𝐺12superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖G=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(a_{i}^{\dagger}b_{i}+b^{\dagger}_{i}a_{i})italic_G = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), with aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (resp. bisubscript𝑏𝑖b_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) describing the bosonic modes in subsystem A𝐴Aitalic_A (resp. B𝐵Bitalic_B); we imagine the modes to be pairwise coupled, as e.g. in two coupled chains or two coupled layers of localized modes. If one considers N𝑁Nitalic_N independent bosons, each localized a mode pair (ai,bi)subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖(a_{i},b_{i})( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), the quadratic error on the estimation of J𝐽Jitalic_J scales as 1/N1𝑁1/N1 / italic_N (standard quantum limit). On the other hand, we can show that two BECs, one delocalized over the {ai}subscript𝑎𝑖\{a_{i}\}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } modes and the other over the {bi}subscript𝑏𝑖\{b_{i}\}{ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } modes, allow for an estimation of J𝐽Jitalic_J with a quadratic error scaling as 1/N21superscript𝑁21/N^{2}1 / italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (Heisenberg scaling).

In the framework of our theorem, we consider an initial state of the form ρAρBtensor-productsubscript𝜌𝐴subscript𝜌𝐵\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the two sets of modes A𝐴Aitalic_A and B𝐵Bitalic_B having a fixed boson number NA=i=1Naiaisubscript𝑁𝐴superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖N_{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{i}^{\dagger}a_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (resp. NB=i=1Nbibisubscript𝑁𝐵superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖N_{B}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}b_{i}^{\dagger}b_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT): PNAρA=ρAsubscript𝑃subscript𝑁𝐴subscript𝜌𝐴subscript𝜌𝐴P_{N_{A}}\rho_{A}=\rho_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with PNAsubscript𝑃subscript𝑁𝐴P_{N_{A}}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the projector onto the states with fixed boson number NAsubscript𝑁𝐴N_{A}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (as well as NBsubscript𝑁𝐵N_{B}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, imagining to have a fixed total boson number). The generator G𝐺Gitalic_G is purely off-diagonal with respect to the boson number in A𝐴Aitalic_A (or B𝐵Bitalic_B). Coupling the two sets of modes exposes the state to the unitary transformation eitJGsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑡𝐽𝐺e^{-itJG}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_t italic_J italic_G end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. According to our theorem, the QFI for the estimation of tJ𝑡𝐽tJitalic_t italic_J (and hence of J𝐽Jitalic_J) is given by 4G24delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺24\langle G^{2}\rangle4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩, and it is saturated by measuring the time evolution of PNAdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑃subscript𝑁𝐴\langle P_{N_{A}}\rangle⟨ italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩, i.e. the probability to find NAsubscript𝑁𝐴N_{A}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bosons in the A𝐴Aitalic_A system (or equivalently, by measuring PNBsubscript𝑃subscript𝑁𝐵P_{N_{B}}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the B𝐵Bitalic_B system). One finds:

FQ(G)=4G2=NA+NB+i,j(aiajbjbi+h.c.)F_{Q}(G)=4\langle G^{2}\rangle=N_{A}+N_{B}+\sum_{i,j}(\langle a_{i}^{\dagger}a% _{j}\rangle\langle b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{i}\rangle+{\rm h.c.})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = 4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ + roman_h . roman_c . ) (7)

In the limit of ideal BECs with perfect off-diagonal long-range order, one has aiaj=NA/N:=nAdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑁𝐴𝑁assignsubscript𝑛𝐴\langle a_{i}^{\dagger}a_{j}\rangle=N_{A}/N:=n_{A}⟨ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N := italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and bibj=NB/N:=nBdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑁𝐵𝑁assignsubscript𝑛𝐵\langle b_{i}^{\dagger}b_{j}\rangle=N_{B}/N:=n_{B}⟨ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N := italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, hence 4G2=N(nA+nB)+2N2nAnB4delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝐺2𝑁subscript𝑛𝐴subscript𝑛𝐵2superscript𝑁2subscript𝑛𝐴subscript𝑛𝐵4\langle G^{2}\rangle=N(n_{A}+n_{B})+2N^{2}n_{A}n_{B}4 ⟨ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 2 italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The Heisenberg scaling FQ(G)N2similar-tosubscript𝐹𝑄𝐺superscript𝑁2F_{Q}(G)\sim N^{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ∼ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is fundamentally related to the entanglement between the N𝑁Nitalic_N modes of A𝐴Aitalic_A (resp. B𝐵Bitalic_B) associated with the existence of a BEC. Indeed, for a fully separable state ρA=λpλi=1Nρi(λ)subscript𝜌𝐴subscript𝜆superscriptsubscripttensor-product𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑝𝜆subscript𝜌𝑖𝜆\rho_{A}=\sum_{\lambda}p_{\lambda}\otimes_{i=1}^{N}\rho_{i}(\lambda)italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) with pλsubscript𝑝𝜆p_{\lambda}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT an arbitrary probability distribution and ρi(λ)subscript𝜌𝑖𝜆\rho_{i}(\lambda)italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) a density matrix for mode aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (and similarly for the B𝐵Bitalic_B system), one has the inequality Gessner et al. (2017) FQ(G)i(aibi+biai)2Nsubscript𝐹𝑄𝐺subscript𝑖delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖2similar-to𝑁F_{Q}(G)\leq\sum_{i}\langle(a_{i}^{\dagger}b_{i}+b_{i}^{\dagger}a_{i})^{2}% \rangle\sim Nitalic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ∼ italic_N. More explicitly, taking uniform densities aiai=NA/N=nAdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑁𝐴𝑁subscript𝑛𝐴\langle a_{i}^{\dagger}a_{i}\rangle=N_{A}/N=n_{A}⟨ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N = italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (and similarly for B𝐵Bitalic_B), one finds the separable bound FQ(G)Fsep=N(nA+nB+2nAnB)subscript𝐹𝑄𝐺subscript𝐹sep𝑁subscript𝑛𝐴subscript𝑛𝐵2subscript𝑛𝐴subscript𝑛𝐵F_{Q}(G)\leq F_{\rm sep}=N(n_{A}+n_{B}+2n_{A}n_{B})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ≤ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sep end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), leading to a quadratic error on the estimation of J𝐽Jitalic_J scaling no faster than 1/N1𝑁1/N1 / italic_N. A uniform ideal BEC on the B𝐵Bitalic_B system (namely bibj=NB/Ndelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑁𝐵𝑁\langle b_{i}^{\dagger}b_{j}\rangle=N_{B}/N⟨ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N) leads to a QFI in the form FQ(G)=Fsep+(NB/N)ij(aiaj+c.c.)F_{Q}(G)=F_{\rm sep}+(N_{B}/N)\sum_{i\neq j}\left(\langle a_{i}^{\dagger}a_{j}% \rangle+{\rm c.c.}\right)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sep end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ + roman_c . roman_c . ). Therefore, the condition ijReaiaj>0subscript𝑖𝑗Redelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑎𝑗0\sum_{i\neq j}{\rm Re}\langle a_{i}^{\dagger}a_{j}\rangle>0∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Re ⟨ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ > 0 witnesses mode entanglement, since it violates the bound for separable states. This illustrates the fact that entanglement generated solely by the indistinguishability of quantum particles represents a consistent resource for metrology Morris et al. (2020). In the case of atomic BECs, the symmetry of the initial state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ corresponds to a super-selection rule enforced by atom-number conservation. Our metrological protocol hence requires only post-selection on specific initial numbers NA,NBsubscript𝑁𝐴subscript𝑁𝐵N_{A},N_{B}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of atoms in the two modes.

Quantum spin ensembles.– We now consider systems of N𝑁Nitalic_N quantum S=1/2𝑆12S=1/2italic_S = 1 / 2 spins 111Although most of our results can be readily generalized to arbitrary spins S𝑆Sitalic_S., prepared initially in a coherent spin state |ψ0=|xNketsubscript𝜓0superscriptketsubscript𝑥tensor-productabsent𝑁|\psi_{0}\rangle=|\rightarrow_{x}\rangle^{\otimes N}| italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = | → start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fully polarized along the x𝑥xitalic_x axis, and where the parity projector Px=(1+i=1Nσix)/2subscript𝑃𝑥1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥2P_{x}=(1+\prod_{i=1}^{N}\sigma_{i}^{x})/2italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 1 + ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) / 2 is both fixed by the initial state, Px|ψ0=|ψ0subscript𝑃𝑥ketsubscript𝜓0ketsubscript𝜓0P_{x}|\psi_{0}\rangle=|\psi_{0}\rangleitalic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩, and preserved during the dynamics. In particular, Pxsubscript𝑃𝑥P_{x}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is conserved by all interaction Hamiltonians of the form Hint=i,ja{x,y,z}Jijaσiaσjasubscript𝐻intsubscript𝑖𝑗subscript𝑎𝑥𝑦𝑧superscriptsubscript𝐽𝑖𝑗𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑎H_{\rm int}=-\sum_{i,j}\sum_{a\in\{x,y,z\}}J_{ij}^{a}\sigma_{i}^{a}\sigma_{j}^% {a}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_int end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ { italic_x , italic_y , italic_z } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, namely XYZ models with arbitrary two-body interactions, as well as by Hamiltonians describing an external magnetic field oriented along x𝑥xitalic_x: Hfield=iΩiσixsubscript𝐻fieldsubscript𝑖subscriptΩ𝑖superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥H_{\rm field}=-\sum_{i}\Omega_{i}\sigma_{i}^{x}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_field end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Our theorem then guarantees that, at all times, spin fluctuations for components in the yz𝑦𝑧yzitalic_y italic_z plane are fully quantum-coherent; and that the sensitivity of the state to spin rotations around an axis in the same plane is optimally exploited by simply measuring the parity projector Pxsubscript𝑃𝑥P_{x}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT itself. A simple symmetry constraint entails therefore very strong consequences on the nature of fluctuations in the system, and their potential application for quantum metrology. In particular, our result applies to widely different model Hamiltonians for quantum simulators whose interactions possess different symmetries but all preserve the parity Pxsubscript𝑃𝑥P_{x}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, such as transverse-field Ising models HIsing=i,jJijσizσjzΩiσixsubscript𝐻Isingsubscript𝑖𝑗subscript𝐽𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑧superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑧Ωsubscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥H_{\rm Ising}=-\sum_{i,j}J_{ij}\sigma_{i}^{z}\sigma_{j}^{z}-\Omega\sum_{i}% \sigma_{i}^{x}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ising end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_Ω ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (with Z2subscript𝑍2Z_{2}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT symmetry) Monroe et al. (2021); Scholl et al. (2021); Ebadi et al. (2021); King et al. (2022); XY models HXY=i,jJij(σixσjx+σiyσjy)subscript𝐻XYsubscript𝑖𝑗subscript𝐽𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑦superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑦H_{\rm XY}=-\sum_{i,j}J_{ij}(\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}+\sigma_{i}^{y}\sigma% _{j}^{y})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_XY end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (with U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) symmetry) Browaeys and Lahaye (2020); Monroe et al. (2021); and XXZ (Heisenberg) models HXXZ=i,jJij(σixσjx+σiyσjyσizσjz)subscript𝐻XXZsubscript𝑖𝑗subscript𝐽𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑦superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑦superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑧superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑧H_{\rm XXZ}=-\sum_{i,j}J_{ij}(\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}+\sigma_{i}^{y}% \sigma_{j}^{y}-\sigma_{i}^{z}\sigma_{j}^{z})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_XXZ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (with SU(2)𝑆𝑈2SU(2)italic_S italic_U ( 2 ) symmetry) Mazurenko et al. (2017); Jepsen et al. (2020); Sun et al. (2021). Notice that the one-axis-twisting Hamiltonian (OAT), whose dynamics is implemented in many recent experiments Riedel et al. (2010); Bohnet et al. (2016); Song et al. (2019); Bornet et al. (2023); Franke et al. (2023), may be viewed as a special instance of XY models, by writing HOAT=χJz2/N=χN[𝐉2(1/4)i,j(σixσjx+σiyσjy)]subscript𝐻OAT𝜒superscriptsubscript𝐽𝑧2𝑁𝜒𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝐉214subscript𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑦superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑦H_{\rm OAT}=\chi J_{z}^{2}/N=\frac{\chi}{N}\left[{\bf J}^{2}-(1/4)\sum_{i,j}(% \sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}+\sigma_{i}^{y}\sigma_{j}^{y})\right]italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_OAT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_N = divide start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG [ bold_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( 1 / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ], where the conserved total spin 𝐉2superscript𝐉2{\bf J}^{2}bold_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is just a constant offset. Therefore our results provide the optimal strategy to exploit metrologically all the non-Gaussian spin states Strobel et al. (2014); Pezzè et al. (2018); Comparin et al. (2022) produced by the OAT dynamics after the appearance of maximal spin squeezing (for a time tN1/3similar-to𝑡superscript𝑁13t\sim N^{1/3}italic_t ∼ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) and before the appearance of the Schrödinger cat state (for a time t=πN/(2χ)𝑡𝜋𝑁2𝜒t=\pi N/(2\chi)italic_t = italic_π italic_N / ( 2 italic_χ )), by measuring the sensitivity of the parity Pxsubscript𝑃𝑥P_{x}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to rotations around the y𝑦yitalic_y axis.

The initial state is the ground state of Hfieldsubscript𝐻fieldH_{\rm field}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_field end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. A general strategy to prepare metrologically useful states is then to evolve |ψ0ketsubscript𝜓0|\psi_{0}\rangle| italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ with any of the parity-preserving Hamiltonians above H=Hint+Hfield𝐻subscript𝐻intsubscript𝐻fieldH=H_{\rm int}+H_{\rm field}italic_H = italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_int end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_field end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, including possibly time-dependent parameters, towards a state displaying long-range correlations for spin components in yz𝑦𝑧yzitalic_y italic_z plane. Such long-range correlations typically emerge when the system displays an ordered phase at low energy, spontaneously breaking the Z2subscript𝑍2Z_{2}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) or SU(2)𝑆𝑈2SU(2)italic_S italic_U ( 2 ) symmetry of the Hamiltonian Hintsubscript𝐻intH_{\rm int}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_int end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the thermodynamic limit. Maximal correlations are expected in the ground state of Hintsubscript𝐻intH_{\rm int}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_int end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which requires to implement an adiabatic evolution starting from the initial state, namely the ground state of Hfieldsubscript𝐻fieldH_{\rm field}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_field end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In a realistic (quasi-adiabatic) evolution implemented in experiments in which e.g. Hfieldsubscript𝐻fieldH_{\rm field}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_field end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is slowly ramped down (see Fig. 2(a-b)), the final state has finite energy density above the ground state. One may then naïvely conclude that the resulting state is akin to a thermal mixed state, implying that quantum correlations have acquired a short-ranged natureeven when total correlations are long-ranged Malpetti and Roscilde (2016); Frérot et al. (2022); Kuwahara and Saito (2022); Scheie et al. (2023). Yet, at variance with this thermal picture of correlations, our theorem establishes that the preparation of correlated state corresponds to the onset of fully quantum correlations for off-diagonal observables, regardless of the purity of the final state, whenever parity is preserved. Typical phase diagrams in the external-field/energy-density plane are illustrated in Fig. 2(a,b): whenever parity-preserving quasi-adiabatic evolutions end up in a long-range ordered phase, they give rise to macroscopic quantum Fisher information (i.e scaling as N2superscript𝑁2N^{2}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) for a completely off-diagonal collective-spin component, such as the y𝑦yitalic_y or z𝑧zitalic_z component of the collective spin (uniform or staggered). For instance, ferromagnetic transverse-field Ising models develop FQ(Jz)O(N2)similar-tosubscript𝐹𝑄superscript𝐽𝑧𝑂superscript𝑁2F_{Q}(J^{z})\sim O(N^{2})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∼ italic_O ( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) at finite energy density when the connectivity of their interactions is sufficiently high (e.g. in dimensions d2𝑑2d\geq 2italic_d ≥ 2 with nearest-neighbor interactions). Similarly, FQ(Jy)O(N2)similar-tosubscript𝐹𝑄superscript𝐽𝑦𝑂superscript𝑁2F_{Q}(J^{y})\sim O(N^{2})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∼ italic_O ( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) at finite energy density in ferromagnetic XY models when Jij1/rijαsimilar-tosubscript𝐽𝑖𝑗1superscriptsubscript𝑟𝑖𝑗𝛼J_{ij}\sim 1/r_{ij}^{\alpha}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ 1 / italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with rijsubscript𝑟𝑖𝑗r_{ij}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the distance between sites, and α<d+2𝛼𝑑2\alpha<d+2italic_α < italic_d + 2 in d2𝑑2d\leq 2italic_d ≤ 2 dimensions Bruno (2001); and for arbitrarily short-ranged interactions in d=3𝑑3d=3italic_d = 3 – the latter results holds as well for the SU(2) symmetric Heisenberg model.

Parity projection.– An alternative route towards preparing highly entangled states is offered by projecting an arbitrary qubit state ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ onto a given parity sector. Active parity projection has the power of turning even a classically correlated state into an entangled one. Parity projection can be achieved with a conceptually simple quantum circuit, namely a sequence of C-NOT gates with an auxiliary qubit, followed by the measurement of the latter. This is illustrated in Fig. 2(c) for parity projection in the z𝑧zitalic_z basis: starting from an arbitrary basis state |z=|z1,,zNket𝑧ketsubscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑁|\vec{z}\rangle=|z_{1},\dots,z_{N}\rangle| over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ⟩ = | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ with zi{0,1}subscript𝑧𝑖01z_{i}\in\{0,1\}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ { 0 , 1 }, the sequence of C-NOT gates realizes the linear transformation |z|0|z|(1+P(z))/2tensor-productket𝑧ket0tensor-productket𝑧ket1𝑃𝑧2|\vec{z}\rangle\otimes|0\rangle\to|\vec{z}\rangle\otimes|(1+P(\vec{z}))/2\rangle| over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ⟩ ⊗ | 0 ⟩ → | over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ⟩ ⊗ | ( 1 + italic_P ( over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ) / 2 ⟩ with P(z)𝑃𝑧P(\vec{z})italic_P ( over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) the parity of the magnetization of |zket𝑧|\vec{z}\rangle| over→ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ⟩. With an arbitrary input state ρ|00|tensor-product𝜌ket0bra0\rho\otimes|0\rangle\langle 0|italic_ρ ⊗ | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 |, measuring the auxiliary qubit then allows one to implement the parity projection ρρeven=PρP𝜌subscript𝜌even𝑃𝜌𝑃\rho\to\rho_{\rm even}=P\rho Pitalic_ρ → italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_even end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P italic_ρ italic_P (resp. ρodd=QρQsubscript𝜌odd𝑄𝜌𝑄\rho_{\rm odd}=Q\rho Qitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_odd end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q italic_ρ italic_Q) by post-selecting the 00 (resp. 1) measurement outcome. Most importantly, the transformation ρPρP+QρQ𝜌𝑃𝜌𝑃𝑄𝜌𝑄\rho\to P\rho P+Q\rho Qitalic_ρ → italic_P italic_ρ italic_P + italic_Q italic_ρ italic_Q preserves two-body correlations for the x𝑥xitalic_x spin components, namely: Tr(ρσixσjx)=Tr[(PρP+QρQ)σixσjx]Tr𝜌superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥Trdelimited-[]𝑃𝜌𝑃𝑄𝜌𝑄superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥{\rm Tr}(\rho\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x})={\rm Tr}[(P\rho P+Q\rho Q)\sigma_{i% }^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}]roman_Tr ( italic_ρ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = roman_Tr [ ( italic_P italic_ρ italic_P + italic_Q italic_ρ italic_Q ) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] for all i,j𝑖𝑗i,jitalic_i , italic_j. Indeed σixσjx=PσixσjxP+QσixσjxQsuperscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥𝑃superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥𝑃𝑄superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥𝑄\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}=P\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}P+Q\sigma_{i}^{x}% \sigma_{j}^{x}Qitalic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_P italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P + italic_Q italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q, since σixσjxsuperscriptsubscript𝜎𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑥\sigma_{i}^{x}\sigma_{j}^{x}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is parity preserving. Hence post-selecting the state with the strongest correlations between PρP𝑃𝜌𝑃P\rho Pitalic_P italic_ρ italic_P or QρQ𝑄𝜌𝑄Q\rho Qitalic_Q italic_ρ italic_Q allows one to turn the arbitrary correlations of ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ into quantum ones. The simplest example of this construction is obtained by taking ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ as the coherent spin state |xNsuperscriptketsubscript𝑥tensor-productabsent𝑁|\rightarrow_{x}\rangle^{\otimes N}| → start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: the post-selected even / odd parity states are cat states (|xN±|xN)/2plus-or-minussuperscriptketsubscript𝑥tensor-productabsent𝑁superscriptketsubscript𝑥tensor-productabsent𝑁2(|\rightarrow_{x}\rangle^{\otimes N}\pm|\leftarrow_{x}\rangle^{\otimes N})/% \sqrt{2}( | → start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± | ← start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) / square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG, which have maximal QFI for rotations around the x𝑥xitalic_x axis, FQ(Jx)=N2subscript𝐹𝑄subscript𝐽𝑥superscript𝑁2F_{Q}(J_{x})=N^{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Conclusions.– We have shown that whenever the quantum dynamics of many-body systems remains constrained to a given symmetry sector, all correlations of off-diagonal observables maintain a fully quantum nature, regardless of the purity of the quantum state; and that they directly translate into a metrological resource. Our result opens the path to the systematic certification and metrological use of a broad class of entangled states, such as e.g. non-Gaussian entangled spin states which are naturally prepared in quantum spin ensembles, going beyond the case of spin-squeezed states.

Acknowledgements.– TR acknowledges support of PEPR-Q “QubitAF”.

References