arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 18 Jul 2020

Sisi Zhou,^{1, 2, 3} Chang-Ling Zou,⁴ and Liang Jiang^{1, 2, 3}

1Departments of Applied Physics and Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA

2Yale Quantum Institute, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA

3Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, The University of Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA

4Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, CAS,

University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China (Dated: July 21, 2020)

The quantum Cram´er-Rao bound (QCRB) provides an ultimate precision limit allowed by quan- tum mechanics in parameter estimation. Given any quantum state dependent on a single parameter, there is always a positive-operator valued measurement (POVM) saturating the QCRB. However, the QCRB-saturating POVM cannot always be implemented efficiently, especially in multipartite systems. In this paper, we show that the POVM based on local operations and classical communi- cation (LOCC) is QCRB-saturating for arbitrary pure states or rank-two mixed states with varying probability distributions over fixed eigenbasis. Local measurements without classical communica- tion, however, is not QCRB-saturating in general.

I. INTRODUCTION

Quantum metrology [1–6] is the study of designing high-precision quantum sensors to estimate physical pa- rameters in quantum systems. It focuses on the ulti- mate precision achievable in parameter estimation, al- lowed by the theory of quantum mechanics. It has wide applications ranging from frequency spectroscopy and clocks [7–14] to gravitational-wave detectors and interfer- ometry [15–18]. Lying in the center of quantum metrol- ogy is the quantum Cram´er-Rao bound (QCRB) [19–22], which provides a lower bound of parameter estimation error:

δθ ≥ 1

pN J(ρθ). (1)

Here θ is the parameter to be estimated, e.g. magnetic field frequency, δθ is the standard deviation of the θ- estimator, ρ_θ is the density matrix describing the quan- tum sensor as a function of θ, and N is the number of repeated experiments. J (ρθ) is the so-called quantum Fisher information (QFI) [19–22] quantifying the sensi- tivity of a quantum sensor.

QFI can be viewed as the maximum Fisher informa- tion (FI) among all possible POVMs, where FI is the classical version of QFI as a measure of sensitivity [23–

25]. It is a function of the probability distribution of measurement results. In a quantum system, the proba- bility distribution is provided by P_x(θ) = Tr(ρ_θE_x) with measurement operators {Ex}. To saturate the QCRB, one first performs the optimal POVM maximizing the FI [22], and then chooses suitable classical estimators, e.g. the maximum likelihood estimator which asymptot- ically (N  1) saturates the QCRB [24–27]. The optimal POVM usually depends on the value of the parameter, which is unknown practically. In order to solve this is- sue, one could use the two-step method by first using

√N states to obtain a rough estimation ˜θ ≈ θ and then performing the optimal measurement based on ˜θ on the

remaining N −√

N states [28–30]. The procedure intro- duces a negligible amount of error asymptotically. If the problem was approached using a Bayesian approach, un- der quite general conditions, the QFI remains a reliable figure of merit [25, 31–34]. It is known that rank-one projection onto the eigenstates of the symmetric loga- rithmic derivative operator (SLD) usually saturates the QCRB [22]. However, in general, the eigenstates of SLD could be highly-entangled states over subsystems, and the optimal measurement requires global measurements (GM) (Fig. 1a) that might be challenging to implement experimentally [35].

FIG. 1. Schematics of measurement protocols in quantum metrology. Here, LM ⊆ LOCC ⊆ GM. (a) Global mea- surements (GM). (b) Local measurements (LM). (c) Local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Blue lines represent classical data flows. The state preparation and the probing processes are not shown because they can be as gen- eral as possible.

Local measurements (LM) (Fig. 1b), performed sep- arately on each subsystem, were shown to saturate the QCRB in many cases [1,36–38]. For example, it is proven in Ref. [1] that for GHZ-type states evolving under local

arXiv:1809.06017v3 [quant-ph] 18 Jul 2020

Hamiltonians with identical terms, LM can saturate the QCRB. However, by counting the number of degrees of freedom in LM and the QCRB-saturating condition, one can show that LM, in general, is not sufficient to sat- urate the QCRB in multipartite systems (see Appx. E for proof). Compared to LM, local operations and clas- sical communication (LOCC) (Fig. 1c) is a larger class of measurements which allows classical communication of measurement results so that the measurement basis performed on one subsystem could be determined by the measurement results from others [39–43], which has been demonstrated in many experimental platforms compat- ible with local measurement and adaptive control [44–

47]. It is a restricted class of quantum operations [48–

50] that cannot generate entanglement between subsys- tems. For example, it cannot fully distinguish the four Bell states [51]. Nevertheless, LOCC can distinguish any two orthogonal quantum states [52] and, in particular, tell the quantum state itself from the state it evolves into, making it a potential candidate to saturate the QCRB. The power of LOCC protocols in achieving op- timal performance has also been demonstrated in other contexts [53–57].

In this paper, we consider only quantum states ρθ in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We prove that LOCC is QCRB-saturating for two types of quantum states:

(i) arbitrary pure states ρθ = |ψθi hψθ| and (ii) rank- two mixed states ρθ = pθ|ψ0i hψ0| + (1 − pθ) |ψ1i hψ1| (0 < pθ < 1), where |ψ0,1i are fixed basis indepen- dent of θ. In the following, we first review the neces- sary and sufficient condition for QCRB-saturating mea- surements in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Then we prove the existence of QCRB-saturating LOCC for states of type (i) and type (ii). Finally, we show that LM is not QCRB-saturating in general. For bipartite pure states, we found an interesting example where there is no QCRB-saturating projective LM but there is a QCRB- saturating LM.

II. QCRB-SATURATING POVM

To quantify the distinguishability of two neighboring probability distributions, the FI is defined by

F ({P_x(θ)}) =X

x

1 Px(θ)

∂P_x(θ)

∂θ

2

, (2)

where x is the label of measurement results, Px(θ) is the probability of obtaining x when the parameter is equal to θ, satisfying Px(θ) ≥ 0 and P

xPx(θ) = 1. For a quantum state ρ_θ, P_x(θ) = Tr(ρ_θE_x) for a POVM de- scribed by a set of non-negative operators {E_x} satisfy- ingP

xEx= I, and the FI

F ({Px(θ)}) ≤ Tr(ρθL²_θ) = J (ρθ). (3) Here, Lθ is the SLD, a Hermitian matrix defined by

∂θρθ = ¹₂(Lθρθ+ ρθLθ). The FI is equal to the QFI

J (ρθ) if and only if,

E_x^1/2ρ^1/2_θ = λxE_x^1/2Lθρ^1/2_θ , ∀x, (4) for some real λ_x and for all x such that Tr(E_xρ_θ) = 0, Tr(ExLθρθLθ) = 0. We call any POVM {Ex} satisfy- ingEq. (4) QCRB-saturating. Further simplifications of Eq. (4)leads to (seeAppx. A)

Theorem 1 ([22]). {Ex} is QCRB-saturating if and only if

E_x^1/2M_ijE_x^1/2= 0, ∀i, j, x, (5) and

∀x s.t. Tr(Exρ_θ) = 0, E_x^1/2L_θ|ψθ,ii = 0, ∀i. (6) Here we use the diagonalization of the density matrix ρ_θ=P

kp_θ,k|ψ_θ,ki hψ_θ,k| (p_θ,k> 0) and

Mij = |ψθ,ii hψθ,j| Lθ− Lθ|ψθ,ii hψθ,j| . (7) The condition Eq. (6), though not explicitly spelled out in [22], is necessary in order to deal with measure- ments satisfying Tr(ρxEx) = 0 [58]. From Theorem 1, it is clear that rank-one projection onto the eigenstates of Lθ satisfiesEq. (5). As an example, we consider sensing with n-partite GHZ states

|ψθi = 1

√

2 |0^⊗ni + e^inθ|1^⊗ni
, (8) which can be viewed as the evolution of |ψini =

√1

2(|0^⊗ni + |1^⊗ni) under the Hamiltonian H =

θ 2

Pn

i=1σ^z,iafter unit time, where σ^z,iis the Pauli-Z ma- trix acting on the i-th qubit. The corresponding SLD is L_θ= n(ie^inθ|1^⊗ni h0^⊗n| − ie^−inθ|0^⊗ni h1^⊗n|), (9) whose eigenstates ^√1

2 |0^⊗ni ± ie^inθ|1^⊗ni
also satisfies Eq. (6) and therefore induce a QCRB-saturating mea- surement. Saturating the QCRB using projective mea- surements onto these maximally entangled states re- quires coupling gates between subsystems and might be challenging for practical experimental implementa- tions. Alternatively, it is well known that projection onto

|±i = ^√1

2(|0i ± |1i) of individual qubits is also QCRB- saturating [1]. However, the systematic approach to identify experimental-friendly QCRB-saturating POVM have never been discussed before.

III. LOCC PROTOCOL

For arbitrary quantum states, LOCC is not suffcient to saturate the QCRB. Consider the following two-qubit quantum state

ρθ= θρ1+ (1 − θ)ρ2, (10)

where

ρ₁=2

3|β1i hβ1| +1

3|β2i hβ2| , (11) ρ₂=1

3|β1i hβ1| +2

3|β3i hβ3| , (12) {|βii}i=1,2,3 are three of the Bell states (we don’t care about the order of the labels). The SLD operator is

L_θ= 1

1 + θ|β1i hβ1| +1

θ|β2i hβ2| + −1

(1 − θ)|β3i hβ3| , (13) whose coefficients of |β_ii hβ_i| are all different. Therefore {Mij} inEq. (5)contains terms proportional to |β_ii hβj| for all i 6= j. If there is an LOCC such that Eq. (5) is satisfied, then

E_x^1/2|βii hβj| E^1/2_x = 0, ∀i, j, x, (14) contradicting the fact that any three Bell states can- not be distinguished from each other using LOCC [51].

Therefore, LOCC cannot saturate the QCRB for ρ_θ. Now we consider LOCC as potential candidates to sat- urate the QCRB for the following two types of quan- tum states: (i) arbitrary pure states ρθ = |ψθi hψθ|, which is one of the most commonly used states in quan- tum metrology [1, 2]; and (ii) rank-two mixed states ρθ = pθ|ψ0i hψ0| + (1 − pθ) |ψ1i hψ1|, where |ψ0,1i are independent of θ, which might find applications in quan- tum thermometry [59–61]. These states only have one distinct M in Eq. (5). For type (i) states, Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)becomes

E_x^1/2M E_x^1/2= 0, ∀x, (15) and

∀x s.t. E_x^1/2|ψ_θi = 0, E_x^1/2|ψ_θ^⊥i = 0, (16) where |ψ_θ^⊥i := (1 − |ψθi hψθ|) |∂θψi and

M = |ψ_θi hψ_θ^⊥| − |ψ_θ^⊥i hψθ| (17) is a traceless anti-Hermitian matrix. For type (ii) states, we have M = |ψ₀i hψ₁| andEq. (6)is always satisfied.

In particular, for rank-one projective measurements where Ex= |Exi hEx|, Eq. (5)becomes hEx|M |Exi = 0,

∀x. Let us define M =˜

(M + i |ψθi hψθ| −_D^I

for type (i),

M for type (ii), (18)

where D is the dimension of the entire Hilbert space. For type (i) states, hEx| ˜M |Exi = 0 implies hEx|M |Exi = 0 and |hEx|ψθi|²= 1/D for all x. Eq. (15)andEq. (16)are satisfied. Thus hEx| ˜M |Exi = 0, ∀x is a sufficient condi- tion for {|Exi} to be QCRB-saturating. By constructing a LOCC measurement basis satisfying hEx| ˜M |Exi = 0,

∀x, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 2. For any multipartite state belonging to type (i) and (ii), there exists a QCRB-saturating LOCC mea- surement protocol.

In fact, the QCRB is saturable for arbitrary n when one-way classical communication is allowed, where the measurement result of subsystem sk is classically com- municated to s_k+1, . . . , s_n to assist the choice of their measurement basis. The corresponding POVM (Fig. 1c) is

Ex1,...,xn= E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s2_1,x2⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_1,...,xn, (19) where E_x^sk

1,··· ,x_k are non-negative operators in subsystem sk satisfyingP

x_kE_x^sk_{1,··· ,xk}= I^sk.

The procedure to construct a QCRB-saturating rank-one projective LOCC, where E_x^sk_1,...,xk =

|E_x^sk_1,...,xki hE_x^sk_1,...,xk|, with the structure in Eq. (19)can be summarized as follows:

(1) Calculate ˜M^s1= Trs₂···sn( ˜M ) by tracing out subsys- tems {s2, . . . , sn} in matrix ˜M ;

(2) Find an orthonormal basis |E_x^s1

1i in s1 such that hE_x^s1₁|M^s1|E_x^s1₁i = 0;

(3) Calculate ˜M_x^s2

1 = Tr_s3···sn(hE^s_x¹

1| ˜M |E_x^s1

1i);

(4) Find an orthonormal basis |E_x^s2_1,x2i in s2 such that hE_x^s2_1,x2| ˜M_x^s2₁|E_x^s2_1,x2i = 0;

(5) Repeat steps (3)-(4) for subsystems s₃,. . . ,s_n. In steps (2) and (4), we use the following lemma:

Lemma 1. Given any traceless matrix ˜M ∈ C^d×d, there exists an complete orthonormal basis {|uii}^d_i=1 in C^d such that hui| ˜M |uii = 0 for all i.

A constructive proof can be found in Appx. B. Our construction is mathematically reminiscent of the one provided in Ref. [52] where LOCC is used to distin- guish two multipartite orthogonal quantum states, but our construction does not require extending the dimen- sion of each subsystem to be a power of two. In fact, parameter estimation is closely related to state discrimination. Projective measurements {|Exi hEx|}

distinguishs two orthogonal quantum states |ψ0,1i as long as hE_x|ψ₀i hψ₁|E_xi = 0 Appx. C. It is then clear that a measurement distinguishing an orthonormal ba- sis {|ψki} is also QCRB-saturating when estimating θ in the probability coefficients for any mixed quantum states P

kpθ,k|ψki hψk| (pθ,k> 0).

InAppx. D, we provide an example of a four-qubit sys- tem with a nearest neighbour interaction Hamiltonian, where the parameter to estimated is the strength of the Hamiltonian. We use the algorithm described above to calculate the LOCC measurement basis and plot them in the Bloch spheres.

IV. LOCAL MEASUREMENTS

LM in a n-partite system {s1, . . . , sn} (Fig. 1b) has the following structure

E_x1,...,xn= E_x^s1

1⊗ E_x^s2₂⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_n, (20) where x_k is the k-th measurement result and {E_x^sk

k} is a POVM in subsystem sk. One may wonder whether LM would be sufficient to saturate the QCRB, as for GHZ states. It is not possible in general for sufficiently large n, because the number of the degrees of freedom in LM grows linearly as the number of qubits increases but that in the quantum states grows exponentially (see the detailed proof inAppx. E).

For bipartite pure states, however, the argument above does not hold and the problem should be treated care- fully. Consider |ψ_θi ∈ H1⊗ H2 where dim H₁= d₁ and dim H2= d2. Let

|ψθi =X

ij

Aij|ii |ji , |ψ^⊥_θi =X

ij

Bij|ii |ji . (21)

The orthogonality condition hψθ|ψ^⊥_θi = 0 implies Tr(A^†B) = 0. Then we have the following lemma:

Lemma 2. There exists a QCRB-saturating LM for |ψθi if and only if there are isometries U and V satisfying U U^† = I ∈ C^d1×d1 and V V^† = I ∈ C^d2×d2 such that C = U^†AV , D = U^†BV satisfying ( · means complex conjugate)

CijDij = CijDij, ∀i, j, (22) and

∀i, j, if Cij = 0, Dij= 0. (23) Proof. On one hand, given U and V satisfying Eq. (22) and Eq. (23), let U = P

i|E_i^s1i hi|, V = P

j|E_j^s2i hj|.

Then {E_i^s1 ⊗ E_j^s2 = |E_i^s1i hE_i^s1| ⊗ |E_j^s2i hE_j^s2| , ∀i, j} is a LM and the QCRB-saturating conditionsEq. (5)and Eq. (6)become

(hE^s_i¹| ⊗ hE_j^s2|) |ψ_θi hψ^⊥_θ| (|E_i^s1i ⊗ |E^s_j²i) =

(hE_i^s1| ⊗ hE_j^s2|) |ψ^⊥_θi hψθ| (|E^s_i¹i ⊗ |E_j^s2i), ∀i, j, (24) and

(hE_i^s1| ⊗ hE_j^s2|) |ψ_θ^⊥i = 0, if (hE_i^s1| ⊗ hE^s_j²|) |ψθi = 0, (25) which are equivalent to Eq. (22) and Eq. (23). Here {|E_i^s1i} and {|E_j^s2i} are not unit vectors in general.

When they are, U and V are unitary operators and give rise to a QCRB-saturating rank-one projective LM.

On the other hand, given a QCRB-saturating LM {E^s_i¹ ⊗ E_i^s2}, let E_i^s1 = P

k|E_i,k^s1i hE^s_i,k¹| and E_j^s2 = P

k|E_j,k^s2i hE_j,k^s2| where hE_i,k^s1,2|E_i,k^s1,20i = 0 if k 6= k⁰ and positive if k = k⁰. Then U = P

i,k|E_i,k^s1i hi, k| and V =P

j,k|E_j,k^s2i hj, k| satisfyEq. (22)andEq. (23).

Using Lemma 2, we make the following observations on the QCRB-saturating LM for bipartite pure states:

(a) Parameter estimation is not equivalent to orthogonal state discrimination — there exists |ψθi and |ψ_θ^⊥i such that they cannot be distinguished using LM, but there exists a QCRB-saturating LM for them. We show in Appx. Fthat

|ψθi = 1

√2(|00i+|1+i), |ψ^⊥_θi = 1

√2(|01i+|1−i) (26) is the desired example. Note that this also implies LM is not always QCRB-saturating for type (ii) bipartite states.

(b) LM is not QCRB-saturating for all bipartite pure states —Eq. (5)andEq. (6)cannot always be satisfied simultaneously. Consider a two-qubit system where A = I/2 and B = e^iπ4σx/2. Suppose Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) are both satisfied for some U and V . Then U^†(AB^† − BA^†)U and V^†(A^†B − B^†A)V are zero-diagonal (i.e. all diagonal elements are zero), which implies Re[U1iU2i] = Re[V1jV2j] = 0, ∀i, j. Without loss of generality, assume U1i, V1j ∈ R, U2i, V2j ∈ iR. Then Cij ∈ R, Dij ∈ e^i3π4 R.

Therefore Cij and Dij cannot be simultaneously non- zero. According to Eq. (23), we must have Dij = 0 for all i, j which is not possible.

(c) Eq. (5) itself can be satisfied for all A, B ∈ C^2×d, d ≥ 2. According to Lemma 1, there exists a unitary matrix U =P2

i=1|E_i^s1i hi| such that U^†(AB^†− BA^†)U is zero-diagonal. Furthermore, according to Lemma 1, there exists a unitary matrix V = Pd

j=1|E_j^s1i hj|

such that both B^†|E₁^s1i hE^s₁¹| A − A^†|E₁^s1i hE₁^s1| B and B^†|E₂^s1i hE₂^s1| A − A^†|E₂^s1i hE^s₂¹| B are zero-diagonal.

Now we have the desired U and V . In practice, one could first find U and V using this procedure and check whetherEq. (23)is also satisfied. If so, we have a QCRB- saturating LM. The U and V constructed here are both unitary and the corresponding LM is projective.

(d) Projective LM is distinct from general LM — When A, B ∈ C^3×3, an example exists where there is no QCRB-saturating projective LM, but there is a QCRB- saturating LM. So far, we have shown that projective LOCC is sufficient to saturate the QCRB for type (i) and (ii) states and projective LM is sufficient to satisfy Eq. (5)for bipartite pure states when A, B ∈ C^2×d. How- ever, when A, B ∈ C^3×3, projective LM is not as powerful as general LM. We show inAppx. Gthat

A =





√2/2 0 0

0 1/2 0

0 0 1/2



, B =





√2i/2 0 0

0 −i/2 0

0 0 −i/2



 (27) is the desired example.

To sum up, we have found a bipartite pure state where there is no QCRB-saturating LM. We also show that

the QCRB saturability problem for pure bipartite states distinguishs projective LM from general LM. However, it is not clear whether our examples could be generalized.

It is an interesting open question to classify bipartitue pure states by the existence of the QCRB-saturating LM.

V. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

We have investigated the QCRB-saturating measure- ment to maximize the sensitivity of quantum sensors.

For arbitrary pure states or rank-two mixed states with fixed eigenbasis, we have developed the QCRB- saturating LOCC protocol, feasible with many physi- cal platforms by local measurement and adaptive con- trol [44–47]. Our LOCC protocol may have applica- tions in extensive parameter estimation and calibration scenarios, including criticality-based quantum metrol- ogy [38, 62], quantum thermometry [59–61] and various other cases in many body physics [63–65].

Our LOCC sensing protocol crucially relies on the fact that two orthogonal states can be distinguished using LOCC, so that it can be QCRB-saturating for pure states or rank-two mixed states with fixed eigenbasis. In prac-

tice, the quantum states could suffer various decoher- ences and our protocol might not be able to saturate the QCRB for general mixed states or for multi-parameter sensing [66–73]. To tackle the decoherence, we may apply dynamical decoupling to suppress time-correlated noises [74–76], or introduce quantum error correction to restore unitary evolution in logical subspace even in the presence of Markovian noises [77–82]. Therefore, it will be intriguing to further investigate LOCC sensing proto- col combined with quantum error correction.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the anonymous reviewer for pointing out the loophole in Theorem 1 which is now fixed by adding Eq. (6). We thank Steven Flammia, Arpit Dua, Wen- long Ma, Shengjun Wu, Zi-wen Liu and Yau Wing Li for helpful discussions. We acknowledge support from the ARL-CDQI (W911NF-15-2-0067), ARO (W911NF-14-1- 0011, W911NF-14-1-0563), ARO MURI (W911NF-16-1- 0349 ), AFOSR MURI (FA9550-14-1-0052, FA9550-15- 1-0015), NSF (EFMA-1640959), Alfred P. Sloan Foun- dation (BR2013-049), and Packard Foundation (2013- 39273).

[1] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Re- view Letters 96, 010401 (2006).

[2] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics 5, 222 (2011).

[3] C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Review Modern Physics 89, 035002 (2017).

[4] D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Review Mod- ern Physics 90, 035006 (2018).

[5] L. Pezz`e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Review Modern Physics 90, 035005 (2018).

[6] S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018).

[7] B. Sanders and G. Milburn, Physical Review Letters 75, 2944 (1995).

[8] J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. Wineland, and D. Heinzen, Physical Review A 54, R4649 (1996).

[9] S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters 79, 3865 (1997).

[10] D. Leibfried, M. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chi- averini, W. Itano, J. Jost, C. Langer, and D. Wineland, Science 304, 1476 (2004).

[11] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004).

[12] V. Buzek, R. Derka, and S. Massar, Physical Review Letters 82, 2207 (1999).

[13] A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, and Y. Shih, Applied Physics Letters 85, 2655 (2004).

[14] M. de Burgh and S. D. Bartlett, Physical Review A 72, 042301 (2005).

[15] C. M. Caves, Physical Review D 23, 1693 (1981).

[16] B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Physical Review A 33, 4033 (1986).

[17] D. Berry and H. Wiseman, Physical Review Letters 85, 5098 (2000).

[18] B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Nature 450, 393 (2007).

[19] C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory (Academic press, 1976).

[20] C. Helstrom, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 14, 234 (1968).

[21] M. G. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 7, 125 (2009).

[22] S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Let- ters 72, 3439 (1994).

[23] H. Kobayashi, B. L. Mark, and W. Turin, Signal Pro- cessing, Queueing Theory and Mathematical Finance (2011).

[24] G. Casella and R. L. Berger, Statistical inference, Vol. 2 (Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA, 2002).

[25] E. L. Lehmann and G. Casella, Theory of point estima- tion (Springer Science & Business Media, 2006).

[26] D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Physical Review Letters 77, 2851 (1996).

[27] A. Fujiwara, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 39, 12489 (2006).

[28] O. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. Gill, Journal of Physics A:

Mathematical and General 33, 4481 (2000).

[29] M. Hayashi, Communications in Mathematical Physics 304, 689 (2011).

[30] Y. Yang, G. Chiribella, and M. Hayashi, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics 368, 223 (2019).

[31] R. D. Gill, in Quantum Stochastics and Information:

Statistics, Filtering and Control (World Scientific, 2008) pp. 239–261.

[32] L. Pezze and A. Smerzi, arXiv:1411.5164 (2014).

[33] M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, New Journal of Physics 17, 013010 (2015).

[34] W. G´orecki, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, H. M. Wiseman, and D. W. Berry, Physical Review Letters 124, 030501 (2020).

[35] N. Friis, D. Orsucci, M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, V. Dun- jko, H. J. Briegel, and W. D¨ur, New Journal of Physics 19, 063044 (2017).

[36] S. Boixo, A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, E. Bagan, and C. M. Caves, Physical Review A 77, 012317 (2008).

[37] S. Roy and S. L. Braunstein, Physical Review Letters 100, 220501 (2008).

[38] M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, Physical Review X 8, 021022 (2018).

[39] E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mancinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Communications in Mathematical Physics 328, 303 (2014).

[40] J. Cirac, A. Ekert, S. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, Phys- ical Review A 59, 4249 (1999).

[41] R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Physical Review Let- ters 86, 5188 (2001).

[42] D. P. DiVincenzo, D. W. Leung, and B. M. Terhal, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48, 580 (2002).

[43] F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters 91, 010404 (2003).

[44] N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. W. Bak- ermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Ben- jamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science 356, 928 (2017).

[45] K. S. Chou, J. Z. Blumoff, C. S. Wang, P. C. Reinhold, C. J. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. Schoelkopf, Nature 561, 368 (2018).

[46] H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017).

[47] J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017).

[48] E. Bagan, M. Baig, R. Mu˜noz-Tapia, and A. Rodriguez, Physical Review A 69, 010304 (2004).

[49] E. Bagan, M. Ballester, R. Gill, R. Mu˜noz-Tapia, and O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review Letters 97, 130501 (2006).

[50] J. Calsamiglia, J. de Vicente, R. Mu˜noz-Tapia, and E. Bagan, Physical Review Letters 105, 080504 (2010).

[51] S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, A. Sen, U. Sen, et al., Physical Review Letters 87, 277902 (2001).

[52] J. Walgate, A. J. Short, L. Hardy, and V. Vedral, Phys- ical Review Letters 85, 4972 (2000).

[53] A. Ac´ın, R. Tarrach, and G. Vidal, Physical Review A 61, 062307 (2000).

[54] E. Bagan, M. Ballester, R. Munoz-Tapia, and O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review Letters 95, 110504 (2005).

[55] R. Duan, Y. Feng, Z. Ji, and M. Ying, Physical Review Letters 98, 230502 (2007).

[56] N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, Physical Review A 84, 012304 (2011).

[57] M. Hayashi, D. Markham, M. Murao, M. Owari, and S. Virmani, Physical Review Letters 96, 040501 (2006).

[58] H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Physical Review Letters 120, 030404 (2018).

[59] A. De Pasquale, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and V. Giovan- netti, Nature Communications 7, 12782 (2016).

[60] A. Sone, Q. Zhuang, and P. Cappellaro, Physical Review A 98, 012115 (2018).

[61] A. Sone, Q. Zhuang, C. Li, Y.-X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, Physical Review A 99, 052318 (2019).

[62] L. C. Venuti and P. Zanardi, Physical Review Letters 99, 095701 (2007).

[63] D. Tamascelli, C. Benedetti, S. Olivares, and M. G.

Paris, Physical Review A 94, 042129 (2016).

[64] P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 12, 778 (2016).

[65] Y.-R. Zhang, Y. Zeng, H. Fan, J. You, and F. Nori, Physical Review Letters 120, 250501 (2018).

[66] J. Yang, S. Pang, Y. Zhou, and A. N. Jordan, Physical Review A 100, 032104 (2019).

[67] K. Matsumoto, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35, 3111 (2002).

[68] S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, Physical Review A 94, 052108 (2016).

[69] T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Physical Review Letters 116, 030801 (2016).

[70] H. Yuan, Physical Review Letters 117, 160801 (2016).

[71] T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Physical Review Letters 120, 080501 (2018).

[72] W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss-Feig, Physical Review Letters 121, 043604 (2018).

[73] K. Qian, Z. Eldredge, W. Ge, G. Pagano, C. Monroe, J. V. Porto, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. A 100, 042304 (2019).

[74] L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999).

[75] G. S. Uhrig, Physical Review Letters 98, 100504 (2007).

[76] M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature 458, 996 (2009).

[77] E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D.

Lukin, Physical Review Letters 112, 150802 (2014).

[78] W. D¨ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Froewis, and B. Kraus, Phys- ical Review Letters 112, 080801 (2014).

[79] G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, Physical Review Letters 112, 150801 (2014).

[80] S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nature Communications 9, 78 (2018).

[81] R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Physical Review X 7, 041009 (2017).

[82] F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. Muschik, Nature Communications 8, 1822 (2017).

Appendix A: The necessary and sufficient condition for QCRB-saturating POVM

In this appendix, we proveTheorem 1in the main text. The classical Fisher information F (ρθ) satisfies

F (ρθ) = X

x:Tr(Exρθ)6=0

Tr(Ex∂θρθ)
²

Tr(E_xρ_θ) = X

x:Tr(Exρθ)6=0

Re[Tr(ExLθρθ)]
² Tr(E_xρ_θ)

≤ X

x:Tr(E_xρ_θ)6=0

|Tr(ExLθρθ)|
2

Tr(Exρθ) ≤ X

x:Tr(E_xρ_θ)6=0

Tr(ExLθρθLθ)

≤ Tr(L²_θρθ) ≡ J (ρθ),

(A1)

where the first equality holds true when

Im[Tr(E_xL_θρ_θ)] = 0, for all x, (A2)

the second equality holds true when

E_x^1/2ρ^1/2_θ = λ_xE_x^1/2L_θρ^1/2_θ , λ_x∈ C, for all x, (A3) based on the use of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the third equality holds true when

∀x s.t. Tr(Exρθ) = 0, Tr(ExLθρθLθ) = 0 ⇔ E^1/2_x Lθ|ψθ,ii = 0, ∀i. (A4) For pure states,

Lθ= 2(|∂θψθi hψθ| + |ψθi h∂θψθ|), (A5)

J (ρ_θ) = 4 |h∂_θψ_θ|ψ_θi|². (A6)

and in general when ρ_θ=P

kp_θ,k|ψ_θ,ki hψ_θ,k|,

Lθ= X

j,k p_θ,j+p_θ,k6=0

2

p_θ,j+ p_θ,khψθ,j| ∂θρθ|ψθ,ki |ψθ,ji hψθ,k| , (A7)

J (ρθ) = X

j,k p_θ,j+p_θ,k6=0

2

p_θ,j+ p_θ,k|hψθ,j| ∂θρθ|ψθ,ki|². (A8)

CombiningEq. (A2)andEq. (A3), we get

E_x^1/2ρ^1/2_θ = λxE_x^1/2Lθρ^1/2_θ , λx∈ R, for all x. (A9) ThereforeEq. (A9)is a necessary and sufficient condition for a POVM {Ex} to be QCRB-saturating.

To eliminate λx inEq. (A9), one may first rewrite it via vectorization:

(E_x^1/2⊗ I)|ρ^1/2_θ ii = λx(E_x^1/2⊗ I)|Lθρ^1/2_θ ii, (A10) where |Aii =P

ijhi|A|ji |ii |ji. Note that

|vii = λ|wii, λ ∈ R. ⇐⇒ |viihhw| − |wiihhv| = 0. (A11) It means thatEq. (A10)is equivalent to

(E_x^1/2⊗ I)

|ρ^1/2_θ iihhLθρ^1/2_θ | − |Lθρ^1/2_θ iihhρ^1/2_θ |

(E_x^1/2⊗ I) = 0. (A12)

Assuming ρθ=P

kpθ,k|ψθ,ki hψθ,k| (pθ,k> 0),Eq. (A9)is simplified to

E^1/2_x MijE_x^1/2= 0, ∀i, j, x. (A13)

where Mij = |ψθ,ii hψθ,j| Lθ− Lθ|ψθ,ii hψθ,j|. In particular, for rank-one projective measurements {Ex= |Exi hEx|}, Eq. (A9)becomes

hEx| Mij|Exi = 0, ∀i, j, x. (A14)

When ρ_θ= |ψ_θi hψ_θ| is pure and p₀= 1, the necessary and sufficient conditon becomes

E_x^1/2M00E_x^1/2= 0, ∀x, (A15)

where M00= |ψθi hψθ| Lθ− Lθ|ψθi hψθ|.

When ρθ = pθ|ψ0i hψ0| + (1 − pθ) |ψ1i hψ1| where |ψ0,1i is independent of θ, the necessary and sufficient condition becomes

E_x^1/2|ψ0i hψ1| E_x^1/2= 0, ∀x, (A16)

because M00= M11= 0 and M01= −M₁₀^† = −_p ^∂θpθ

θ(1−p_θ)|ψ0i hψ1|.

Appendix B: QCRB-saturating LOCC

We first proveLemma 1which will become quite useful in constructing QCRB-saturating LOCC:

Proof. We only need to prove any two traceless Hermitian matrices M1 and M2 can be simultaneously zero- diagonalized. We first consider the case where d = 2, i.e. M1 and M2 are 2-by-2 traceless Hermitian matrices.

Let

Mk=

 ak bke^iφk bke^−iφk −ak



, (B1)

k = 1, 2, and

U =

 cos β − sin βe^iα sin βe^−iα cos β



. (B2)

Then U^†M_kU has zero diagonal elements is equivalent to

ak(cos²β − sin²β) = −2bkcos β sin β cos(α − φk) (B3)

⇐⇒ cot 2β = −bk

ak

cos(α − φk), k = 1, 2. (B4)

It can be solved by first finding α satisfying b1a2cos(α − φ1) = b2a1cos(α − φ2) and then solving β using the equation above. For higher dimension,Lemma 1can be proven by induction. Suppose Lemma 1holds for d ≤ ¯d. Then when d = ¯d + 1, we only need to find some |vi such that hv|M1|vi = hv|M2|vi = 0. The rest follows by the induction assumption by simultaneouly diagonalizing M₁ and M₂ in the ¯d dimensional orthogonal subspace perpendicular to

|vi. Now we prove the existence of |vi. Without loss of generality (WLOG), we assume M16= 0 is diagonal,

M1=Λ1 0 0 Λ2



, (B5)

where we divide the Hilbert space into the direct sum of two subspaces and put M₁ in a block-diagonal form such that Λ1 0 and Λ2≺ 0. Meanwhile,

M₂=Σ1 B B^† Σ2



. (B6)

We can always rescale M2such that one of the following situations occurs:

(a) Tr(Λ1) = Tr(Σ1) > 0 and Tr(Λ2) = Tr(Σ2) < 0. Then by the induction assumption, there are |v1i and |v2i, s.t.

hv1|Λ1|v1i = hv1|Σ1|v1i > 0, (B7) hv2|Λ2|v2i = hv2|Σ2|v2i < 0. (B8) Let |vi = cos β |v1⊕ 0i + sin βe^−iα|0 ⊕ v2i, we have

hv|M1|vi = cos²β hv₁|Λ1|v1i + sin²β hv₂|Λ2|v2i , (B9) hv|M2|vi = cos²β hv1|Σ1|v1i + sin²β hv2|Σ2|v2i + 2 cos β sin βRe[e^−iαhv1| B |v2i]. (B10) Clearly, there is a solution (α, β), s.t. hv|M₁|vi = hv|M₂|vi = 0.

(b) Tr(Σ1) = Tr(Σ2) = 0. Then by the induction assumption, there are |v1i and |v2i, s.t.

hv₁|Λ₁|v₁i > 0, hv₁|Σ₁|v₁i = 0, (B11) hv2|Λ2|v2i < 0, hv2|Σ2|v2i = 0. (B12) Let |vi = cos β |v₁⊕ 0i + sin βe^−iα|0 ⊕ v2i, we have

hv|M₁|vi = cos²β hv₁|Λ₁|v₁i + sin²β hv₂|Λ₂|v₂i , (B13) hv|M2|vi = 2 cos β sin βRe[e^−iαhv1| B |v2i]. (B14) Clearly, there is a solution (α, β), s.t. hv|M1|vi = hv|M2|vi = 0.

Lemma 1is then proved.

To find the QCRB-saturating LOCC inTheorem 2, we only need to find an orthonormal basis which has the structure E_x1,...,xn= E_x^s1

1⊗ E_x^s2

1,x₂⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn

1,...,x_n and satisfy hE_x1,...,xn| ˜M |E_x1,...,xni = 0 as well. It can be constructed by the following procedure:

(1) Find an orthonormal basis {|E_x^s1₁i}_x^{dim s}₁₌₁¹ which zero-diagonalizes ˜M^s1 = Trs₂···s_n( ˜M ), i.e. hE_x^s1₁| ˜M^s1|E_x^s1₁i = 0 for all x1.

(2) Find an orthonormal basis {|E_x^s2_1,x2i}^{dim s}_x ²

2=1 which zero-diagonalizes ˜M_x^s₁²= Trs₃···snhE_x^s1₁| ˜M |E^s_x¹₁i.

(3) Find an orthonormal basis {|E_x^sk

1,...,x_ki}^{dim s}_x ^k

k=1 which zero-diagonalizes

M˜_x^sk_1,...,xk−1 = Trs_k+1···s_nhE^s_x^k−1_1,...,xk−1| · · · hE^s_x1¹| ˜M |E_x^s₁¹i · · · |E_x^sk−1_1,...,xk−1i (B15) till k = n.

Then one can easily verify

E_x1,...,xn = E_x^s1

1⊗ E_x^s2_1,x2⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_1,...,xn (B16) is QCRB-saturating, where

E_x^sk_1,...,xk= |E_x^sk_1,...,xki hE^s_x^k_1,...,xk| . (B17) Note that the proof of Lemma 1 is constructive. It means the QCRB-saturating LOCC can be calculated directly from matrix ˜M .

Appendix C: Distinguishing two orthogonal quantum states

In Ref. [52], the distinguishability of two multipartite orthogonal states {|ψ0,1i} via LOCC is shown by writing them as

|ψ0i = X

(x₁,...,x_n)∈s₀

α_x1,...,xn|x1i · · · |xni_x

1,...,x_n−1, (C1)

|ψ1i = X

(x₁,...,x_n)∈s₁

αx₁,...,x_n|x1i · · · |xni_x

1,...,x_n−1, (C2)

where xk∈ [dim(sk)], s0∩ s1= ∅, αx₁,...,x_n are probability amplitudes and hxk|x⁰_ki_x

1,...,x_k−1 = δx_k,x⁰_k. As we can see, it is equivalent to the QCRB-saturating condition for rank-two mixed states with fixed eigenbasis |ψ_0,1i,

hEx|ψ0i hψ1|Exi = 0, for all |Exi . (C3) The LOCC measurement basis |Exi corresponds to |x1i |x2i_x

1· · · |xni_x

1,...,x_n−1.

Appendix D: An example of the LOCC protocol

Here we demonstrate our LOCC protocol by considering an open boundary Hamiltonian in a four-qubit system

H = θ

3

X

i=1

σ^x,siσ^x,si+1, (D1)

where σ^x,i is the Pauli-X matrix acting on the i-th qubit and a Dicke state input

|ψini = 1

2(|1000i + |0100i + |0010i + |0001i). (D2)

The parameter we want to estimate is the Hamiltonian strength θ which is encoded in |ψθi through |ψθi = e^−iH|ψini after unit time evolution. Numerical search suggests that there is no QCRB-saturating LM and LOCC is necessary.

As shown inFig. 2, we demonstrate our LOCC protocol by directly calculating a set of QCRB-saturating LOCCs for θ ∈ [0,^π₄]. The tree structure illustrates the choice of measurement basis for qubit s_k dependent on the results from {s1, . . . , s_k−1} via classical communitation. Note that the LOCC protocol illustrated inFig. 2is not unique and there could be other LOCCs that are also QCRB-saturating due to remaining degrees of freedom.

0 1

0

0

0

0 0 0

1 1 1 1

1 1

𝜃 = 0 𝜃 =𝜋

4

FIG. 2. Plotting the LOCC measurement basis for each qubit on a Bloch sphere in a four-qubit system described byEq. (D1) and Eq. (D2). The eigenstates of Pauli matrices |0, 1i, |±i and |L, Ri = ^|0i±i|1i√

2 are labeled on the Bloch sphere. Columns from top to bottom each represent measurement on qubit s1, s2, s3, s4 and arrows represent how the measurement basis should be chosen based on previous measurement results x = 0, 1. The measurement basis is represented by a point on the surface of the Bloch sphere which corresponds to x = 0. The color indicates the value of Hamiltonian strength θ ∈ [0,^π₄]. Note that the measurement on first qubit does not change with time because M^s1 = Trs2...s4(M ) and Trs2...s4(|ψθi hψθ| − ₁₆¹I) are always proportional to σz.

Appendix E: LM is not sufficient to saturate the QCRB for multipartite systems

Here we want to show LM is not sufficient to saturate the QCRB for sufficiently large n in general sensing scenarios, where n is the number of subsystems. Consider Hilbert space H^⊗nwhere dim H = d. For type (i) or (ii) states, let

Ex₁,...,x_n= E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s2₂⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_n, (E1)

be a QCRB-saturating local measurement satisfying

(E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s2₂⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_n)M (E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s2₂⊗ · · · ⊗ E_x^sn_n) = 0, ∀(x1, . . . , xn) ∈ [r1] × · · · × [rn]. (E2) where [r] = {1, 2, . . . , r}. Let {|E_x^sj

j,i_ji}i_j be a basis of the support of E^sx^j_j. ThenEq. (E2)implies

Tr M (F₁^s1⊗ · · · ⊗ F_n^sn)
= 0, (E3)

for all Hermitian F_i^si ∈ span{|E_x^si

i,j_ii hE_x^si

i,j_i| , ∀xi, ji}.

We first consider type (i) states, then if we define |ψ^⊥_θi = (1 − |ψθi hψθ|) |∂θψi,

M = |ψθi hψ^⊥_θ| − |ψ^⊥_θi hψθ| . (E4)

Suppose H^⊗n= H1⊗ H2 where H1= H^⊗mwith m ≤ n/2. Then the reduce matrix Mr= TrH₂(M ) after tracing out H2could be an arbitrary traceless anti-Hermitian matrix (up a real factor) by choosing

|ψθi = 1

√ d^m

d^m

X

i=1

|ii_H

1|ii_H

2, (E5)

|ψ^⊥_θi = 1 pTr(−M_r²)

d^m

X

i,j=1

Mr,ij|ii_H

1|ji_H

2. (E6)

According toEq. (E3), M_r has to satisfy

Tr M_r(F₁^s1⊗ · · · ⊗ F_m^sn)
= 0, (E7) for all Hermitian F_i^si ∈ span{|E_x^si

i,j_ii hE_x^si

i,j_i| , ∀x_i, j_i}. There must exists a (not necessarily orthonormal) basis {|e^s_i^ki}^d_i=1 for each k such that

 ^m O

k=1

he^s_k^k

i|

 Mr

 ^m O

k=1

|e^s_i^k

ki



= 0, ∀ik= 1, 2, . . . , d. (E8)

Note that the degree of freedom of an arbitrary traceless anti-Hermitian matrix Mr is d^2m− 1. But the degree of freedom for matrices satisfyingEq. (E8)is at most d^2m− d^m+ md⁴ which is smaller than d^2m for large enough m.

Here d^mis the minimum number of equations of constraints inEq. (E8)and md⁴is the local freedoms in choosing the basis. ThereforeEq. (E8) could not be satisfied for arbitrary M_r, implying thatEq. (E3) could not be satisfied for all possible M . For type (ii) states, the same argument holds if we replace |ψθi and |ψ^⊥_θi above with |ψ0i and |ψ1i.

Appendix F:Eq. (26)cannot be distinguished using LM

Consider a two-qubit system. Here we show that

|ψ_θi = 1

√2(|00i + |1+i), |ψ_θ^⊥i = 1

√2(|01i + |1−i) (F1)

cannot be distinguished using LM, i.e. there is no LM {E^s_x¹

1⊗ E_x^s2₂} such that

hψθ| E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s₂²|ψθi · hψ_θ^⊥| E_x^s1₁⊗ E_x^s2₂|ψ^⊥_θi = 0, ∀x1, x₂. (F2) Choose |φ₁i and |φ₂i in the support of some E_x^s1

1 and E^s_x²

2 respectively. Then

hψθ|φ1⊗ φ2i hφ1⊗ φ2|ψ_θ^⊥i = 0. (F3) Since the identity operator I is in the span of all |φ2i hφ2|, we must have

hψθ|φ1i hφ1|ψ_θ^⊥i = 0. (F4)