Download the full version of the article (PDF) Open Access
Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, 10, 68-Desantnykiv Str., UA-54009 Mykolaiv, Ukraine

Quantum Fisher Information Tensor and Diagnostic Metrics for Qubit Architectures: Towards Informational Nanotechnologies at the Nanoscale

17–31 (2026)

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Yz, 03.67.-a, 03.67.Lx, 73.21.La, 85.25.Am, 85.35.Be

Quantum computing is increasingly regarded as a part of information nanotechnology, where reliable diagnostics under realistic noise conditions are crucial. Depolarization channels are commonly used as a fundamental model of quantum noise, but systematic diagnostic frameworks are still underdeveloped. We introduce a structured approach as to computational methods for depolarization channels, establish formal criteria such as metric reliability, and develop diagnostic maps and quantum Fisher information (QFI) tensors. Symbolic modelling of density matrices under noise allows for the analytical calculation of QFI components, revealing the isotropy and degeneracy of tensors at the critical point of Bloch-sphere collapse. Comparing quantum metrics, including purity, entropy, accuracy, Bloch norm, and Bloch-angle deviation (BAD), uncovers different sensitivities. Notably, purity and entropy reach their extremes with minimal uncertainty, while the Bloch norm and BAD quickly detect orientation loss and the inversion of the Bloch vector. The classification of subcritical Bloch-sphere compression, critical collapse, and supercritical inversion is validated, with BAD serving as an operational boundary marker. Potential applications include reliability testing in quantum processors, decoherence diagnostics in nanoscale devices, and benchmarking quantum gates. In Ukraine, this work is among the first systematic studies of a depolarizing quantum-noise channel, enhancing national expertise in diagnostic tools for quantum nanotechnology.

KEY WORDS: quantum nanotechnology, depolarization channel, quantum Fisher information, Bloch-sphere collapse, diagnostic metrics, Bloch-angle deviation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/nnn.24.01.0017

Citation:
G. P. Chuiko, Y. S. Darnapuk, and P. K. Kravchenko, Quantum Fisher Information Tensor and Diagnostic Metrics for Qubit Architectures: Towards Informational Nanotechnologies at the Nanoscale, Nanosistemi, Nanomateriali, Nanotehnologii, 24, No. 1: 17–31 (2026); https://doi.org/10.15407/nnn.24.01.0017
REFERENCES
  1. M. Nayak and S. K. Moharana, NanoMind: Exploring Synergies in Nanotechnology and Machine Learning, 27: 197 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77296-2_9
  2. Q. Dai, C.-Y. Lu, and Z. Sun, Nanoscale, 15, Iss. 26: 10858 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1039/D3NR90099A
  3. Talha Nadeem, Tariq Rafique, Waseem Khan, Sahadat Khandakar, Ahmad Alkhayyat, Mahesh Lohith K S, Zemate Achraf Abdelghafour, and Sedra Moulay Brahim, Nanotechnology Perceptions, 20: Iss. 15: 248 (2024); https://doi.org/10.62441/nano-ntp.vi.3463
  4. M. Urbanek, B. Nachman, V. R. Pascuzzi, A. He, C. W. Bauer, and W. A. de Jong. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, Iss. 27: 270502 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.270502
  5. B. Khanal and P. Rivas, Mathematics, 12, Iss. 9: 1385 (2024); https://doi.org/10.3390/math12091385
  6. A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, Iss. 2: 025005 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025005
  7. A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan. Phys. Rev. Lett, 130, Iss. 26: 267001 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.267001
  8. E. Martinez, A. deMarti iOlius, and P. M. Crespo, Phys. Rev. A, 108, Iss. 3: 032602 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.032602
  9. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett, 72, Iss. 22: 3439 (1994); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439
  10. G. Wójtowicz, S. F. Huelga, M. M. Rams, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A, 112, Iss. 5: 052410 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1103/xjln-7ddy
  11. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge Univ. Press: 2010).
  12. P. Denes and C. G. Ghinea, Quantum Probability and Related Topics. Proceedings of the 30th Conference (23–28 November, 2009) (Eds. Rolando Rebolledo and Miguel Orszag) (Santiago, Chile: 2011), p. 261–281; https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814338745_0015
  13. M. Yu, D. Li, J. Wang, Y. Chu, P. Yang, M. Gong, N. Goldman, and J. Cai, Phys. Rev. Research, 3, Iss. 4: 043122 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043122
  14. M. Hayashi and Y. Ouyang, Quantum, 9: 1806 (2025); https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-07-22-1806
  15. J. R. Hervas, A. Z. Goldberg, A. S. Sanz, Z. Hradil, J. Reh áč ek, and L. L. S á nchez-Soto, Phys. Rev. Lett, 134, Iss. 1: 010804 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.010804
  16. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53: 023001 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d
  17. F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. A. C. Rossi, and D. Tomaselli, Quantum, 2: 110 (2018); https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-12-03-110
  18. S. Daffer, K. Wódkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. McIver, Phys. Rev. A, 70, Iss. 1: 010304R (2004); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.010304
  19. A. O. T. Pang, N. Lupu-Gladstein, H. Ferretti, Y. B. Yilmaz, A. Brodutch, and A. M. Steinberg, Quantum, 7: 1125 (2023); https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-10-03-1125
  20. A. Abu-Nada, S. Banerjee, and A. Sabale, Phys. Rev. A, 110, Iss. 5: 052209 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052209
  21. T. Patro, K. Mukherjee, and N. Ganguly, Quantum Inf. Process., 23: 228 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-024-04439-1
  22. B. Khanal and P. Rivas, Mathematics, 12, Iss. 9: 1385 (2024); https://doi.org/10.3390/math12091385
  23. C. K. Burrell, Phys. Rev. A, 80, Iss. 4: 042330 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042330