Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Improving the dynamics of quantum sensors with reinforcement learning

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that reinforcement-learning-optimized nonlinear kick sequences on a generalized kicked top can outperform both no-control and periodic chaotic kicks for quantum sensing under superradiant damping.

desk verdict A useful and clearly written RL control study with a plausible qualitative payoff, but the headline sensitivity gains rest on an internally inconsistent periodic-kick baseline and on best-of-sample episodes, so the magnitudes need referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08416 v2 pith:Y7UE4G5T submitted 2019-08-22 quant-ph cs.LG

Jonas Schuff , Lukas J. Fiderer , Daniel Braun This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG
keywords quantummetrologyFisherinformationkickedtopreinforcementlearningcross-entropymethodsuperradiantdampingphasespinsqueezing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to prove that a quantum sensor based on precession dynamics can be made more sensitive by treating the nonlinear control kicks as learned decisions rather than fixed periodic pulses, and it demonstrates this on a generalized kicked top. Using the cross-entropy reinforcement-learning method to choose each kick's strength and timing, the authors report a quantum Fisher information at the optimized final time that exceeds both the maximum of the unkicked top and the plateau of the periodically kicked top under superradiant damping. In some examples the improvement in sensitivity, $1/\sqrt{I_\omega}$, is more than an order of magnitude. Visualizing the state shows the learned policy works by repeatedly refreshing a spin-squeezed distribution, adapted to the damping, instead of squeezing only once at the start. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a concrete route to extracting more precision from existing spin-precession magnetometers without changing the easy-to-prepare initial state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized kicked top, a spin-$j$ system with Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{KT}(t)=\omega J_z + [J_y^2/(2j+1)]\sum_\ell \kappa_\ell \tau \delta(t-t_\ell)$, where the first term is the Larmor precession encoding the unknown frequency $\omega$ and each $\delta$-kick is a torsion about $y$ with strength $k_\ell=\kappa_\ell\tau$. The control problem is discretized into two actions, increase the current kick strength or advance in time, and a neural network is trained with the cross-entropy method to maximize the QFI at a final time $T_\mathrm{opt}$. The workhorse in the simulation is the propagator $\rho(t_\ell)=U_\omega(k_\ell)[D(t_\ell-t_{\ell-1})\rho(t_{\ell-1})]U_\omega(k_\ell)^\dagger$, with $D$ the superradiant or phase-damping Lindblad propagator; this equation generates the rewards used for training and the QFI values reported.

What would settle it

Take the learned kick sequence for $j=2$, $\gamma_\mathrm{sr}=0.01$ and simulate it with finite pulse duration or with a small shift of the Larmor frequency during each kick; if the QFI advantage over the periodically kicked top is lost under either modification, the claim rests on the idealized instantaneous, parameter-independent kick assumption. In an experiment, comparing the measured sensitivity of the RL sequence with the predicted $1/\sqrt{I_\omega}$ under the same decoherence model would settle transferability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that offline optimization of kicking strengths and times, rather than periodic kicks with fixed strength, turns the dissipative kicked top into a better sensor. For superradiant damping, the RL-optimized generalized kicked top reaches a quantum Fisher information at time $T_\mathrm{opt}$ that exceeds both the maximum QFI of the unkicked top and the plateau QFI of the periodically kicked top; the authors report sensitivity gains of more than an order of magnitude for $j=3$, $\gamma_\mathrm{sr}=0.01$. The mechanism, read off from Wigner distributions, is a spin-squeezing strategy: the learned kicks keep the state squeezed along the precession direction and re-squeeze it in roughly periodic cycles, counteracting the relaxation to the ground state that would otherwise erase information about the frequency $\omega$. The paper also shows improvements under phase damping, though smaller.

Load-bearing premise

The optimized kick sequences are trained on a simulated master equation that assumes Markovian noise, instantaneous parameter-independent kicks, and a known decoherence model; if the real sensor has non-Markovian noise or the kicks shift the estimated frequency, the learned policies may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, an atomic spin-precession magnetometer can improve sensitivity by more than an order of magnitude by adding optimized off-resonant light kicks while keeping an easy-to-prepare coherent spin state.
  • The learned strategy constitutes a form of continuous, damping-adapted spin squeezing, suggesting that spin squeezing need not be limited to state preparation but can be maintained throughout the measurement.
  • The optimized kick sequences remain roughly periodic with a period corresponding to a $\pi$ precession, so the control may be implementable with standard pulse hardware rather than continuous arbitrary waveforms.
  • For phase damping the method still yields QFI improvements over the unkicked top, but substantially smaller than for superradiant damping, so the expected benefit depends on the decoherence model.
  • The QFI gains arise while using the same classical initial state as a standard sensor, so the improvement is attributed to the control dynamics rather than to more elaborate state preparation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cross-entropy setup could be tested on other nonlinear control axes, such as $J_x^2$ kicks, or on collective spin ensembles, where the squeezing interpretation may carry over.
  • A natural extension is to combine the learned open-loop kick sequences with measurement-based feedback, since the policy is learned offline but the environment is deterministic in this setting.
  • A direct experimental check would compare the learned policy against a periodically kicked top on the same apparatus while deliberately varying pulse duration, revealing whether the instantaneous-kick assumption is the limiting factor.
  • For non-Markovian noise, retraining on a noise-characterized simulation or on experimental trajectories would be needed; the paper's Markovian assumption is a scope condition, not a demonstrated limitation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using cross-entropy reinforcement learning to optimize the kicking strengths and kicking times of a generalized kicked top in order to maximize the quantum Fisher information at a fixed final time in local parameter estimation. The dynamics are modeled with either phase damping or superradiant damping, and the control consists of instantaneous nonlinear kicks about the y-axis, while the estimated parameter enters through Larmor precession. The authors compare the RL-optimized protocol against the unkicked top and against the periodically kicked top of Ref. [33]. For superradiant damping they report examples in which the QFI of the optimized protocol continues to grow after the unkicked top has decohered and the periodically kicked top has reached a plateau, leading in some cases to sensitivity improvements (1/sqrt(QFI)) of more than an order of magnitude. Wigner-function and classical phase-space visualizations identify the optimized strategy as a spin-squeezing-like state that is refreshed periodically to counteract superradiant damping. Appendices provide training hyperparameters, pseudocode, learning curves, and classical equations of motion.

Significance. If the quantitative comparison is settled, the paper makes a useful contribution to quantum metrology: it shows that a simple, generic RL method can discover non-periodic control protocols that outperform periodic quantum-chaotic sensing in the presence of Markovian dissipation, and it interprets the discovered mechanism. The manuscript is unusually transparent about training details and includes a stability analysis of the learning algorithm, which is a strength. The main caveats are that the headline gain is defined against a periodic baseline whose kicking strength appears to be inconsistent with the value quoted for Ref. [33], and that the reported gains are based on the best sampled episode rather than on typical performance with error bars. Both points need to be resolved before the central claim can be considered quantitatively established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III and Section V / Figs. 3 and 5] Section III states that Ref. [33] investigated the kicked top in the transition regime with k=3 and omega=pi/2, but Section V and the captions of Figs. 3 and 5 use k=30 and describe this value as 'chosen as in Ref. [33]'. Since the central claim is an improvement in sensitivity over the quantum-chaotic sensor of Ref. [33], the comparison must use the actual prior-art protocol. Please reconcile the two values, update the text and captions, and recompute the Gamma_plateau ratios and the reported sensitivity gains against the correct baseline (k=3, or an explicitly justified value). The omission of j=3 from Fig. 5(b) because the periodic plateau is 'very low' makes the size of the claimed advantage particularly sensitive to the baseline choice; please also quote numerical QFI values for the j=3 example so that the 'more than an order of magnitude' improvement can be checked.
  2. [Section IV.C, Table I, Fig. 5] Section IV.C selects, after training, 'a few episodes' from each trained agent and keeps the episode with the largest QFI as the reported policy; Table I lists nsamples=20 for Fig. 5. The gains plotted in Fig. 5 are therefore best-of-sample quantities, not the mean performance of the learned policy, and they are shown without error bars. Appendix D reports a mean and standard deviation of the reward for one hyperparameter set, but it does not cover the quantities displayed in Fig. 5. Please report the median and spread of the gain over the sampled episodes (or equivalent confidence information) and state whether the >10x sensitivity improvement survives for typical, not best, sampled policies. This is needed to rule out selection bias as the source of the headline improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) as printed contains an apparent typo: the denominator should be (p_l + p_m), not (p_l + p_m)^2, and the stray 'd' should be removed. If the formula in the PDF is correct, please clarify; otherwise it is inconsistent with the standard QFI expression.
  2. [Section V] The statement that |r|=1 due to conservation of angular momentum is not correct as a general statement for dissipative states of a fixed-j spin, since expectation values can shrink. Please rephrase, for example as the phase-space constraint in the classical limit.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 9] The red vertical lines indicating kicks are described as having heights in arbitrary units and not on the left-axis scale, which makes the actual kicking strengths hard to read. Please provide a scale or a table of the kick sequences for the examples.
  4. [Section III / Section VI] The optimized policies are obtained for Markovian dampers and instantaneous, parameter-independent kicks. A short discussion of robustness to non-Markovian noise or to a kick-induced shift of the estimated frequency would strengthen the experimental relevance of the proposed approach.
  5. [Section VI and Table I] The claim in Section VI that no hyperparameter tuning was necessary is not fully supported by Table I, which lists several training parameters that vary across figures. Please clarify which choices were routine or robust and whether any systematic exploration was performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the RL optimization target is the reported QFI, but that is an explicit optimization objective rather than a recycled prediction, and the baselines are independently computed.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a numerical optimization demonstration, not a derivation from first principles. The RL agent's reward is explicitly the QFI at Topt (Sec. IV.B: 'reward: QFI (only at the end)'), and the reported policy is selected as the episode with largest QFI (Sec. IV.C), so reporting the QFI at Topt is transparently reporting the optimized objective, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The comparisons are against the top without kicks and the periodically kicked top, which are external baselines recomputed from the same master equation; the RL policy is not fitted to those baseline values, and the gain ratios are post-hoc evaluations. The only self-citations are Refs. [33,34], used to motivate the quantum-chaotic sensor and to define the periodic-kick baseline; Ref. [33] is a published prior protocol whose QFI behavior is recomputed here, so the citation is independent support and not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. A separate factual inconsistency exists in the baseline description (Sec. III attributes k=3 to Ref. [33], while Sec. V uses k=30), but this is a correctness/external-validity concern about the comparison, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are controller discretization and training choices; no physical constants or couplings are fitted to data. The central numerical claim rests on the standard open-systems model of the kicked top.

free parameters (4)
  • time discretization step tstep = 0.1, 0.2, or 1.0 depending on example
    Chosen by hand for each example; controls the granularity of kick timing and thus the achievable policies.
  • kicking strength discretization kstep = 0.05 or 0.10
    Chosen by hand; controls granularity of kick strengths and affects how finely the agent can shape the dynamics.
  • optimization horizon Topt = 50 or 100
    The time at which QFI or rescaled QFI is maximized; results are reported at this time.
  • RL training hyperparameters = niterations 300 to 1000, nepisodes 40 to 100, learning rate 0.001, hidden units 300
    Algorithm settings chosen by hand; Appendix D shows stability with respect to some of them.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The quantum Cramer-Rao bound and the QFI formula (Eqs. 1-2) give the ultimate measurement precision.
    Standard quantum estimation theory, cited [35-38].
  • domain assumption The kicked-top Hamiltonian with instantaneous delta-kicks (Eq. 3) captures the physics of a spin-precession magnetometer with off-resonant light-kick control.
    The model is taken from prior work [33]; the experimental implementation is assumed.
  • domain assumption The decoherence is Markovian and described by the Lindblad generators (7) for phase damping and (8) for superradiant damping, with constant rates gamma_pd and gamma_sr.
    Standard open-quantum-system models [42-45]; if the real environment is non-Markovian, the optimized policies may not be valid.
  • domain assumption The dissipator commutes with the precession about the z-axis, so the combined propagator factorizes as in Eq. (10).
    Used to compose kicks and damping; stated in Section III as 'in both cases the dissipative generator Lambda commutes with the precession'.
  • domain assumption The initial state is an SU(2) coherent state with theta = pi/2, phi = pi/2, which is a classical-like and experimentally preparable state.
    The initial state choice is stated in Section III; the results are tailored to this state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving the dynamics of quantum sensors with reinforcement learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7UE4G5T

@misc{pith2026190808416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving the dynamics of quantum sensors with reinforcement learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7UE4G5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08416}
}
read the original abstract

Recently proposed quantum-chaotic sensors achieve quantum enhancements in measurement precision by applying nonlinear control pulses to the dynamics of the quantum sensor while using classical initial states that are easy to prepare. Here, we use the cross-entropy method of reinforcement learning to optimize the strength and position of control pulses. Compared to the quantum-chaotic sensors with periodic control pulses in the presence of superradiant damping, we find that decoherence can be fought even better and measurement precision can be enhanced further by optimizing the control. In some examples, we find enhancements in sensitivity by more than an order of magnitude. By visualizing the evolution of the quantum state, the mechanism exploited by the reinforcement learning method is identified as a kind of spin-squeezing strategy that is adapted to the superradiant damping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of parameter encoding in quantum metrology. Panel (a) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Typical setup of reinforcement learning: the RL agent acts upon the environment which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Examples for the policy adopted by the RL agent for superradiant damping. We plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of kicked superradiant dynamics with Wigner functions and its classical limit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Improvement in the quantum Fisher information due to reinforcement learning for superra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Examples for the policy adopted by the RL agent for maximizing the rescaled quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Examples for the strategy adopted by the RL agent for phase damping. All data is for spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Learning behavior of the algorithm at the example of superradiant damping with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Kicks set by the RL agent for the SR-GKT. Panel (a) shows the case for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Shows the corresponding data as in Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    L. J. Fiderer and D. Braun, Nature communications 9, 1351 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective (MIT press, 2012)

    2012

  3. [2]

    Dunjko and H

    V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  4. [3]

    Mehta, M

    P. Mehta, M. Bukov, C.-H. Wang, A. G. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, Physics Reports 810, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Carrasquilla and R

    J. Carrasquilla and R. G. Melko, Nature Physics 13, 431 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    Broecker, F

    P. Broecker, F. F. Assaad, and S. Trebst, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00663 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    E. P. Van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H. Liu, and S. D. Huber, Nature Physics 13, 435 (2017)

    2017

  8. [7]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Science 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Carleo, Y

    G. Carleo, Y. Nomura, and M. Imada, Nature communications 9, 5322 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Gao and L.-M

    X. Gao and L.-M. Duan, Nature communications 8, 662 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    J. R. Leigh, Control theory, Vol. 64 (London: Institution of Electrical Engineers, 2004)

    2004

  4. [11]

    L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. W. Moore, Journal of artificial intelligence research 4, 237 (1996)

    1996

  5. [12]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement learning: An introduction (MIT press, 2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    R. S. Sutton, A. G. Barto, and R. J. Williams, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 12, 19 (1992)

    1992

  7. [14]

    C. Chen, D. Dong, H.-X. Li, J. Chu, and T.-J. Tarn, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 25, 920 (2013)

    2013

  8. [15]

    Palittapongarnpim, P

    P. Palittapongarnpim, P. Wittek, E. Zahedinejad, S. Vedaie, and B. C. Sanders, Neurocom- puting 268, 116 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    F¨ osel, P

    T. F¨ osel, P. Tighineanu, T. Weiss, and F. Marquardt, Physical Review X 8, 031084 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Bukov, A

    M. Bukov, A. G. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Physical Review X 8, 031086 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Albarr´ an-Arriagada, J

    F. Albarr´ an-Arriagada, J. C. Retamal, E. Solano, and L. Lamata, Physical Review A 98, 042315 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    M. Y. Niu, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and H. Neven, npj Quantum Information 5, 33 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    A. A. Melnikov, H. P. Nautrup, M. Krenn, V. Dunjko, M. Tiersch, A. Zeilinger, and H. J. Briegel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 1221 (2018). 28

    2018

  14. [21]

    Sweke, M

    R. Sweke, M. S. Kesselring, E. P. van Nieuwenburg, and J. Eisert, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.07207 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Andreasson, J

    P. Andreasson, J. Johansson, S. Liljestrand, and M. Granath, Quantum 3, 183 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Hentschel and B

    A. Hentschel and B. C. Sanders, in 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (IEEE, 2010) pp. 506–511

    2010

  17. [24]

    Hentschel and B

    A. Hentschel and B. C. Sanders, Physical review letters 107, 233601 (2011)

    2011

  18. [25]

    N. B. Lovett, C. Crosnier, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and B. C. Sanders, Physical review letters 110, 220501 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    Sergeevich and S

    A. Sergeevich and S. D. Bartlett, in 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE,

    2012

  20. [27]

    M. P. Stenberg, O. K¨ ohn, and F. K. Wilhelm, Physical Review A 93, 012122 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Palittapongarnpim, P

    P. Palittapongarnpim, P. Wittek, and B. C. Sanders, in 24th European Symposium on Arti- ficial Neural Networks, Bruges, April 27–29, 2016 (2016) pp. 327–332

    2016

  22. [29]

    Lumino, E

    A. Lumino, E. Polino, A. S. Rab, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, N. Wiebe, and F. Sciarrino, Physical Review Applied 10, 044033 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Liu and H

    J. Liu and H. Yuan, Physical Review A 96, 012117 (2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    Liu and H

    J. Liu and H. Yuan, Physical Review A 96, 042114 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    H. Xu, J. Li, L. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Yuan, and X. Wang, npj Quantum Information 5, 82 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    L. J. Fiderer and D. Braun, in Optical, Opto-Atomic, and Entanglement-Enhanced Precision Metrology, Vol. 10934 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2019) p. 109342S

    2019

  27. [35]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory (Academic press, 1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspect of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1982)

    1982

  29. [37]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Information 7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Peres, Quantum theory: concepts and methods , Vol

    A. Peres, Quantum theory: concepts and methods , Vol. 57 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    Chaudhury, A

    S. Chaudhury, A. Smith, B. Anderson, S. Ghose, and P. S. Jessen, Nature 461, 768 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Krithika, V

    V. Krithika, V. Anjusha, U. T. Bhosale, and T. Mahesh, Physical Review E 99, 032219 (2019). 29

    2019

  34. [42]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  35. [43]

    Gross, C

    M. Gross, C. Fabre, P. Pillet, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1035 (1976)

    1976

  36. [44]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Rep. 93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  37. [45]

    Braun, Dissipative Quantum Chaos and Decoherence , Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol

    D. Braun, Dissipative Quantum Chaos and Decoherence , Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 172 (Springer, 2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Kossakowski, Rep

    A. Kossakowski, Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 247 (1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Lindblad, Math

    G. Lindblad, Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  40. [48]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Physical Review A 4, 302 (1971)

    1971

  41. [49]

    P. A. Braun, D. Braun, and F. Haake, Eur. Phys. J. D 3, 1 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    P. A. Braun, D. Braun, F. Haake, and J. Weber, Eur. Phys. J. D 2, 165 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    Giraud, P

    O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042112 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Giraud, P

    O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, New Journal of Physics 12, 063005 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    De Boer, D

    P.-T. De Boer, D. P. Kroese, S. Mannor, and R. Y. Rubinstein, Annals of operations research 134, 19 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. S. Agarwal, Quantum optics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    M. A. Nielsen, Neural networks and deep learning , Vol. 2018 (Determination press San Fran- cisco, CA, USA:, 2015). 30

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.