Relationship between costs for quantum error mitigation and non-Markovian measures

Hideaki Hakoshima; Suguru Endo; Yuichiro Matsuzaki

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 48 references

Relationship between costs for quantum error mitigation and non-Markovian measures

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QEM cost for non-Markovian noise follows an exact exponential relation, C(T)=exp[2(D-F)].

desk verdict First real connection between QEM sampling cost and non-Markovianity measures, with a qualitatively right insight but a normalization bug and a factor-of-two sloppiness that need fixing before the quantitative relation is cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.12759 v2 pith:GCBBCNCJ submitted 2020-09-27 quant-ph

Hideaki Hakoshima , Yuichiro Matsuzaki , Suguru Endo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881S22 PACS 03.65.Yz03.67.-a

keywords quantumerrormitigationnon-MarkovianityQEMcostdecayratemeasureCPdivisibilitytime-localmasterequationstochasticRHP

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 establishes that for quantum error mitigation (QEM) via stochastic recovery operations, the sampling overhead C(T) is governed by the decay rates γ_k(t) of the time-local master equation: C(T)=exp[Σ_k ∫_0^T (|γ_k(t)|+γ_k(t)) dt]. When the noise is non-Markovian, some decay rates are negative, and every negative interval subtracts from the overhead; in intervals where all decay rates are negative, C(T) does not grow at all. The subtracted amount is exactly the decay-rate measure of non-Markovianity F(T,0), giving C(T)=exp[2(D(T,0)-F(T,0))], so the cost falls exponentially with the degree of non-Markovianity. The authors illustrate this with two physical models, a coupled two-qubit system and a qubit dispersively coupled to a lossy resonator, where γ(t) oscillates negative and the QEM cost plateaus through those regions. This matters because realistic solid-state devices host non-Markovian environments, so Markovian-only cost estimates are pessimistic and engineered non-Markovianity could lower mitigation costs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-local master equation with possibly negative decay rates, dρ/dt = -i[H,ρ] + Σ_k γ_k(t)(L_k ρ L_k† - ½{L_k† L_k, ρ}), whose sign of γ_k(t) decides Markovian versus non-Markovian dynamics. For orthogonal operators such as Pauli products, the optimal recovery operation at each time step is built from the sign of each γ_k, and the instantaneous overhead factor c(t)=1+(|γ_k(t)|+γ_k(t))δt accumulates into the exponential cost. The non-Markovian measure F(t',t)=Σ_k ∫$_t^{{t'}}$ (|γ_k(s)|-γ_k(s))/2 ds acts as a cost refund subtracted from the Markovian exponent D(t',t)=Σ_k ∫$_t^{{t'}}$ |γ_k(s)| ds. The diagonalization of the process matrix M(t) in the operator basis is what lets the authors derive the general cost formula Eq. (16) and reduce it to Eq. (17) in the orthogonal case.

What would settle it

Perform process tomography on a qubit undergoing the dispersive-resonator dephasing of the appendix, extract γ(t) by inverting the dynamical map, then implement stochastic QEM with recovery pulses and compare the observed sampling overhead with exp[Σ_k ∫_0^T(|γ_k(t)|+γ_k(t))dt]. If the overhead fails to plateau through γ(t)<0 intervals, or if process tomography on the recovery-inserted dynamics shows different decay rates, the central formula is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the cost of perfectly mitigating non-Markovian noise with stochastic QEM is not a monotone function of noise strength: for orthogonal noise operators it is exactly C(T)=exp[Σ_k ∫_0^T(|γ_k(t)|+γ_k(t))dt]. Equivalently, defining D as the exponent one would pay if the same decay rates were all positive (the Markovian cost) and F as the decay-rate non-Markovian measure, the overhead is exp[2(D-F)]. Non-Markovian information backflow directly refunds sampling cost, and fully negative-decay intervals are free to mitigate. The paper generalizes this to non-orthogonal operators through diagonalization of the process matrix M(t), giving C(T)=exp[∫(-q_0(t)+Σ_{l≥1}|q_l(t)|)dt], and checks the formula on two exactly solvable models.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that inserting recovery operations does not change the time-local master equation's form or its decay rates; if those operations modify γ_k(t), the computed cost C(T) may not describe the actual mitigated circuit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the same instantaneous decay strength |γ_k(t)|, non-Markovian noise is strictly cheaper to mitigate than Markovian noise; the saving is exactly exp(2F(T,0)).
In any time interval where every decay rate is negative, the QEM sampling cost C(T) is constant; cost accumulates only where some γ_k(t)>0.
The two worked models, a coupled two-qubit system and a dispersive qubit-resonator system, show the effect appears with experimentally realistic parameters, not only in abstract examples.
Because F(T,0) is proportional to the RHP measure, the paper ties a practical resource, sampling overhead, to an established measure of non-Markovianity.
Engineered non-Markovian environments could be used deliberately to reduce QEM cost; this differs from dynamical decoupling because QEM recovers expectation values, not the quantum state itself.

Reading between the lines

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

If recovery operations do alter the master equation, the paper's formula serves as a baseline; a testable extension is to derive a dressed cost from the modified decay rates and compare with process-tomography data.
The exponential link between a resource measure (non-Markovianity) and a practical cost suggests a resource-theoretic reading: F is a quantity that lowers the sampling complexity of noise cancellation.
For non-orthogonal noise operators, the general formula Eq. (16) implies the same qualitative effect, namely negative eigenvalues q_l(t) of the process matrix should reduce cost, though the paper does not prove this case.
One could engineer γ(t) to spend more time negative, for example by tuning χ/κ in the dispersive-resonator model, and directly observe the predicted cost plateau as an experimental validation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. This is the first paper I know to connect the stochastic QEM sampling overhead to the standard decay-rate/RHP measure of non-Markovianity, and the qualitative punchline is right: when all decay rates are negative, the cost integrand vanishes, so the sampling overhead does not grow during those intervals. The second thing is that the exact formulas are not reliable as written. Eq. (11) uses 1/d^2 in the basis expansion of L_k, but with Tr[G_i G_j] = d δ_ij the coefficient should be 1/d. The error propagates into Eq. (12) and undermines the stated eigenvalue identification q_k = γ_k. The paper also slides between the physical γ(t) in the examples and the canonical γ_k in Eq. (9), which differ by a factor of two in the dephasing model.

What is actually new and good: the formal connection between the cost exponent and the measure F, and the observation that negative decay-rate intervals contribute zero to the cost, are not in the cited literature. The two physical examples are well chosen and the numerical figures make the message concrete. The cost formula is derived from the stochastic QEM construction and the definition of F; there is no circularity and no fitted parameter. The reader's worry about circularity does not land.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the general derivation of Eq. (17) is compromised by the normalization error: as printed, the matrix M in Eq. (12) is not correctly connected to the expansion of L_k, so the step q_k = γ_k is an assertion rather than a proven result. Second, the factor-of-two issue is real but slightly different from the stress-test note. Eq. (18) and Eq. (22) are actually consistent if D and F are evaluated with the canonical decay rate γ/2; both give exp∫(|γ|+γ)/2. What is wrong is the sentence after Eq. (22) claiming that the negative area of γ(t) equals the non-Markovian measure F. With the canonical rate that area is twice F. Third, the whole analysis assumes recovery operations do not alter the time-local master equation; the paper only justifies this when the recovery operations commute with H and the noise and can be postponed, so for general noncommuting operations the relation is a conjecture.

Who should read it: people working on QEM for realistic solid-state devices, and people who care about operational meanings of non-Markovianity measures. It deserves a serious referee, and with revision the quantitative claims could be made solid. I would not cite the exact Eq. (18) as it stands, but I would cite the qualitative result and the examples.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates how non-Markovian noise affects the sampling cost of stochastic quantum error mitigation (QEM). For dynamics described by a time-local master equation with time-dependent decay rates γ_k(t), it claims a general relation between the QEM cost C(T) and the decay-rate measure of non-Markovianity F: C(T) = exp[2(D(T,0) - F(T,0))], where D is the integrated absolute decay rate. The relation is derived from a process-matrix expansion of the decoherence operators, and it is tested on two dephasing models: a two-qubit NMR-inspired system and a qubit dispersively coupled to a lossy resonator. The paper concludes that negative decay rates, which signal non-Markovianity, reduce the QEM cost and that the cost does not increase in time intervals where all decay rates are negative.

Significance. If established, the claimed relation would provide a quantitative bridge between QEM overhead and non-Markovianity, which is practically relevant for solid-state qubit devices. The qualitative direction of the result is plausible and the recovery operation constructed in the dephasing example of Sec. IV C is consistent with the correct dephasing cost. However, the central formula is not currently reliably derived because of normalization inconsistencies in the operator expansion and in the definition of γ_k between the general formalism and the worked examples. The exact factor in the exponent of the central claim is therefore unsupported as written, although the qualitative effect may survive a corrected derivation.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV A, Eq. (11)] The expansion coefficient in Eq. (11) is incorrect for the stated orthonormality Tr[G_i G_j] = d δ_ij. The correct expansion is A = Σ_i (Tr[A G_i]/d) G_i, so the coefficient should be 1/d, not 1/d^2. This error propagates to Eq. (12), where the coefficient 1/d^4 should be 1/d^2, and invalidates the subsequent identification q_k = γ_k after Eq. (13). Concretely, for the single-qubit dephasing example with L=Z and d=2, the paper's Eq. (12) gives M_ZZ = γ/4 and the proposed u_Z = 1/2 does not yield the eigenvalue γ; the derivation of Eq. (17) from Eq. (12) therefore does not hold as written.
[Sec. IV B/C, Eqs. (17), (18), (22)] The definition of γ is not used consistently between the general formulas and the dephasing example. In Eq. (20), the dephasing term is (γ/2)(ZρZ - ρ). If the γ in Eq. (18) is this γ(t), then Eq. (18) predicts C(T) = exp[∫_0^T (|γ|+γ) dt], which is twice the cost in Eq. (22). If γ is instead interpreted as the canonical decay rate of Eq. (9) (i.e., γ/2), then the non-Markovian measure F in Eq. (10) is half the negative area of γ(t), contradicting the statement in Sec. IV C that the negative area equals F. The normalization of L_k and γ_k must be specified consistently so that Eqs. (17), (18), and (22) are mutually compatible.
[Sec. IV A, assumption before Eq. (11)] The derivation of the general cost formula assumes that recovery operations do not change the form of the time-local master equation, Eq. (9). This assumption is essential to the central claim, but it is only justified in Sec. IV C for the special case where recovery operations commute with both the Hamiltonian and the noise operators and can be postponed to the end. The general statement of Eq. (18) should either be restricted to this commuting class or accompanied by a proof that stochastic recovery operations can be implemented without altering the decay rates or the canonical form of the master equation.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. IV C, text after Fig. 1] The sentence "the area of its region is equivalent to the non-Markovian measure in Eq. (10)" is imprecise; please give the exact equality (e.g., F = ∫_{γ<0} (-γ_k) dt) under a clearly specified normalization of γ_k.
[Fig. 1 caption] The vertical lines in Fig. 1 are not labeled in the legend; please state explicitly that they denote the times at which γ(t) = 0.
[General notation] The symbol d is used both for the Hilbert-space dimension and in the summation limits of the operator expansion; consider defining d = 2^N once and using it consistently throughout Sec. IV.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Eq. (18) restates Eq. (17) by the definition of the non-Markovian measure; the core cost derivation is self-contained.

self definitional [Sec. IV B, Eq. (18)]
"By using D(t′,t ) and F (t′,t ), we can rewrite the QEM cost as C(T ) = exp [ 2 ( D(T, 0)−F (T, 0) ) ]. From this equation, we can understand that as the amount of non-Markovianity in Eq. (10) increases, the QEM cost is reduced."

With D = Σ_k∫|γ_k|ds and F = Σ_k∫(|γ_k|−γ_k)/2 ds (Eq. 10), the claimed exponent is 2(D−F) = Σ_k∫(|γ_k|+γ_k)ds, which is exactly the exponent in the cost formula already derived in Eq. (17). Thus Eq. (18) is an algebraic rearrangement of Eq. (17) using the definition of F, not an independently predicted relationship. The dependence of the QEM cost on the non-Markovian measure is built into how F is defined from the same decay rates γ_k, so the advertised relation carries no content beyond Eq. (17). The nontrivial derivation is in Eq. (17); this is a mild definitional circularity rather than a fitted-parameter or self-citation problem.

full rationale

The main derivation is not circular: Eqs. (11)–(16) compute the QEM cost from the time-local master equation (9) and the stochastic QEM construction, with no fitted parameters and no use of Eq. (18) in obtaining Eq. (17). Self-citations to prior stochastic-QEM work are ordinary prior work and do not force the conclusion. The explicit assumption in Sec. IV A that recovery operations do not change Eq. (9) is a scope limitation, not a circular dependency, and the detailed example is restricted to the commuting case where the assumption is argued to hold. The only advertised relationship that reduces by construction is Eq. (18), which is an algebraic identity once D and F are defined from the same γ_k; hence the score is low rather than zero. Any normalization or factor-of-two concern between the general formula and the worked examples is a correctness or bookkeeping matter, not an additional circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the stochastic QEM protocol, the time-local master equation with negative decay rates, the assumption that recovery operations leave the master equation unchanged, and a Pauli-type normalization for the decoherence operators. No free parameters are fitted to data; example parameters come from experimental models. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The time-local master equation Eq. (9) with possibly negative decay rates gamma_k(t) describes the non-Markovian dynamics.
Invoked in Sec. III A with Ref. [37]; requires the inverse of the dynamical map to exist.
ad hoc to paper Recovery operations do not change the form of the time-local master equation.
Stated before Eq. (11) in Sec. IV A; load-bearing for Eq. (16) and the general cost formula.
ad hoc to paper Decoherence operators satisfy Lk†Lk = LkLk† = I for the simple relation Eq. (17).
Assumed in Sec. IV B to diagonalize M and obtain q_k = gamma_k; restricts the main relation to Pauli-type noise, as acknowledged in Sec. V.
domain assumption The stochastic QEM protocol from Ref. [13] can be applied to time-dependent non-Markovian channels, with recovery operations realized by single-qubit operations and classical postprocessing.
The entire derivation of Sec. II relies on this protocol; the paper does not prove it anew.
standard math The Pauli basis expansion Eq. (11) with the stated orthonormality Tr[GiGj] = d*delta_ij is valid.
Standard process-matrix expansion, though the coefficient 1/d^2 in Eq. (11) appears inconsistent with the orthonormality, which requires 1/d.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relationship between costs for quantum error mitigation and non-Markovian measures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCBBCNCJ

@misc{pith2026200912759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relationship between costs for quantum error mitigation and non-Markovian measures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCBBCNCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.12759}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum error mitigation (QEM) has been proposed as an alternative method of quantum error correction to compensate errors in quantum systems without qubit overhead. While Markovian gate errors on digital quantum computers have been mainly considered previously, it is indispensable to discuss a relationship between QEM and non-Markovian errors because non-Markovian noise effects inevitably exist in most of the solid-state systems. In this work, we investigate the QEM for non-Markovian noise, and show that there is a clear relationship between costs for QEM and non-Markovian measures. As examples, we show several non-Markovian noise models to bridge a gap between our theoretical framework and concrete physical systems. This discovery may help in designing better QEM strategies for realistic quantum devices with non-Markovian environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.12759 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) The decay rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online) The QEM cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum computation and quantum information,

M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” (2002)

2002
[2]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

2014
[3]

A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Physical re- view letters 103, 150502 (2009)

2009
[4]

Hauke, F

P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 082401 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

Bylander, S

J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Physics 7, 565 (2011)

2011
[6]

Reiner, F

J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Sch¨ on, and M. Marthaler, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 035005 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature 566, 51 (2019)

2019
[8]

Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

2018

Show all 48 references

[9]

Temme, S

K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical review letters 119, 180509 (2017). 7 |α 2 =1,χ/κ=3 |α 2 =1/4,χ/κ=12 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 κt γ(κt) FIG. 2. (Color online) The decay rate γ(κt) in Eq. (A6) at κt. We choose the parameters as |α|2 = 1,...

2017
[10]

S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Physical Review X 8, 031027 (2018)

2018
[11]

Li and S

Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X 7, 021050 (2017)

2017
[12]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 015003 (2020)

2020
[13]

J. Sun, X. Yuan, T. Tsunoda, V. Vedral, S. C. Bejamin, and S. Endo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04891 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[14]

S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 032001 (2021)

2021
[15]

Yoshihara, K

F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Physical review letters 97, 167001 (2006)

2006
[16]

Kakuyanagi, T

K. Kakuyanagi, T. Meno, S. Saito, H. Nakano, K. Semba, H. Takayanagi, F. Deppe, and A. Shnirman, Physical review letters 98, 047004 (2007)

2007
[17]

Bar-Gill, L

N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, A. Jarmola, D. Budker, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature communications 4, 1 (2013)

2013
[18]

De Lange, Z

G. De Lange, Z. Wang, D. Riste, V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Science 330, 60 (2010)

2010
[19]

Kawakami, P

E. Kawakami, P. Scarlino, D. R. Ward, F. Braakman, D. Savage, M. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. Vandersypen, Nature nanotech- nology 9, 666 (2014)

2014
[20]

Watson, S

T. Watson, S. Philips, E. Kawakami, D. Ward, P. Scar- lino, M. Veldhorst, D. Savage, M. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. Coppersmith, et al. , Nature 555, 633 (2018)

2018
[21]

Rivas, S

A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 094001 (2014)

2014
[22]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 021002 (2016)

2016
[23]

Breuer, F

H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, et al. , The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002)

2002
[24]

M. M. Wolf and J. I. Cirac, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics 279, 147 (2008)

2008
[25]

Rivas, S

´A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters 105, 050403 (2010)

2010
[26]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Physical review letters 103, 210401 (2009)

2009
[27]

Misra and E

B. Misra and E. G. Sudarshan, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18, 756 (1977)

1977
[28]

W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A 41, 2295 (1990)

1990
[29]

Viola and S

L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Physical Review A 58, 2733 (1998)

1998
[30]

Haikka, J

P. Haikka, J. Goold, S. McEndoo, F. Plastina, and S. Maniscalco, Physical Review A 85, 060101 (2012)

2012
[31]

Vasile, S

R. Vasile, S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Maniscalco, Physical Review A 83, 042321 (2011)

2011
[32]

Haikka, T

P. Haikka, T. Johnson, and S. Maniscalco, Physical Re- view A 87, 010103 (2013)

2013
[33]

ˇZnidariˇ c, C

M. ˇZnidariˇ c, C. Pineda, and I. Garcia-Mata, Physical review letters 107, 080404 (2011)

2011
[34]

Wakakuwa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07248 (2017)

E. Wakakuwa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07248 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[35]

Matsuzaki, S

Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, Phys- ical Review A 84, 012103 (2011)

2011
[36]

A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters 109, 233601 (2012)

2012
[37]

M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Physical Review A 89, 042120 (2014)

2014
[38]

Binho, Y

L. Binho, Y. Matsuzaki, M. Matsuzaki, Y. Kondo, et al., New Journal of Physics 21, 093008 (2019)

2019
[39]

Kukita, Y

S. Kukita, Y. Kondo, and M. Nakahara, New Journal of Physics 22, 103048 (2020)

2020
[40]

Govenius, Y

J. Govenius, Y. Matsuzaki, I. G. Savenko, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Physical Review A92, 042305 (2015)

2015
[41]

Blais, R.-S

A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraﬀ, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A 69, 062320 (2004)

2004
[42]

Bertet, I

P. Bertet, I. Chiorescu, G. Burkard, K. Semba, C. J. P. M. Harmans, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. E. Mooij, Physical review letters 95, 257002 (2005)

2005
[43]

de Vega and D

I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015001 (2017)

2017
[44]

Choi, Linear algebra and its applications 10, 285 (1975)

M.-D. Choi, Linear algebra and its applications 10, 285 (1975)

1975
[45]

Jamio lkowski, Reports on Mathematical Physics 3, 275 (1972)

A. Jamio lkowski, Reports on Mathematical Physics 3, 275 (1972)

1972
[46]

Greenbaum, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02921 (2015)

D. Greenbaum, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02921 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[47]

D. F. Urrego, J. Fl´ orez, J. c. v. Svozil´ ık, M. Nu˜ nez, and A. Valencia, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053862 (2018)

2018
[48]

Valente, M

D. Valente, M. F. Z. Arruda, and T. Werlang, Opt. Lett. 41, 3126 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum computation and quantum information,

M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” (2002)

2002

[2] [2]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Physical re- view letters 103, 150502 (2009)

2009

[4] [4]

Hauke, F

P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 082401 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Bylander, S

J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Physics 7, 565 (2011)

2011

[6] [6]

Reiner, F

J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Sch¨ on, and M. Marthaler, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 035005 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature 566, 51 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

2018