Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 126 references

Disorder-averaged Qudit Dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Disorder-averaged quantum dynamics is exactly solvable for periodic-matrix Hamiltonians

desk verdict Genuinely useful exact disorder-averaged maps for spin-1 and non-Hermitian qutrit dynamics, but the 'mean-zero' scope is overstated; the math is right for symmetric distributions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17519 v1 pith:GYVRUK3Q submitted 2024-12-23 quant-ph

Gopal Chandra Santra , Philipp Hauke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords disorderaveragingperiodicmatrices(qp)-potentHamiltoniansquditdynamicsnon-Markovianityquantumdynamicalmapsnon-Hermitiansystemsdecoherencefunctions
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 claims that the disorder-averaged time evolution of a quantum state can be written in closed form for every Hamiltonian whose matrix is periodic, meaning $\hat{H}^p \propto \hat{H}^q$ for integers $p > q$. For three potency classes, $p=2,q=0$, $p=3,q=0$, and $p=3,q=1$, the authors derive explicit formulas, Eqs. (13), (21), and (26), that are independent of the initial state, exact for arbitrary times, and valid for Hermitian and non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. All information about the disorder is packed into a few time-dependent functions, typically the Fourier transform of the disorder distribution, so the expensive sampling over realizations is replaced by an analytic expression. The averaged dynamics resembles an open quantum system, and whether it is Markovian or non-Markovian is controlled by the disorder distribution: Gaussian disorder gives monotone decay, while uniform disorder produces revivals in purity, trace distance, and logarithmic negativity. This offers an analytic handle on noise and gate-error modelling for qubit and qudit systems built from Pauli, clock, and spin-1 operators.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Hamiltonian matrix with period and base, also called $(q,p)$-potent: $\hat{H}^p = h^{p-q}\hat{H}^q$ with $p>q$, so only finitely many distinct powers of $\hat{H}$ appear in the evolution. The calculation uses superoperator vectorization, mapping $\hat{A}\hat{\rho}\hat{B}$ to $(B^T\otimes A)\vec{\rho}$, to separate the initial state from the Hamiltonian, a double-series expansion of $e^{-i\hat{H}t}\hat{\rho}(0)e^{i\hat{H}^\dagger t}$, and the vanishing of odd disorder moments to truncate the sums. The resulting finite linear combination is organized around decoherence functions such as $G(t)=\mathbb{E}[e^{-2iht}]$, the characteristic function of the disorder distribution at time $2t$; these functions carry the entire effect of the disorder and determine the emergent decay rates.

What would settle it

Take a zero-mean but asymmetric disorder distribution, such as a mixture of two Gaussians with opposite means and unequal widths, and compare direct numerical averaging of $\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma_z \rho(t)]$ for $H=h(\sigma_x+\sigma_y+\sigma_z)/\sqrt{3}$ with the closed-form prediction $(1+2G(t))/3$ from Eq. (14); the first correction scales as $\mathbb{E}[h^3] t^3 / 3$, so a nonzero skewness produces a visible deviation at short times.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that periodic-matrix structure, not detailed spectral data, is what makes disorder averaging tractable. Given $\hat{H}=h\tilde{H}$ with $\tilde{H}^p\propto\tilde{H}^q$, vectorizing the density matrix and expanding both exponentials turns the disorder average into sums over disorder moments times finitely many superoperators built from powers of $\tilde{H}$. The paper obtains explicit dynamical maps $\Lambda_t$: Eq. (13) for $p=2,q=0$, Eq. (21) for $p=3,q=0$ with Gaussian disorder, and Eq. (26) for $p=3,q=1$, with time-dependent coefficients $G(t)$, $G_1(t)$, $G_2(t)$, $G_3(t)$, and $G'(t)$ fixed by the disorder distribution. The same map can be inverted to give a time-local master equation whose jump operator is $\tilde{H}$ and whose decay rate is $\gamma(t)=-\partial_t G(t)/(2G(t))$. When $G(t)$ changes sign, the decay rate is negative and the witnesses revive, so the paper concludes that disorder distributions themselves select between Markovian and non-Markovian effective dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes every odd disorder moment $\mathbb{E}[h^{2m+1}]$ vanishes; the paper obtains this from mean-zero disorder in Sec. III A, but a zero-mean distribution can still have non-zero third and higher odd moments, so the closed forms as written need a distribution that is symmetric about zero, such as Gaussian or a symmetric uniform interval.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Hamiltonian in one of the solved potency classes, the disorder-averaged density matrix at arbitrarily long times is known analytically, so no converged numerical sampling is needed; the paper shows even $10^7$ samples can leave visible deviations in simple qutrit dynamics.
  • When the dynamical map is invertible, a time-local master equation follows, with jump operator fixed by the periodic Hamiltonian and a decay rate set by the disorder distribution, matching earlier master-equation results for qubits.
  • The effective dynamics can be engineered by choosing the disorder distribution: Gaussian-like disorder gives Markovian monotone decay, while bounded uniform disorder gives periodic revivals, i.e., non-Markovianity whose revival rate is controlled by the disorder width.
  • The $(p,q)$-potency condition covers tensor products of Pauli matrices and clock operators, so the exact formulas apply directly to multi-qubit gates, qutrit clock Hamiltonians, and spin-1 qutrit representations, giving analytic noise-channel descriptions such as a dephasing channel with probability $p_d=(1-G(t))/2$.
  • Because the averaged state is known exactly, the same formulas can be used to test how different qudit representations respond to identical disorder, which is relevant to choosing robust qudit encodings for quantum-information processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's closed forms require every odd disorder moment to vanish, a practical extension is to keep the disorder distribution symmetric about zero; a merely zero-mean skewed distribution will introduce additional terms proportional to $\mathbb{E}[h^3]$ and higher odd moments, beyond the displayed equations.
  • Since $G(t)$ is the characteristic function of the disorder, the formulas suggest an inverse-problem route: a measured decoherence curve $G(t)$ could be used to infer the underlying disorder distribution, which the paper notes could aid reverse-engineering noise in hardware.
  • The same superoperator series should extend to higher potencies such as $p=4,q=0$ or $p=3,q=2$; the sums would then organize by generalized characteristic functions and likely involve hypergeometric-type functions, analogous to the uniform-disorder qutrit case the paper left as an unwieldy formula.
  • The formalism treats Hermitian and non-Hermitian Hamiltonians on equal footing, so it could be used to compare how different qudit representations, such as clock $\mathbb{Z}_3$ versus spin-1 SU(2), respond to identical disorder, which the paper begins but does not fully exploit as a resource-allocation criterion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic framework for computing disorder-averaged density-matrix evolution for Hamiltonians obeying H^p ∝ H^q. Using a superoperator expansion, the disorder average is expressed in terms of a few time-dependent functions determined by the probability distribution of the random field. Explicit closed forms are derived for (p=2,q=0) involutory Hamiltonians, (p=3,q=0) clock-operator qutrits, and (p=3,q=1) spin-1 Hamiltonians, with Gaussian and uniform disorder. The paper also derives master equations, evaluates non-Markovianity witnesses, and compares the analytic predictions with numerical averaging, demonstrating that the latter can require more than 10^7 samples.

Significance. If the stated scope were valid, the paper would supply an exact and computationally convenient tool for analytically averaging over disorder in a ubiquitous class of periodic Hamiltonians. The separation of the disorder distribution's effect into characteristic functions (G(t), G'(t), G1-3) is elegant and is supported by numerical checks for the symmetric Gaussian and uniform distributions. The connection between the disorder distribution and non-Markovianity is a useful qualitative insight. Nevertheless, the advertised validity for arbitrary mean-zero disorder is too broad and must be corrected.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (13), Appendices B-D] The statement that a mean-zero distribution implies E[h^{2m+1}]=0 for all m is false; zero mean only fixes E[h]=0. For instance, P(h=1)=1/4 and P(h=-1/3)=3/4 has zero mean but E[h^3]=2/9. Since the derivations explicitly discard all odd powers of h (e.g., the I⊗H and H*⊗I terms in the p=2 case), the closed forms (13), (21), and (26) are exact only when all odd moments vanish, i.e., for distributions symmetric about zero (or with vanishing odd moments). The abstract and introduction's claim of validity for "any unbiased disorder distribution (mean zero)" is therefore not correct. Please restrict the scope to symmetric distributions or explicitly state the vanishing odd-moment requirement.
  2. [Eq. (22) and Table II] The explicit expression for the qutrit magnetization does not satisfy the initial condition: at t=0, G1=3 and G2=G3=0, so the right-hand side of Eq. (22) equals 18/16 ≈ 1.125, whereas the initial state |S_z,+1> must give Tr(S_z ρ)/Tr(ρ)=1. In addition, the definitions of G1(t), G2(t), G3(t) in Table II contain positive exponents e^{3/2 σ² t²}, etc., which appear to be inconsistent with the derivation in Appendix C that leads to exponentials of -σ² t²/2. Since these functions are central to the case-II results, please verify the coefficients and signs in Eq. (22) and Table II against the derivation in Appendix C.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (17)] The text states that the non-Markovian witnesses can be expressed "starting from any initial state," but the purity formula Tr(ρ^2)=1/3(2+G^2(t)) is valid only for the specific initial state |↑> (as indicated in Table IV). For a generic qubit state the purity depends on the initial Bloch vector, so the phrase "any initial state" is misleading and should be replaced by a clear specification of the initial states used.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (18)] The qudit dimension is denoted both n and d in the same paragraph (e.g., "ω≡ e2πi/n" and "σn = τn = 1" vs. "d > 2"); please use a single symbol for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 4] The caption of Fig. 1 reports numerical averaging over 10^3 instances, while Fig. 4 uses up to 10^7 instances. Please unify the notation and explicitly state the sample size used for each panel.
  4. [General] There are several typographical issues, including "e ffect" (missing space), "Mølmer—Sørensen" (should be "Mølmer–Sørensen"), and inconsistent subscripts in Table II. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the closed-form maps are derived directly from the Hamiltonian periodicity and the disorder distribution's moments, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the exact expansion in Eq. (5), the paper uses only the periodicity condition H^p = h^{p-q} H^q to reduce the infinite sum to a finite operator set, and then performs the disorder average using the moments of the specified distribution. The decoherence functions G(t), G'(t), G1(t), G2(t), and G3(t) are explicitly computed as characteristic functions or Gaussian-moment sums in Tables I and II; they are not fitted to the target observables. Equations (13), (21), and (26) are therefore constructed from the stated Hamiltonian and distribution, not from the quantities they later predict. The numerical comparisons (e.g., Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) are external validation, and the agreement with Ref. [31] is an independent cross-check rather than a load-bearing citation. The only notable internal problem is a scope misstatement in Section III A: 'We only consider mean-zero disorder distributions. As a consequence, E[h^{2m+1}] = 0' is logically false, since a zero-mean distribution can have nonzero odd moments. The algebra in Appendices B-D genuinely requires all odd moments to vanish, which holds for the symmetric Gaussian and uniform distributions used in the explicit examples but not for all mean-zero distributions. This is a correctness and scope flaw in the advertised generalization, not a circularity: the derived equations do not assume their own conclusions, and the worked symmetric-distribution results are unaffected. No step reduces by construction to its input, so no circularity is found.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new physical entities. The disorder distributions (Gaussian, uniform) are inputs, and the time-dependent decoherence functions are derived from their moments. All other assumptions are standard mathematical tools or clearly stated domain restrictions.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Superoperator vectorization and binomial series expansion of the evolution superoperator.
    Used in Appendix A to derive Eq. (5), separating the initial state from the Hamiltonian terms.
  • domain assumption The disorder enters as a single scalar h multiplying a fixed periodic matrix, H = h * H_tilde, with H_tilde^p proportional to H_tilde^q.
    The entire derivation collapses the powers of H using this periodicity; multiple independent disorder parameters are not covered.
  • domain assumption The disorder distribution has vanishing odd moments: E[h^(2m+1)] = 0.
    Section III A assumes this to drop odd powers of h. It is stronger than the stated mean-zero condition and requires a symmetric distribution.
  • domain assumption The initial state is not disordered (independent of h).
    Footnote 63 says the derivation can be extended to correlated disorder, but the main results assume disorder-free initial states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disorder-averaged Qudit Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYVRUK3Q

@misc{pith2026241217519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disorder-averaged Qudit Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYVRUK3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17519}
}
abstract

Understanding how physical systems are influenced by disorder is a fundamental challenge in quantum science. Addressing its effects often involves numerical averaging over a large number of samples, and it is not always easy to gain an analytical handle on exploring the effect of disorder. In this work, we derive exact solutions for disorder-averaged dynamics generated by any Hamiltonian that is a periodic matrix (potentially with non-trivial base, a property also called ($p,q$)-potency). Notably, this approach is independent of the initial state, exact for arbitrary evolution times, and it holds for Hermitian as well as non-Hermitian systems. The ensemble behavior resembles that of an open quantum system, whose decoherence function or rates are determined by the disorder distribution and the periodicity of the Hamiltonian. Depending on the underlying distribution, the dynamics can display non-Markovian characteristics detectable through non-Markovian witnesses. We illustrate the scheme for qubit and qudit systems described by (products of) spin $1/2$, spin $1$, and clock operators. Our methodology offers a framework to leverage disorder-averaged exact dynamics for a range of applications in quantum-information processing and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) An initial state ρ(0) is evolved under an ensemble of disordered Hamiltonians with a finite period (H p ∝ H q , q < p). Each instance is generated from a closed-system time evolution, with disorder hi chosen from an arbitrary disorder distribution P(h). The disorder averaging induces the effective dynamics of ˜ρ(t) defined by the dynamical map ΛH,P(h) , which is determined by the period of the Hamiltonian and th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Exact formulas for the purity of the disorder-averaged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) The magnetization of the disorder-averaged qutrit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of purity and trace distance of the disorder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For con- creteness, in what follows, we choose without the re- striction of generality⃗n = (1, 1, 1)/ √ 3

    A single spin S = 1/2 or qubit, ˆH1 = h⃗n·⃗σ, (11) where ⃗n is a three-dimensional unit vector and ⃗σ = (σx,σ y,σ z) is the vector of Pauli matrices. For con- creteness, in what follows, we choose without the re- striction of generality⃗n = (1, 1, 1)/ √ 3

  2. [2]

    Many-body tensor products of Pauli matrices ˆHN = h NO i=1 ( ˆH1i/h) ; (12)

  3. [3]

    1 + e−2σ2t2 # and ∞X n=1 1 n! −σ2t2 2 !n 22n 2 = 1 2

    Tensor products of σα at different positions, Pα, where σα ={I,σ x,σ y,σ z}. For example,σx⊗ I⊗σy. Such Hamiltonians are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, ranging from textbook examples such as Stern–Gerlach exper- iments on single spins to building blocks of advanced quan- tum technologies in cold-atom and quantum-computing plat- forms (e.g., single qubit...

  4. [4]

    Reichhardt and C

    C. Reichhardt and C. Reichhardt, Disorder in the wild, Nature Physics 13, 10 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    D. G. Bounds, New optimization methods from physics and biology, Nature 329, 215 (1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    Boschetti, L

    A. Boschetti, L. Pattelli, R. Torre, and D. Wiersma, Perspec- tives and recent advances in super-resolution spectroscopy: Stochastic and disordered-based approaches, Applied Physics Letters 120, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Reiner, S

    J.-M. Reiner, S. Zanker, I. Schwenk, J. Lepp ¨akangas, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Sch ¨on, and M. Marthaler, E ffects of gate errors in digital quantum simulations of fermionic sys- tems, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 045008 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Albash, V

    T. Albash, V . Martin-Mayor, and I. Hen, Analog errors in ising machines, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 02LT03 (2019)

    2019

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    P. V . Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y . Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Gra ff, T. Huang, E. Je ffrey, E. Lucero, J. Y . Mutus, O. Naaman, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D....

    2018

  2. [10]

    Brugger, C

    J. Brugger, C. Seidel, M. Streif, F. A. Wudarski, C. Dittel, and A. Buchleitner, Output statistics of quantum annealers with disorder, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042605 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of di ffusion in certain random lat- tices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  4. [12]

    S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, Theory of spin glasses, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 5, 965 (1975)

    1975

  5. [13]

    I. Y . Korenblit and E. Shender, Ferromagnetism of disordered systems, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 21, 832 (1978)

    1978

  6. [14]

    Mydosh, Spin glasses ˆa€”recent experiments and systems, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 7, 237 (1978)

    J. Mydosh, Spin glasses ˆa€”recent experiments and systems, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 7, 237 (1978)

    1978

  7. [15]

    Lagendijk, B

    A. Lagendijk, B. v. Tiggelen, and D. S. Wiersma, Fifty years 14 Hamiltonian ( ˆH = h ˜H) Λt characterizing dynamics Time-dependence forN(0,σ 2) Generators forU[−b,b] ˜H2 = I; ˜H† = ˜H 1 2 I⊗ I + ˆH∗⊗ ˆH + G(t) 2 I⊗ I− ˆH∗⊗ ˆH G(t) = e−2σ2t2 G(t) = sin 2bt 2bt ˜H3 = I; ˜H† , ˜H...

    2009

  8. [16]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. Lee, P. Richerme, B. Neyenhuis, P. W. Hess, P. Hauke, M. Heyl, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Many-body localization in a quantum simulator with programmable ran- dom disorder, Nature Physics 12, 907 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entangle- ment, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 021001 (2019). 15

    2019

  10. [18]

    V ojta, Disorder in quantum many-body systems, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 233 (2019)

    T. V ojta, Disorder in quantum many-body systems, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 233 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frun- zio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Sup- pressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge qubits, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180502 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    M. R. Delbecq, T. Nakajima, P. Stano, T. Otsuka, S. Amaha, J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, G. Allison, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, and S. Tarucha, Quantum dephasing in a gated gaas triple quantum dot due to nonergodic noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 046802 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    J. I. Colless, V . V . Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, Computation of molecular spectra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algorithm, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011021 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Proctor, M

    T. Proctor, M. Revelle, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, D. Lobser, P. Maunz, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Detecting and tracking drift in quantum information processors, Nature com- munications 11, 5396 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Beverly, J

    K. Beverly, J. Sample, J. Sampaio, F. Remacle, J. Heath, and R. Levine, Quantum dot artificial solids: Understanding the static and dynamic role of size and packing disorder, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 6456 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Altshuler, H

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 12446 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Knysh and V

    S. Knysh and V . Smelyanskiy, On the relevance of avoided crossings away from quantum critical point to the com- plexity of quantum adiabatic algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.3011 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pino and J

    M. Pino and J. J. Garc ´ıa-Ripoll, Quantum annealing in spin- boson model: From a perturbative to an ultrastrong mediated coupling, New Journal of Physics 20, 113027 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: Meth- ods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Rebentrost, M

    P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, I. Kassal, S. Lloyd, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Environment-assisted quantum transport, New Journal of Physics 11, 033003 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Maier, T

    C. Maier, T. Brydges, P. Jurcevic, N. Trautmann, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Environment- assisted quantum transport in a 10-qubit network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 050501 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Stark, L

    C. Stark, L. Pollet, A. m. c. Imamo ˘glu, and R. Renner, Lo- calization of toric code defects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 030504 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    J. R. Wootton and J. K. Pachos, Bringing order through disor- der: Localization of errors in topological quantum memories, Physical review letters 107, 030503 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Gneiting, F

    C. Gneiting, F. R. Anger, and A. Buchleitner, Incoherent en- semble dynamics in disordered systems, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032139 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    C. M. Kropf, C. Gneiting, and A. Buchleitner, E ffective dy- namics of disordered quantum systems, Physical Review X 6, 031023 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Chen, E ffects of symmetry breaking of the structurally- disordered hamiltonian ensembles on the anisotropic decoher- ence of qubits, Scientific reports 12, 2869 (2022)

    H.-B. Chen, E ffects of symmetry breaking of the structurally- disordered hamiltonian ensembles on the anisotropic decoher- ence of qubits, Scientific reports 12, 2869 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    C. Lu, W. He, J. Wang, H. Wang, and Q. Ai, Sudden death of entanglement with a hamiltonian ensemble assisted by auxil- iary qubits, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012621 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gneiting, Disorder-dressed quantum evolution, Physical Review B 101, 214203 (2020)

    C. Gneiting, Disorder-dressed quantum evolution, Physical Review B 101, 214203 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    C. M. Kropf, Protecting quantum coherences from static noise and disorder, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033311 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    H.-B. Chen, C. Gneiting, P.-Y . Lo, Y .-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Simulating open quantum systems with hamiltonian ensem- bles and the nonclassicality of the dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030403 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    J. Han, C. Gneiting, and D. Leykam, Helical transport in cou- pled resonator waveguides, Phys. Rev. B99, 224201 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Araki, F

    T. Araki, F. Nori, and C. Gneiting, Robust quantum con- trol with disorder-dressed evolution, Physical Review A 107, 032609 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Y . Ma, M. Pang, L. Chen, and W. Yang, Improving quan- tum parameter estimation by monitoring quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032347 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Bandyopadhyay, P

    S. Bandyopadhyay, P. Uhrich, A. Paviglianiti, and P. Hauke, Universal equilibration dynamics of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Quantum 7, 1022 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Paviglianiti, S

    A. Paviglianiti, S. Bandyopadhyay, P. Uhrich, and P. Hauke, Absence of operator growth for average equal-time observ- ables in charge-conserved sectors of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 1 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Andersson, J

    E. Andersson, J. D. Cresser, and M. J. Hall, Finding the kraus decomposition from a master equation and vice versa, Journal of Modern Optics 54, 1695 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Ostlund, Incommensurate and commensurate phases in asymmetric clock models, Phys

    S. Ostlund, Incommensurate and commensurate phases in asymmetric clock models, Phys. Rev. B 24, 398 (1981)

    1981

  39. [47]

    D. A. Huse, Simple three-state model with infinitely many phases, Phys. Rev. B 24, 5180 (1981)

    1981

  40. [48]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1971 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    N ¨unnerich, D

    M. N ¨unnerich, D. Cohen, P. Barthel, P. H. Huber, D. Ni- roomand, A. Retzker, and C. Wunderlich, Fast, robust and laser-free universal entangling gates for trapped-ion quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04730 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Y . Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high- dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics 8, 589504 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  45. [53]

    D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, Quantum error correction (Cam- bridge university press, 2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum error correction for beginners, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 076001 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Georgopoulos, C

    K. Georgopoulos, C. Emary, and P. Zuliani, Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near-term quantum comput- ers, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062432 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Shapira, S

    D. Shapira, S. Mozes, and O. Biham, Effect of unitary noise on grover’s quantum search algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042301 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open sys- tems, Physical review letters 103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Rivas, S

    ´A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolutions, Physical review let- ters 105, 050403 (2010). 16

    2010

  51. [59]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Collo- quium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Breuer, F

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

    2002

  53. [61]

    S. S. Roy, S. Bandyopadhyay, R. C. de Almeida, and P. Hauke, Unveiling eigenstate thermalization for non-hermitian sys- tems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00049 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gilchrist, D

    A. Gilchrist, D. R. Terno, and C. J. Wood, Vectoriza- tion of quantum operations and its use, arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.2539 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Weinstock, Cluster formulation of the exact equation for the evolution of a classical many-body system, Phys

    J. Weinstock, Cluster formulation of the exact equation for the evolution of a classical many-body system, Phys. Rev. 132, 454 (1963)

    1963

  56. [64]

    Weinstock, Generalized master equation for quantum- mechanical systems to all orders in the density, Phys

    J. Weinstock, Generalized master equation for quantum- mechanical systems to all orders in the density, Phys. Rev.136, A879 (1964)

    1964

  57. [65]

    Kardar, Statistical physics of fields (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    M. Kardar, Statistical physics of fields (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Note that our derivation can be extended for the disordered ini- tial state as well, where the disorder averaging should be done together with ρ(0) if it follows the same disorder distribution as the Hamiltonian or has a correlated disorder

  59. [67]

    A. A. Budini, Stochastic representation of a class of non- markovian completely positive evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042107 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Da ffer, K

    S. Da ffer, K. W´odkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. McIver, De- polarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory, Phys. Rev. A 70, 010304 (2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    Maniscalco, Complete positivity of a spin-1/2 master equa- tion with memory, Phys

    S. Maniscalco, Complete positivity of a spin-1/2 master equa- tion with memory, Phys. Rev. A75, 062103 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Vacchini, Non-markovian master equations from piecewise dynamics, Phys

    B. Vacchini, Non-markovian master equations from piecewise dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 87, 030101 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Vacchini, Generalized master equations leading to com- pletely positive dynamics, Phys

    B. Vacchini, Generalized master equations leading to com- pletely positive dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 230401 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Siudzi ´nska and D

    K. Siudzi ´nska and D. Chru ´sci´nski, Memory kernel approach to generalized pauli channels: Markovian, semi-markov, and beyond, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022129 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    B. Witt, Y . Tanimura, F. Mintert, et al., Exploring complete positivity in hierarchy equations of motion, New Journal of Physics 19, 013007 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Reimer and M

    V . Reimer and M. R. Wegewijs, Density-operator evolution: Complete positivity and the Keldysh real-time expansion, Sci- Post Phys. 7, 012 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    S. N. Filippov, A. Glinov, and L. Lepp ¨aj¨arvi, Phase covari- ant qubit dynamics and divisibility, Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics 41, 617 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Vacchini, Quantum renewal processes, Scientific reports 10, 5592 (2020)

    B. Vacchini, Quantum renewal processes, Scientific reports 10, 5592 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Nestmann, V

    K. Nestmann, V . Bruch, and M. R. Wegewijs, How quantum evolution with memory is generated in a time-local way, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021041 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Canon- ical form of master equations and characterization of non- markovianity, Phys. Rev. A89, 042120 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Z. Li, F. Hall, and C. Eschenbach, On the period and base of a sign pattern matrix, Linear Algebra and Its Applications 212, 101 (1994)

    1994

  72. [80]

    M. W. Jeter and W. C. Pye, Nonnegative (s, t)-potent matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications 45, 109 (1982)

    1982

  73. [81]

    Dutta, S

    S. Dutta, S. Banerjee, and M. Rani, Qudit states in noisy quan- tum channels, Physica Scripta 98, 115113 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Deller, S

    Y . Deller, S. Schmitt, M. Lewenstein, S. Lenk, M. Federer, F. Jendrzejewski, P. Hauke, and V . Kasper, Quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm for qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062410 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Rivas, S

    ´A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non- markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Laine, J

    E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.-P. Breuer, Measure for the non- markovianity of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062115 (2010)

    2010

  77. [85]

    Buscemi, R

    F. Buscemi, R. Gangwar, K. Goswami, H. Badhani, T. Pandit, B. Mohan, S. Das, and M. N. Bera, Information revival with- out backflow: non-causal explanations of non-markovianity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05326 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    S. C. Hou, X. X. Yi, S. X. Yu, and C. H. Oh, Alternative non-markovianity measure by divisibility of dynamical maps, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062115 (2011)

    2011

  79. [87]

    M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt, and J. I. Cirac, Assess- ing non-markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150402 (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    Chruci ´nski and A

    D. Chruci ´nski and A. Kossakowski, Non-markovian quan- tum dynamics: Local versus nonlocal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070406 (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    Zhang, P.-Y

    W.-M. Zhang, P.-Y . Lo, H.-N. Xiong, M. W.-Y . Tu, and F. Nori, General non-markovian dynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 170402 (2012)

    2012

  82. [90]

    Haikka and S

    P. Haikka and S. Maniscalco, Non-markovian quantum probes, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 21, 1440005 (2014)

    2014

  83. [91]

    Jozsa, Quantum e ffects in algorithms, in NASA Inter- national Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications (Springer, 1998) pp

    R. Jozsa, Quantum e ffects in algorithms, in NASA Inter- national Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications (Springer, 1998) pp. 103–112

    1998

  84. [92]

    M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0504163 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  85. [93]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  86. [94]

    Lidar, A

    D. Lidar, A. Shabani, and R. Alicki, Conditions for strictly purity-decreasing quantum markovian dynamics, Chemical physics 322, 82 (2006)

    2006

  87. [95]

    By Lindblad-like, we mean the form where the decay rate is not absorbed in the jump operators

  88. [96]

    Haseli, S

    S. Haseli, S. Salimi, and A. Khorashad, A measure of non- markovianity for unital quantum dynamical maps, Quantum Information Processing 14, 3581 (2015)

    2015

  89. [97]

    Liu, X.-M

    J. Liu, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Nonunital non-markovianity of quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042103 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    X. Wang, A. Sørensen, and K. Mølmer, Multibit gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3907 (2001)

    2001

  91. [99]

    Kossakowski, On quantum statistical mechanics of non- hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics 3, 247 (1972)

    A. Kossakowski, On quantum statistical mechanics of non- hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics 3, 247 (1972)

    1972

  92. [100]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum ori- gins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  93. [101]

    L ´opez-Incera, P

    A. L ´opez-Incera, P. Sekatski, and W. D ¨ur, All macroscopic quantum states are fragile and hard to prepare, Quantum 3, 118 (2019)

    2019

  94. [102]

    Gardas, J

    B. Gardas, J. Dziarmaga, W. H. Zurek, and M. Zwolak, De- fects in quantum computers, Scientific reports 8, 4539 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Lombardo, F. Ciccarello, and G. M. Palma, Quantum non-markovianity induced by anderson localization, Scientific reports 7, 42729 (2017)

    2017

  96. [104]

    J.-S. Xu, K. Sun, C.-F. Li, X.-Y . Xu, G.-C. Guo, E. Andersson, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Experimental recovery of quantum correlations in absence of system-environment back- 17 action, Nature communications 4, 2851 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    D. M. Reich, N. Katz, and C. P. Koch, Exploiting non- markovianity for quantum control, Scientific reports 5, 12430 (2015)

    2015

  98. [106]

    De ffner and E

    S. De ffner and E. Lutz, Quantum speed limit for non- markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010402 (2013)

    2013

  99. [107]

    Bylicka, D

    B. Bylicka, D. Chru ´sci´nski, and S. Maniscalco, Non- markovianity and reservoir memory of quantum channels: a quantum information theory perspective, Scientific reports 4, 5720 (2014)

    2014

  100. [108]

    Kasper, D

    V . Kasper, D. Gonz ´alez-Cuadra, A. Hegde, A. Xia, A. Dauphin, F. Huber, E. Tiemann, M. Lewenstein, F. Jen- drzejewski, and P. Hauke, Universal quantum computation and quantum error correction with ultracold atomic mixtures, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 015008 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    M. S. Blok, V . V . Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O’Brien, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y . Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum information scrambling on a super- conducting qutrit processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021010 (2021)

    2021

  102. [110]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum proces- sor with trapped ions, Nature Physics 18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    Y . Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan, et al., A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nature communications 13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  104. [112]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Hu- ber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ringbauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quantum processor, Na- ture Communications 14, 2242 (2023)

    2023

  105. [113]

    L. E. Fischer, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, D. J. Egger, S. Carretta, and I. Tavernelli, Universal qudit gate synthesis for transmons, PRX Quantum 4, 030327 (2023)

    2023

  106. [114]

    Calaj ´o, G

    G. Calaj ´o, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, S. Mon- tangero, and P. Silvi, Digital quantum simulation of a (1+ 1) d su (2) lattice gauge theory with ion qudits, PRX Quantum 5, 040309 (2024)

    2024

  107. [115]

    Gonz ´alez-Cuadra, T

    D. Gonz ´alez-Cuadra, T. V . Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non- abelian gauge theories with qudits on rydberg platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160501 (2022)

    2022

  108. [116]

    D. G. Tempel and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The kitaev–feynman clock for open quantum systems, New Journal of Physics 16, 113066 (2014)

    2014

  109. [117]

    Ezawa, Clock-symmetric non-hermitian second-order topological insulator, The European Physical Journal B 95, 97 (2022)

    M. Ezawa, Clock-symmetric non-hermitian second-order topological insulator, The European Physical Journal B 95, 97 (2022)

    2022

  110. [118]

    Hutter and D

    A. Hutter and D. Loss, Quantum computing with parafermions, Phys. Rev. B 93, 125105 (2016)

    2016

  111. [119]

    Y . Y . Chen, K. Li, L. Zhang, Y . K. Wu, J. Y . Ma, H. X. Yang, C. Zhang, B. X. Qi, Z. C. Zhou, P. Y . Hou, Y . Xu, and L. M. Duan, Quantum tomography of a third-order exceptional point in a dissipative trapped ion, (2024), arXiv:2412.05870 [quant- ph]

    2024

  112. [120]

    Y . Li, Y . Wu, Y . Zhou, M. Zhang, X. Zhao, Y . Yuan, X. Cheng, Y . Li, X. Qin, X. Rong, Y . Lin, and J. Du, Programmable sim- ulation of high-order exceptional point with a trapped ion, (2024), arXiv:2412.09776 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Sergi and K

    A. Sergi and K. G. Zloshchastiev, Non-hermitian quantum dy- namics of a two-level system and models of dissipative en- vironments, International Journal of Modern Physics B 27, 1350163 (2013)

    2013

  114. [122]

    H. V . Mweene, Vectors and operators for spin 1 derived from first principles, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9906043 (1999)

    1999 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Ekstrom, H

    L. Ekstrom, H. Wang, and S. Schmitt, Variational quantum multi-objective optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14151 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Bottarelli, S

    A. Bottarelli, S. Schmitt, and P. Hauke, Inequality constraints in variational quantum circuits with qudits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07674 (2024)

    2024

  117. [125]

    Mahdian and H

    M. Mahdian and H. D. Yeganeh, Incoherent quantum algo- rithm dynamics of an open system with near-term devices, Quantum Information Processing 19, 1 (2020)

    2020

  118. [126]

    De Keijzer, J

    R. De Keijzer, J. Snijders, A. Carvalho, and S. Kokkelmans, Pulse family optimization for parameterized quantum gates using spectral clustering, Academia Quantum 1 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.