Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 159 references

Identifiability of Autonomous and Controlled Open Quantum Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Given full-rank observability and controllability plus suitable sampling or pulses, the parameters of a GKSL master equation can be uniquely reconstructed from discrete measurement data.

desk verdict A useful import of classical LDS/BDS identifiability into open quantum systems with a new reconstruction criterion, but the similarity-transform ambiguity leaves the advertised parameter recovery unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05270 v4 pith:LL2JWE2N submitted 2025-01-09 quant-ph math.OC

Waqas Parvaiz , Johannes Aspman , Ales Wodecki , Georgios Korpas , Jakub Marecek This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.OC MSC 81Q9393B3093B0593B0781S22 PACS 03.65.Yz03.67.-a
keywords openquantumsystemsmasterequationidentificationGKSLbilineardynamicalsystemidentifiabilitystatetomographycoherencevectorKossakowskimatrix
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

This paper asks when the parameters of a Markovian open quantum system — the Hamiltonian coefficients and the decoherence (Kossakowski) rates in a time-independent GKSL master equation — can be recovered from discrete-time measurement data. The authors show that, in the coherence-vector picture, the measurement dynamics of an autonomous open system is a linear dynamical system (LDS) and that of a driven open system is a bilinear dynamical system (BDS). They then prove sufficient conditions for identifiability: full-rank observability and controllability matrices, together with irrational sample-rate ratios for autonomous systems and non-constant probing pulses for driven ones. If an additional matrix $M$ built from the Lie-algebra structure constants is invertible (or its symmetric reduction $T_3$ in the symmetric-Kossakowski case), the GKSL parameters can be uniquely reconstructed from the identified system matrix. The results give experimentalists a pre-experiment design test and a post-estimation validity check for quantum state tomography and noise characterization.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the coherence-vector representation of the density matrix, $\rho = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\mathbb{1} + \sum_j x_j F_j$, in an orthonormal basis $\{F_j\}$ of $su(N)$ with structure constants $[F_j,F_k] = \mathrm{i}\sum_l f_{jkl}F_l$ and $\{F_j,F_k\} = \frac{2}{N}\delta_{jk}\mathbb{1} + \sum_l g_{jkl}F_l$. Substituting this into the GKSL equation turns the measurement dynamics into $\dot{x} = (A^{(l)}+A^{(d)})x + \beta + \sum_j N_j u_j(t)x$, with $A^{(l)}$, $A^{(d)}$, $\beta$, and $N_j$ all expressed through the structure constants as in equations (90). The identification results then hinge on two pieces of classical machinery: the non-uniform sampling reconstruction of continuous LDS from discrete data (Lemmas 6 and 8, requiring irrational sample-rate ratios), and the input-class characterization for BDS identifiability (the pulse family (76)). Finally, the parameter reconstruction theorems are carried by the matrices $T_1$, $T_2$ (and its symmetric reduction $T_3$) and the block matrix $M = \begin{pmatrix} T_1 & T_2 \\ 0 & \frac{\mathrm{i}}{N}T_1^\top \end{pmatrix}$ (Definition 12), whose invertibility decides whether $\theta$ and $\gamma$ are uniquely recoverable from $A$ and $\beta$.

What would settle it

Simulate a single-qubit GKSL system with known $\theta$ and $\gamma$, sample at two rates with irrational ratio, identify the continuous-time LDS matrix $A$ with a standard subspace method, apply a random invertible similarity transformation $T$, and test whether $T^{-1}AT$ still satisfies the image conditions (103) and yields the original parameters through Theorem 15; if a generic such $T$ fails the test, the claim that the master equation is uniquely reconstructible from any identified realization is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the identifiability of an open quantum system governed by a time-independent GKSL equation reduces to two classical system-identification questions: whether the induced LDS/BDS is minimal, and whether the sampling or input design is persistently exciting. Concretely, Corollary 17 states that an autonomous system has a recoverable LDS form when the rank of $B$ is $n$ and the sampling intervals have pairwise irrational ratios; Theorem 19 states that a controlled system has a recoverable BDS form when the bilinear observability and controllability matrices $OM^{(bi)}$ and $CM^{(bi)}$ are full rank and the probes are pulses of the form (76). Given the identified matrices, reconstruction of the physical parameters is governed by Theorems 13 and 15: writing the system matrix as $A = A^{(l)}(\theta) + A^{(d)}(\gamma)$, the parameter-to-matrix map is invertible exactly when the structure-constant matrix $M$ (Definition 12) is invertible, and in the symmetric-Kossakowski case when $T_1$ and $T_3$ have full rank and the identified symmetric and antisymmetric parts lie in their images. Since the $N_j$ coupling matrices are fixed structure constants, only $A$ and $\beta$ need identification, and all reconstructions obtained from equivalent realizations have identical measurement dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the identified LDS/BDS system matrix $A$ comes in the original coherence-vector basis where the bilinear coupling matrices $N_j$ are the known structure constants; classical identification only delivers $A$ up to an arbitrary similarity transformation, and the paper does not prove that a similarity-transformed realization still lies in the image of the parameter map $\phi$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Before running an experiment, a practitioner can compute the observability and controllability ranks and check the sampling or pulse conditions to decide whether the master equation parameters are recoverable at all.
  • When $M$ is invertible, the recovered GKSL equation has measurement dynamics identical to the original, so the identifiability test doubles as a certificate that a quantum process tomography estimate is the true evolution.
  • Closed quantum systems are covered as a degenerate limit: Corollaries 18 and 20 give Hamiltonian identification criteria under the same rank, sampling, and pulse conditions.
  • For systems with a symmetric Kossakowski matrix (including the two-qubit example in Section VI), the number of unknown decoherence parameters drops from $n^2$ to $n(n+1)/2$ and the reconstruction condition reduces to a single full-rank check on $T_3$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The similarity-gauge gap suggests a concrete repair: restrict the identification output to realizations whose $A$ lies in the image of the parameter map $\phi$, or solve for the similarity transform together with the parameters; until then, "unique construction of a GKSL equation" should be read as uniqueness within a fixed gauge.
  • Because the $N_j$ matrices are pure structure constants, the whole identification problem reduces to finding $A$ and $\beta$; this suggests the framework transfers to any simple compact Lie algebra with a basis where each commutator has at most one nonzero coefficient, a property the paper proves for $su(2^N)$ and notes fails for $su(3)$ in the Gell-Mann basis.
  • A testable extension is to check numerically whether $M$ is generically invertible for random Kossakowski matrices in $su(2^N)$; if invertibility is generic, the practical barrier to parameter recovery is the rank and image conditions rather than the invertibility of $M$.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper connects time-independent GKSL master equations for open quantum systems to linear and bilinear dynamical systems (LDS and BDS) in the coherence-vector representation, and then imports classical system-identification results to give conditions under which the system matrices, and subsequently the Hamiltonian parameters theta and Kossakowski parameters gamma, can be recovered from discrete measurement data. For autonomous systems, the claimed result is Corollary 17: under full-rank controllability/observability and irrational sample-rate ratios, the LDS form is recoverable, and if the matrix M of Definition 12 is invertible, a GKSL equation with identical dynamics can be uniquely constructed. For controlled systems, Theorem 19 makes the analogous claim using full-rank bilinear controllability/observability matrices and pulses of the form (76). The paper also gives a symmetric-Kossakowski special case (Theorem 15), algorithms for the reconstruction procedure, and a two-qubit example. The derivations in Appendices A-C are coherent, and the identification theorems are quoted from standard sources, but the central reconstruction claim is not established as stated because the identified LDS and BDS realizations are only known up to similarity transformation, and the paper does not show that the particular representative returned by identification lies in the image of the parameter map phi.

Significance. If the main claims were established, the paper would provide practically useful sufficient conditions for deciding, from design choices such as sampling rates, control pulses, and measurement matrices, whether the parameters of a GKSL master equation can be recovered from discrete measurement data. The unification of autonomous and controlled open quantum systems within classical LDS/BDS identification is a useful conceptual contribution, and the explicit rank and invertibility criteria are concrete enough to be tested numerically. The paper also gives credit where it is due: it relies on external theorems for LDS/BDS identification, states its assumptions clearly, and provides a worked two-qubit example. However, the significance is conditional on resolving the similarity-transform ambiguity described below; without that resolution, the advertised reconstruction theorems do not follow from the identification theorems they invoke.

major comments (2)
  1. [V B, Corollary 17 proof; V A, Theorems 13 and 15] The proof of Corollary 17 acknowledges that 'the matrix of the LDS is recovered up to similarity transform, which does not effect the dynamics,' but this does not justify applying Theorems 13 and 15. Those theorems invert the parameter map phi(theta, gamma) = A^(l)(theta) + A^(d)(gamma) on matrices expressed in the original structure-constant basis, where the matrices T1 and T3 are defined. If identification returns A' = T^{-1} A T, then A' need not lie in the image of phi: for n > 3 the antisymmetric part of a generic A' lies outside Im T1 (equation (C3)), so the reconstruction equations have no solution and no theta or gamma is recovered. The similarity transform also changes the affine vector beta to T^{-1} beta, so the vectorized system (B2) is not the one being solved. To establish the claim, the paper must either prove that the identified realization can be chosen in the original basis (for example, by using a known full-column-rank C to enforce C T = C), or add a gauge-fixing procedure and show that the resulting A' satisfies the image conditions of Theorem 15 and the linear system of Theorem 13. As written, the statement 'uniquely construct a GKSL equation, which has identical dynamics to the original equation' is unsupported.
  2. [III C, Proposition 9 and Eq. (79); V A, Theorem 19] For controlled systems the same ambiguity is worse. Proposition 9 and the similarity relations (79) show that BDS identification determines (A, N_j, b, C) only up to T^{-1} N_j T and C T. The paper repeatedly states that the bilinear coupling matrices N_j are known a priori because they are built from the antisymmetric structure constants, but this is only true in the original coherence-vector basis. Under the identification step the matrices actually obtained are T^{-1} N_j T, which are no longer the known structure constants unless T centralizes every N_j. The paper provides no argument that the similarity transformation from the identification algorithm has this centralizing property, and no procedure for using the known C, b, or N_j to fix T. Consequently, Theorem 19's assertion that one can 'uniquely construct a GKSL equation' from the identified BDS is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V B, Theorem 19] In the symmetric-Kossakowski case, Theorem 19 says the invertibility condition on M is replaced by invertibility of T2, but Corollary 17 and Theorem 15 require invertibility of T3, the symmetric reduction defined in Definition 14. This is an inconsistency in a load-bearing condition and should be corrected.
  2. [V B, Theorem 16] The heading calls Theorem 16 'necessary conditions for discrete identifiability,' but the statement begins with 'A sufficient condition.' The heading and statement should be aligned.
  3. [V B, Corollary 20] The corollary is titled 'on the identification of an autonomous open quantum systems' but the statement refers to the BDS form of a closed quantum system; the title appears to be a copy-paste error.
  4. [VI, Example] The two-qubit example assumes the system matrix A is known exactly in the original basis and verifies the rank/invertibility conditions on T1 and T3. It does not exercise the identification step, so it does not address the similarity-transform ambiguity raised above; this should be stated explicitly or the example should be extended.
  5. [III B, Definition 5] The definition of the non-uniform partition uses both t_l = T and then t_{l+1}, and the notation is not fully consistent with the subsequent use of t_i in Definition 7; the indexing should be cleaned up.
  6. [Various] There are several typographical errors, such as 'pulses of the from (76)' in Theorem 19 and 'the structure constants' in Remark 4; these do not affect the mathematics but should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction theorems invert explicitly defined linear maps built from structure constants, and the identifiability conditions are imported from external LDS/BDS results, not from the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) express time-independent GKSL dynamics in the coherence-vector basis, yielding the LDS/BDS form of Eq. (89) with A determined by the Hamiltonian parameters theta and the Kossakowski matrix gamma through the structure constants; (ii) invoke external system-identification results (Lemma 8 for LDS, Proposition 9/Lemma 10 for BDS) to state when A is recoverable from discrete samples; (iii) invert the parameter-to-system matrix map phi via the linear system M (theta,gamma)^T = (vec A, beta)^T in Theorem 13, or via T1 and T3 in Theorem 15. None of these steps fits the circularity patterns: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation is used to forbid alternatives, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is imported as an external fact. The proofs of Theorems 13 and 15 are explicit linear-algebra inversions whose hypotheses are stated as rank/invertibility conditions on structure-constant matrices; the result is not equivalent to its input by construction. The self-citations that exist, notably [12] and the tutorial [148], are motivational or are code-supported verification of an example, and they are not load-bearing for the main theorems. The proof of Corollary 17 does contain a genuine soundness gap: the LDS matrix is identified only up to similarity, and the paper does not show that the particular representative returned by the identification lies in the image of the parameter map phi, so Theorem 13 may not apply to it. That is a correctness concern about gauge fixing, not circularity, because it is a failure of applicability of an inverse problem rather than the inverse problem reducing to its own input. Overall, the derivation is self-contained with respect to the named external theorems, and no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

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

The central claim rests on four unproved premises: the time-independent GKSL model, Markovian separability, exact classical identification results, and the coherence-vector gauge. The first two are standard in open quantum systems; the third is a legitimate import from control theory; the fourth is the weakest and is not justified in the text.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The system evolves according to a time-independent GKSL master equation with constant Hamiltonian and Kossakowski matrix.
    Section IV states 'we restrict our analysis here to having time-independent Hamiltonian and Kossakowski matrices'; the BDS and LDS form (89) and all identifiability theorems depend on this.
  • domain assumption The initial state is separable and the Markovian or CP-divisible approximation is valid.
    Sections II A and II D; if the system-environment state is correlated or the dynamics are non-Markovian, the GKSL form and the derived coherence-vector dynamics need not hold.
  • domain assumption Discrete sampled data identify the continuous-time system matrices exactly, via the classical theorems of Ding et al. and Sontag et al. taken as black boxes.
    Lemmas 8 and 10 and Proposition 9 are imported without proof; they assume noiseless data and exact discrete models. No finite-sample or noisy-measurement extension is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The identified realization is in the original coherence-vector basis, so the bilinear coupling matrices N_j remain the known structure constants.
    Section IV asserts N_j 'do not need to be identified' because they are known a priori, but LDS and BDS identification only returns a realization up to similarity. The paper does not prove the similarity gauge can be fixed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifiability of Autonomous and Controlled Open Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LL2JWE2N

@misc{pith2026250105270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifiability of Autonomous and Controlled Open Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LL2JWE2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05270}
}
read the original abstract

Open quantum systems are a rich area of research in the intersection of quantum mechanics and stochastic analysis. By considering a variety of master equations, we unify multiple views of autonomous and controlled open quantum systems and, through considering their measurement dynamics, connect them to classical linear and bilinear system identification theory. This allows us to formulate corresponding notions of quantum state identifiability for these systems which, in particular, applies to quantum state tomography, providing conditions under which the probed quantum system is reconstructible. Interestingly, the dynamical representation of the system lends itself to considering two types of identifiability: the full master equation recovery and the recovery of the corresponding system matrices of the linear and bilinear systems. These concepts are discussed in detail, and conditions under which reconstruction is possible are given. We set the groundwork for a number of constructive approaches to the identification of open quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A broad overview of the key stages in learning and recovering the parameters of open quantum systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A dendrogram that displays the links between various common master equations of Open Quantum Systems and how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    If this is true for all inputs in some class of inputs,U, then we say these two systems are indistinguishable underU and denote this as we did above,σ≡ Vα bσ

    Input-Output Equivalence and Similarity of BDS Two systems are said to be I/O indistinguishable under an input⃗ u, which leads to the same output response. If this is true for all inputs in some class of inputs,U, then we say these two systems are indistinguishable underU and denote this as we did above,σ≡ Vα bσ. IfUrefers to the set of all inputs, then w...

  2. [2]

    General Parameter Reconstruction Recalling the results of Section IV, we note that the system matrix is of the form A(⃗θ, ⃗ γ) =A(l)(⃗θ) +A (d)(⃗ γ).(94) To simplify the notation, denoteN 2 −1 =n. In order to discuss the recovery of the parameters of the original GKSL equation, i.e., ⃗θand⃗ γ, we consider the map that constructs the matrix of the systemAu...

  3. [3]

    Such systems have been briefly discussed in [143], this holds in general for open for 1-qubit systems, and as we will see later in VI for many realistic models of 2-qubit systems

    Parameter Reconstruction for Systems with Symmetric Kossakowski Matrix In some situations, it might happen that the Kos- sakowski matrixγis symmetric, that is,γ jk =γ kj (note that this further implies thatγis real, since it is also Hermitian). Such systems have been briefly discussed in [143], this holds in general for open for 1-qubit systems, and as we...

  4. [4]

    Thus, we nat- urally start by summarizing a result about LDS identifi- cation

    Autonomous Open Quantum System Identification As we saw in the sections leading up to this one, the identification of autonomous open quantum systems re- duces to an identification problem of LDS. Thus, we nat- urally start by summarizing a result about LDS identifi- cation. Theorem 16(necessary conditions for discrete identifi- ability of a continuous LD...

  5. [5]

    The identification of these systems has already been summa- rized in Lemma 10

    Driven Open Quantum System Identification Driven quantum systems result in a BDS form. The identification of these systems has already been summa- rized in Lemma 10. We make the connection to OQS identification in the following theorem. Theorem 19(on the identification of controlled OQS).An open quantum system described by the time- independent GKSL equat...

  6. [6]

    (A3) We have used the identity (A2) to arrive at the second line and then further the identity (86b) of the antisym- metric structure constants immediately after

    Liouville-von Neumann T erm We begin with the contribution from the closed system dynamics and substitute the decomposition of the system Hamiltonian (85) ˙x(l) i =−˚ı X k θkTr [Fi [Fk, ρS(t)]] =−˚ı X k θkTr [[Fi, Fk]ρ S(t)] = X j,k θkfkji Tr [Fj, ρS(t)] = X j,k θkfkji xj. (A3) We have used the identity (A2) to arrive at the second line and then further t...

  7. [7]

    Firstly, by taking addition of the (86a) and (86b) we obtain relation FiFj = 1 N Iδ ij + i 2 X k ¯zijk Fk withz ijk =f ijk +ig ijk as a combined structure constant

    Dissipation T erms Next, we derive the contribution of the environment induced dissipation, ˙x(d) i . Firstly, by taking addition of the (86a) and (86b) we obtain relation FiFj = 1 N Iδ ij + i 2 X k ¯zijk Fk withz ijk =f ijk +ig ijk as a combined structure constant. Hence 1 2 Fl[Fi, Fk] = ˚ı 2 Fl X m fikmFm = iI 2N fikl − 1 4 X mj fikm ¯zlmjFj, and simila...

  8. [8]

    Control T erm Finally, to complete this derivation we consider the dynamics due to the presence of control functions. The derivation here is similar to what we saw for the closed dynamics where we also make use of (A2) ˙x(c) i (t) =−˚ı X j uj(t)Tr  Fi X j [Fj, ρS]   =−˚ı X j uj(t)Tr [[Fi, Fj]ρ S] = X jk fijk uj(t)Tr [FkρS] = X jk fijk uj(t)xk. (A6) Fr...

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Gibney, Hello quantum world! google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim, Nature574, 461 (2019)

    E. Gibney, Hello quantum world! google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim, Nature574, 461 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500505 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa,...

    2024

  5. [13]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Mabuchi, Dynamical identification of open quantum systems, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 1103 (1996)

    H. Mabuchi, Dynamical identification of open quantum systems, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 1103 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Burgarth and K

    D. Burgarth and K. Yuasa, Quantum system identi- fication, Physical Review Letters108, 10.1103/phys- revlett.108.080502 (2012)

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Zhang and M

    J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Quantum hamiltonian identi- fication from measurement time traces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080401 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Zhang and M

    J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Identification of open quan- tum systems from observable time traces, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052121 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    S. Xue, R. Wu, S. Ma, D. Li, and M. Jiang, Gradient al- gorithm for hamiltonian identification of open quantum systems, Physical Review A103, 022604 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    E. F. Dumitrescu and P. Lougovski, Hamiltonian as- signment for open quantum systems, Physical Review Research2, 033251 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Popovych, K

    Z. Popovych, K. Jacobs, G. Korpas, J. Marecek, and D. I. Bondar, Quantum open system identification via global optimization: Optimally accurate markovian models of open systems from time-series data, (2024), arXiv:2203.17164 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chickering, D

    M. Chickering, D. Heckerman, and C. Meek, Large- sample learning of bayesian networks is np-hard, Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research5, 1287 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    D. I. Bondar and A. N. Pechen, Uncomputability and complexity of quantum control, Scientific Reports10, 1195 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Pardalos and G

    P. Pardalos and G. Schnitger, Checking local optimal- ity in constrained quadratic programming is np-hard, Operations Research Letters7, 33 (1988)

    1988

  16. [24]

    S. Xue, M. James, A. Shabani, V. Ugrinovskii, and I. Petersen, Quantum filter for a class of non-markovian quantum systems 10.1109/CDC.2015.7403338 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    S. Xue, T. Nguyen, M. R. James, A. Shabani, V. Ugri- novskii, and I. R. Petersen, Modeling for non-markovian quantum systems, IEEE Transactions on Control Sys- tems Technology28, 2564 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Y. Wang, D. Dong, B. Qi, J. Zhang, I. R. Petersen, and H. Yonezawa, A quantum hamiltonian identification al- gorithm: Computational complexity and error analy- sis, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control63, 1388 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Burgarth and K

    D. Burgarth and K. Yuasa, Identifiability of open quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. A89, 030302 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    W. Zhou, S. Schirmer, E. Gong, H. Xie, and M. Zhang, Identification of markovian open system dynamics for qubit systems, Chin. Sci. Bull.57, 2242 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Wallace, Y

    S. Wallace, Y. Altmann, B. D. Gerardot, E. M. Gauger, and C. Bonato, Learning the dynamics of markovian open quantum systems from experimental data (2024), arXiv:2410.17942 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezz` e, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nature Re- views Physics5, 141 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Y. Wang, D. Dong, A. Sone, I. R. Petersen, H. Yonezawa, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum hamiltonian identifiability via a similarity transformation approach and beyond, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65, 46324647 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    C. C. Travis and G. Haddock, On structural identifi- cation, Bellman Prize in Mathematical Biosciences56, 157 (1981)

    1981

  25. [33]

    Vajda, K

    S. Vajda, K. R. Godfrey, and H. Rabitz, Similarity transformation approach to identifiability analysis of nonlinear compartmental models, Mathematical Bio- sciences93, 217 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Ljung,System Identification: Theory for the User, Prentice Hall information and system sciences series (Prentice Hall PTR, 1999)

    L. Ljung,System Identification: Theory for the User, Prentice Hall information and system sciences series (Prentice Hall PTR, 1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Le Bris, Claude, Mirrahimi, Mazyar, Rabitz, Herschel, and Turinici, Gabriel, Hamiltonian identification for quantum systems: well-posedness and numerical ap- proaches, ESAIM: COCV13, 378 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Sone and P

    A. Sone and P. Cappellaro, Hamiltonian identifiability assisted by a single-probe measurement, Physical Re- view A95, 10.1103/physreva.95.022335 (2017)

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Guta and N

    M. Guta and N. Yamamoto, System identification for passive linear quantum systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control61, 921936 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    A. Dutt, E. Pednault, C. W. Wu, S. Sheldon, J. Smolin, L. Bishop, and I. L. Chuang, Active learning of quan- tum system hamiltonians yields query advantage (2021), arXiv:2112.14553 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bonnabel, M

    S. Bonnabel, M. Mirrahimi, and P. Rouchon, Observer- based Hamiltonian identification for quantum systems, Automatica45, 1144 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Y. Fu, H. Rabitz, and G. Turinici, Hamiltonian identi- fication in presence of large control field perturbations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 495301 (2016). 31

    2016

  33. [41]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Clarendon Press, 2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, Quan- tum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum op- tics, quantum computing, and beyond, PRX Quantum 5, 020202 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. R. Shoenfield and A. A. Markov, Theory of algo- rithms, Journal of Symbolic Logic27, 244244 (1962)

    1962

  36. [44]

    L. Li, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Concepts of quan- tum non-markovianity: A hierarchy, Physics Reports 759, 1 (2018), concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy

    2018

  37. [45]

    Huelga, and M

    Rivas, S. Huelga, and M. Plenio, Quantum non-markovianity: Characterization, quantification and detection, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001 (2014)

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050403 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vac- chini, Colloquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 10.1103/revmodphys.88.021002 (2016)

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    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 systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garca-Patrn, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621 669 (2012), cited by: 2613; All Open Access, Green Open Access

    2012

  42. [50]

    Lax, Formal theory of quantum fluctuations from a driven state, Physical Review129, 2342 2348 (1963), cited by: 295

    M. Lax, Formal theory of quantum fluctuations from a driven state, Physical Review129, 2342 2348 (1963), cited by: 295

    1963

  43. [51]

    Smirne, A

    A. Smirne, A. Stabile, and B. Vacchini, Signatures of non-markovianity in classical single-time probability distributions, Physica Scripta Volume TT153(2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Vacchini, A

    B. Vacchini, A. Smirne, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.- P. Breuer, Markovianity and non-markovianity in quan- tum and classical systems, New Journal of Physics13, 093004 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Wolf and J

    M. Wolf and J. Cirac, Dividing quantum channels, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics279(2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Rivas and S

    ´A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open quantum systems: An introduction (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Chru´ sci´ nski and A

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

    2010

  48. [56]

    Chruciski and F

    D. Chruciski and F. A. Wudarski, Non-markovian ran- dom unitary qubit dynamics, Physics Letters A377, 1425 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Com- pletely positive divisibility does not mean markovianity, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040401 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Vogel, Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation, by m.a

    M. Vogel, Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation, by m.a. nielsen and i.l. chuang, Contemporary Physics - CONTEMP PHYS52, 604 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Kraus, A

    K. Kraus, A. B¨ ohm, J. D. Dollard, and W. H. Wootters, eds., States and effects, inStates, Effects, and Oper- ations Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory: Lec- tures in Mathematical Physics at the University of Texas at Austin(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg...

    1983

  52. [60]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on com- plex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on com- plex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    1975

  53. [61]

    A. S. HOLEVO,Quantum systems, channels, informa- tion: A mathematical introduction(DE GRUYTER, 2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    I. L. C. Michael A. Nielsen,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Preskill, Lecture notes in quantum computing (2015)

    J. Preskill, Lecture notes in quantum computing (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    C. J. Wood, J. D. Biamonte, and D. G. Cory, Tensor networks and graphical calculus for open quantum sys- tems (2015), arXiv:1111.6950 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Abu-Nada, S

    A. Abu-Nada, S. Banerjee, and V. B. Sabale, Explor- ing the non-markovian dynamics in depolarizing maps, Phys. Rev. A110, 052209 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Pechukas, Reduced dynamics need not be completely positive, Phys

    P. Pechukas, Reduced dynamics need not be completely positive, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1060 (1994)

    1994

  59. [67]

    reduced dynamics need not be completely positive

    R. Alicki, Comment on “reduced dynamics need not be completely positive”, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3020 (1995)

    1995

  60. [68]

    Pechukas, Pechukas replies:, Phys

    P. Pechukas, Pechukas replies:, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3021 (1995)

    1995

  61. [69]

    Kuah and E

    A. Kuah and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Extension maps (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0503119 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    H. A. Carteret, D. R. Terno, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Dy- namics beyond completely positive maps: Some proper- ties and applications, Phys. Rev. A77, 042113 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A mea- sure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Anders- son, Canonical form of master equations and character- ization of non-markovianity, Phys. Rev. A89, 042120 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  66. [74]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119130 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119130 (1976)

    1976

  67. [75]

    Cresser and C

    J. Cresser and C. Facer, Master equations with memory for systems driven by classical noise, Optics communi- cations283, 773 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    Maldonado-Mundo, P

    D. Maldonado-Mundo, P. ¨Ohberg, B. W. Lovett, and E. Andersson, Investigating the generality of time-local master equations, Physical Review AAtomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 042107 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    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 Optics54, 1695 (2007)

    2007

  70. [78]

    Jagadish, R

    V. Jagadish, R. Srikanth, and F. Petruccione, Nonin- vertibility and non-markovianity of quantum dynamical maps, Physical Review A108, 042202 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Colla, N

    A. Colla, N. Neubrand, and H.-P. Breuer, Initial cor- relations in open quantum systems: constructing linear dynamical maps and master equations, New Journal of Physics24, 123005 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    S. Nakajima, On Quantum Theory of Transport Phenomena: Steady Diffusion, Progress of Theoretical Physics20, 948 (1958), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/20/6/948/5440766/20-6-948.pdf. 32

    1958

  73. [81]

    R. Zwanzig, Ensemble Method in the Theory of Irreversibility, The Journal of Chemical Physics 33, 1338 (1960), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/33/5/1338/8123769/1338 1 online.pdf

    1960

  74. [82]

    Schoeller and G

    H. Schoeller and G. Sch¨ on, Mesoscopic quantum trans- port: Resonant tunneling in the presence of a strong coulomb interaction, Phys. Rev. B50, 18436 (1994)

    1994

  75. [83]

    Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Phys

    F. Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Phys. Rev. 105, 1206 (1957)

    1957

  76. [84]

    De Vega and D

    I. De Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    D. A. Lidar, Lecture notes on the theory of open quan- tum systems (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, Tutorial: projector approach to master equations for open quantum systems, Quantum 8, 1454 (2024)

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, Tutorial: projector approach to master equations for open quantum systems, Quantum 8, 1454 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Banchi, E

    L. Banchi, E. Grant, A. Rocchetto, and S. Severini, Modelling non-markovian quantum processes with re- current neural networks, New Journal of Physics20, 123030 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Redfield, The theory of relaxation processes, inAd- vances in Magnetic Resonance, Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance, Vol

    A. Redfield, The theory of relaxation processes, inAd- vances in Magnetic Resonance, Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance, Vol. 1, edited by J. S. Waugh (Academic Press, 1965) pp. 1–32

    1965

  81. [89]

    Loudon and L

    R. Loudon and L. Hunter,The Quantum The- ory of Light, Second Edition, Vol. 54 (1986) pp. 285–286, https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/54/3/285/12148169/285 2 online.pdf

    1986

  82. [90]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  83. [91]

    Abramavicius and S

    D. Abramavicius and S. Mukamel, Signatures of quan- tum exciton transport in two-dimensional coherent opti- cal signals of photosynthetic complexes, inInternational Conference on Ultrafast Phenomena(Optica Publishing Group, 2010) p. WD4

    2010

  84. [92]

    Nalbach, J

    P. Nalbach, J. Eckel, and M. Thorwart, Quantum co- herent biomolecular energy transfer with spatially cor- related fluctuations, New Journal of Physics12, 065043 (2010)

    2010

  85. [93]

    Abramavicius and S

    D. Abramavicius and S. Mukamel, Quantum oscil- latory exciton migration in photosynthetic reaction centers, The Journal of Chemical Physics133, 064510 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3458824/15794745/064510 1 online.pdf

    2010 doi

  86. [94]

    Huo and D

    P. Huo and D. F. Coker, Theoretical study of coherent excitation energy transfer in cryptophyte phycocyanin 645 at physiological temperature, The Journal of Phys- ical Chemistry Letters2, 825 (2011)

    2011

  87. [95]

    Jeske, D

    J. Jeske, D. J. Ing, M. B. Plenio, S. F. Huelga, and J. H. Cole, Bloch-Redfield equa- tions for modeling light-harvesting complexes, The Journal of Chemical Physics142, 064104 (2015), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4907370/14030726/064104 1 online.pdf

    2015 doi

  88. [96]

    R. S. Whitney, Staying positive: going beyond lindblad with perturbative master equations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 175304 (2008)

    2008

  89. [97]

    McCauley, B

    G. McCauley, B. Cruikshank, D. I. Bondar, and K. Jacobs, Accurate lindblad-form master equation for weakly damped quantum systems across all regimes, npj Quantum Information6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00299-6 (2020)

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    P. R. Eastham, P. Kirton, H. M. Cammack, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Bath-induced coherence and the secular approximation, Phys. Rev. A94, 012110 (2016)

    2016

  91. [99]

    Santra, B

    S. Santra, B. Cruikshank, R. Balu, and K. Jacobs, Fer- mis golden rule, the origin and breakdown of markovian master equations, and the relationship between oscil- lator baths and the random matrix model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 415302 (2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

    Majenz, T

    C. Majenz, T. Albash, H.-P. Breuer, and D. A. Lidar, Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approxi- mation in quantum markovian master equations, Phys. Rev. A88, 012103 (2013)

    2013

  93. [101]

    Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems, 3rd ed

    U. Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems, 3rd ed. (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2008)

    2008

  94. [102]

    Zheng-Da, Z

    H. Zheng-Da, Z. Yi-Xin, and Z. Ye-Qi, Negativity of quantumness and non-markovianity in a qubit coupled to a thermal ising spin bath system, Communications in Theoretical Physics62, 634 (2014)

    2014

  95. [103]

    Liu, X.-M

    B.-H. Liu, X.-M. Hu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, A. Karlsson, E.-M. Laine, S. Maniscalco, C. Macchi- avello, and J. Piilo, Efficient superdense coding in the presence of non-markovian noise, Europhysics Letters 114, 10005 (2016)

    2016

  96. [104]

    H.-B. Chen, N. Lambert, Y.-C. Cheng, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Using non-markovian measures to evaluate quantum master equations for photosynthesis, Scientific Reports5, 10.1038/srep12753 (2015)

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    Vasile, F

    R. Vasile, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Spectral origin of non-markovian open-system dynamics: A finite har- monic model without approximations, Phys. Rev. A89, 022109 (2014)

    2014

  98. [106]

    van Dijk, E

    J. van Dijk, E. Kawakami, R. Schouten, M. Veldhorst, L. Vandersypen, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, and F. Sebas- tiano, Impact of classical control electronics on qubit fidelity, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 044054 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    C. J. Wood, Non-completely positive maps: proper- ties and applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.3199 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  100. [108]

    N. G. van Kampen, How good is langevin, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B109, 21293 (2005)

    2005

  101. [109]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) chapter 6

    2008

  102. [110]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  103. [111]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to circuit qed: Quantum jumps and the zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A77, 012112 (2008)

    2008

  104. [112]

    A. C. Hewson,The Kondo problem to heavy fermions, 2 (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  105. [113]

    Stefanini, A

    M. Stefanini, A. A. Ziolkowska, D. Budker, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Browaeys, A. Imamoglu, D. Chang, and J. Marino, Is lindblad for me?, arXiv:2506.22436 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  106. [114]

    F. Chen, E. Arrigoni, and M. Galperin, Markovian treatment of non-markovian dynamics of open fermionic systems, New Journal of Physics21, 123035 (2019)

    2019

  107. [115]

    Campbell, F

    S. Campbell, F. Ciccarello, G. M. Palma, and B. Vac- chini, System-environment correlations and markovian embedding of quantum non-markovian dynamics, Phys- ical Review A98, 012142 (2018)

    2018

  108. [116]

    H. I. Nurdin, Markovian embeddings of non-markovian quantum systems: Coupled stochastic and quantum 33 master equations for non-markovian quantum systems, in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(2023) pp. 5939–5944

    2023

  109. [117]

    Pleasance, B

    G. Pleasance, B. M. Garraway, and F. Petruccione, Gen- eralized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non-markovian quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043058 (2020)

    2020

  110. [118]

    Megier, D

    N. Megier, D. Chruciski, J. Piilo, and W. T. Strunz, Eternal non-markovianity: from random uni- tary to markov chain realisations, Scientific Reports7, 10.1038/s41598-017-06059-5 (2017)

    2017 doi

  111. [119]

    A. A. Budini, Embedding non-markovian quantum colli- sional models into bipartite markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. A88, 032115 (2013)

    2013

  112. [120]

    Mascherpa, A

    F. Mascherpa, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Ple- nio, Open systems with error bounds: Spin-boson model with spectral density variations, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 100401 (2017)

    2017

  113. [121]

    L. Tan, Z. Sun, M. Jiang, and S. Xue, Identification of quantum colored noises using a quantum oscillator, 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 3460 (2021)

    2021

  114. [122]

    B. M. Garraway, Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A55, 2290 (1997)

    1997

  115. [123]

    Moiseyev,Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    N. Moiseyev,Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  116. [124]

    P. J. Antsaklis,Linear systems / Panos J. Antsaklis, Anthony N. Michel.(McGraw-Hill,, New York, 1997)

    1997

  117. [125]

    P. E. Sarachik, Controllability and observability of lin- ear systems, inPrinciples of Linear Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, 1997) p. 151183

    1997

  118. [126]

    E. D. Sontag, Y. Wang, and A. Megretski, Input classes for identifiability of bilinear systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control54, 195 (2009)

    2009

  119. [127]

    Ruberti, A

    A. Ruberti, A. Isidori, and P. D’Alessandro,Theory of Bilinear Dynamical Systems: Course Held at the De- partment for Automation and Information July 1972, CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences (Springer Vienna, 2014)

    1972

  120. [128]

    G. S. S. Spyros and A. Rutherford, Bilinear approxima- tion of general non-linear dynamic systems with linear inputs, International Journal of Control31, 109 (1980)

    1980

  121. [129]

    Kowalski and W

    K. Kowalski and W. Steeb,Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Carleman Linearization, G - Refer- ence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scientific, 1991)

    1991

  122. [130]

    Isidori, Direct construction of minimal bilinear re- alizations from nonlinear input-output maps, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control18, 626 (1973)

    A. Isidori, Direct construction of minimal bilinear re- alizations from nonlinear input-output maps, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control18, 626 (1973)

    1973

  123. [131]

    Chen and D

    T. Chen and D. Miller, Reconstruction of continuous- time systems from their discretizations, IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control45, 1914 (2000)

    2000

  124. [132]

    F. Ding, L. Qiu, and T. Chen, Reconstruction of continuous-time systems from their non-uniformly sam- pled discrete-time systems, Automatica45, 324 (2009)

    2009

  125. [133]

    R. A. Gonzlez, C. R. Rojas, S. Pan, and J. S. Welsh, On the relation between discrete and continuous-time refined instrumental variable methods, IEEE Control Systems Letters7, 2233 (2023)

    2023

  126. [134]

    strm and P

    K. strm and P. Eykhoff, System identificationa survey, Automatica7, 123 (1971)

    1971

  127. [135]

    S. J. Qin, An overview of subspace identification, Com- puters & Chemical Engineering30, 1502 (2006), papers form Chemical Process Control VII

    2006

  128. [136]

    Pillonetto and L

    G. Pillonetto and L. Ljung, Full bayesian identification of linear dynamic systems us- ing stable kernels, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2218197120 (2023), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2218197120

    2023 doi

  129. [137]

    Wagenmaker and K

    A. Wagenmaker and K. Jamieson, Active learning for identification of linear dynamical systems (2020)

    2020

  130. [138]

    E. D. Sontag,Mathematical Control Theory(Springer New York, 1998)

    1998

  131. [139]

    Juang, Continuous-time bilinear system identifica- tion, Nonlinear Dynamics39(2003)

    J. Juang, Continuous-time bilinear system identifica- tion, Nonlinear Dynamics39(2003)

    2003

  132. [140]

    Sattar, S

    Y. Sattar, S. Oymak, and N. Ozay, Finite sample identi- fication of bilinear dynamical systems (2022) pp. 6705– 6711

    2022

  133. [141]

    Sattar, Y

    Y. Sattar, Y. Jedra, M. Fazel, and S. Dean, Finite sam- ple identification of partially observed bilinear dynami- cal systems (2025), arXiv:2501.07652 [cs.LG]

    2025

  134. [142]

    Aldroubi and K

    A. Aldroubi and K. Grchenig, Nonuniform sampling and reconstruction in shift-invariant spaces, SIAM Review 43, 585 (2001)

    2001

  135. [143]

    J. C. Willems,The Behavioral Approach to Mathemat- ical Systems Theory, Lecture Notes in Control and In- formation Sciences, Vol. 295 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  136. [144]

    Markovsky, J

    I. Markovsky, J. C. Willems, S. V. Huffel, B. D. Moor, and R. Pintelon, Data driven simulation and control, International Journal of Control81, 1946 (2008)

    2008

  137. [145]

    Markovsky and F

    I. Markovsky and F. Drfler, Identifiability in the behav- ioral setting, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 68, 1667 (2023)

    2023

  138. [146]

    DAlessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021)

    D. DAlessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021)

    2021

  139. [147]

    C. P. Koch, Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achievements, and limitations, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter28, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  140. [148]

    F. T. Hioe and J. H. Eberly,n-level coherence vector and higher conservation laws in quantum optics and quan- tum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 838 (1981)

    1981

  141. [149]

    West and J

    M. West and J. Harrison,Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models(Springer Science & Business Media, 2006)

    2006

  142. [150]

    Sastry,Nonlinear Systems(Springer, 1999)

    S. Sastry,Nonlinear Systems(Springer, 1999)

    1999

  143. [151]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski, and E. Sudarshan, Properties of quantum markovian mas- ter equations, Reports on mathematical physics13, 149 (1978)

    1978

  144. [152]

    JANSSON and B

    M. JANSSON and B. W AHLBERG, On consistency of subspace methods for system identification, Automatica 34, 1507 (1998)

    1998

  145. [153]

    Knudsen, Consistency analysis of subspace identifi- cation methods based on a linear regression approach, Automatica37, 81 (2001)

    T. Knudsen, Consistency analysis of subspace identifi- cation methods based on a linear regression approach, Automatica37, 81 (2001)

    2001

  146. [154]

    Oymak and N

    S. Oymak and N. Ozay, Non-asymptotic identification of lti systems from a single trajectory (2019) pp. 5655– 5661

    2019

  147. [155]

    L. Xin, G. Chiu, and S. Sundaram, Learning the dy- namics of autonomous linear systems from multiple tra- jectories (2022)

    2022

  148. [156]

    Parvaiz, Generating-structure-constants, https://github.com/W-Parvaiz-DF/ Generating-Structure-Constants(2023)

    W. Parvaiz, Generating-structure-constants, https://github.com/W-Parvaiz-DF/ Generating-Structure-Constants(2023)

    2023

  149. [157]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applications(Springer Berlin, 2014)

    2014

  150. [158]

    Dariusz and S

    C. Dariusz and S. Pascazio, A brief history of the gkls equation, Open Systems & Information Dynamics24, 34 1740001 (2017)

    2017

  151. [159]

    It could be interesting to explore if there is some other basis forsu(3) where this property holds

    We furthermore expect that it does not hold forsu(N) in general, as already forsu(3) it is easy to see that the Gell-Mann basis provides a counter-example, where we have 1/2 =f 453 ̸=f 458 = √ 3/2. It could be interesting to explore if there is some other basis forsu(3) where ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.