Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Superstate Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A generalization of quantum mechanics with unitary operators as states reduces the stationary inverse problem to a new algebraic equation, $SU = \lambda U$, whose eigenvalue is a Hermitian matrix.

desk verdict The stationary algebraic core (SU = λU) is a genuine, clean result; the abstract's 'naturally bridges' claim is the weak plank. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00037 v4 pith:2GNFDAHO submitted 2025-01-25 quant-ph cs.LG

Mikhail Gennadievich Belov , Victor Victorovich Dubov , Vadim Konstantinovich Ivanov , Alexander Yurievich Maslov , Olga Vladimirovna Proshina , Vladislav Gennadievich Malyshkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG
keywords superstatequantummechanicsinverseproblemunitaryoptimizationquadraticallyconstrainedquadraticprogrameigenmatrixhigher-ordermapschannellearningdensitymatrixnetwork
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 proposes a generalization of quantum mechanics in which the state is not a unit-norm vector $\psi$ but a unitary operator $U$, a collection of complex numbers tied together by many quadratic constraints instead of just one. The central claim is that maximizing any quadratic fidelity under those constraints — the mathematical form of the quantum inverse problem, where a system is reconstructed from observations — is equivalent to a new algebraic problem, $SU = \lambda U$, in which the 'eigenvalue' is a Hermitian matrix $\lambda$ rather than a scalar. This unifies the stationary and the non-stationary problems: the same Hermitian superoperator $S_{jk;j'k'}$ plays the role of the Hamiltonian, governing both the inverse problem and candidate evolution equations for the quantum channel itself. The authors derive a hierarchy of solutions with orthogonality conditions, a canonical form for each solution, and two candidate dynamical equations, and they use the framework to define a computational model that runs on a classical computer. If the framework is right, hard optimization problems in quantum tomography, unitary learning, and machine learning gain the algebraic structure of an eigenvalue problem instead of an unguided constrained search.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the superoperator tensor $S_{jk;j'k'}$, a Hermitian analogue of the Hamiltonian that defines the quadratic fidelity (Eq. 9), together with the algebraic problem $SU = \lambda U$ (Eq. 28) obtained as the Lagrange stationarity condition of that fidelity under the quadratic unitarity constraints. The object that carries the argument is the eigenmatrix: a Hermitian $D \times D$ matrix $\lambda$ of Lagrange multipliers whose trace is the fidelity, replacing the scalar eigenvalue of the ordinary eigenproblem. Every stationary point of the quadratically constrained program is asserted to satisfy (28); a hierarchy of solutions provides the analogue of eigenstates and energy levels, and the same tensor $S$ reappears in the non-stationary equations $i\hbar\,\partial U/\partial t = SU$ and $i\hbar\,\partial U/\partial t = \langle U | S | U \rangle U$, making $S$ the single object that bridges the direct problem (dynamics) and the inverse problem (reconstruction).

What would settle it

Take a small random Hermitian tensor $S_{jk;j'k'}$ (say $D = n = 3$), enumerate by brute force every stationary point of the quadratic fidelity on the manifold of unitary operators, compute all solutions of $SU = \lambda U$, and check that the two sets coincide and that the solution with the largest $\operatorname{Tr}\lambda$ matches the brute-force global maximum; any stationary point that fails to satisfy $SU = \lambda U$ would falsify the reduction. The paper's own reported examples (in Ref. [31]) where a quadratic proxy fidelity outranks the true channel fidelity for mixed-state mappings provide an immediate second test of where the quadratic-form requirement breaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a quadratically constrained quadratic program whose variables are the entries of a (partially) unitary operator $U$ — maximize $F = \sum_{jk,j'k'} U^{*}_{jk} S_{jk;j'k'} U_{j'k'}$ subject to the unitarity constraints $\delta_{ij} = \sum_k U_{ik} U^{*}_{jk}$ — has as its Lagrange stationarity condition a new algebraic problem, $SU = \lambda U$, where $S$ is the Hermitian tensor defining the quadratic fidelity, $U$ is the 'eigenstate' (a unitary operator), and $\lambda$ is a Hermitian matrix of Lagrange multipliers, the 'eigenmatrix.' The fidelity at a solution equals the trace of the eigenmatrix, $F = \operatorname{Tr}\lambda$, exactly as the energy in ordinary quantum mechanics is the eigenvalue. The problem has up to $Dn$ solutions $(U^{[s]}, \lambda^{[s]})$ forming a hierarchy; each $\lambda^{[s]}$ can be read as a 'second Hamiltonian' of a quantum system whose ordinary Hamiltonian is $i \ln U^{[s]}$. The paper proves a canonical-form theorem (with $\lambda$ diagonal and $U$ the identity matrix when $D = n$), derives orthogonality conditions that depend on the eigenmatrix itself, and shows that for a two-Hamiltonian form of $S$ the same tensor reproduces standard higher-order quantum maps — evidence that $S$ governs both the stationary inverse problem and the evolution of the quantum system itself.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantity being maximized can be written exactly as a quadratic expression in the unknowns, which holds for pure-state data but only approximately for mixed-state quantum channels; if that fails, the algebraic problem $SU = \lambda U$ does not apply and only unguaranteed numerical search remains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every stationary point of a quadratic fidelity under unitarity constraints satisfies $SU = \lambda U$, so inverse problems that can be posed in quadratic form are solvable by eigenproblem-type methods that produce a hierarchy of candidate solutions rather than a single gradient guess.
  • The fidelity of solution $s$ is $F = \operatorname{Tr}\lambda^{[s]}$, giving the inverse problem a spectrum and a density of states over fidelity, with the maximum-fidelity solution playing the role of the ground state.
  • The same tensor $S$ that defines the stationary inverse problem also defines candidate dynamics, and for the two-Hamiltonian approximation those dynamics reduce to known higher-order quantum maps, so direct and inverse quantum mechanics are governed by one object.
  • 2D circuits with two independent sequences of unitary gates can transform one quantum system into another, generalizing 1D quantum circuits, with the ground-state solution $U^{[0]}$ as the natural initial system.
  • For pure-state data of the standard machine-learning form, reconstructing a general quantum channel reduces exactly to a quadratically constrained quadratic program, yielding a classical computational model — a hierarchy of quantum channels, or density matrix network — invariant under non-degenerate linear transformations of the data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equivalence of stationary points and solutions of $SU = \lambda U$ holds, the same algebraic structure should transfer to any quadratic-constraint optimization — partially unitary learning, Kraus-operator constraints, and possibly classical dimensionality reduction — giving guaranteed-hierarchy alternatives to gradient methods beyond the quantum examples in the paper.
  • The eigenmatrix-dependent orthogonality condition suggests that superpositions of stationary solutions are generically not physical states; the paper's density supermatrix (a mixed unitary channel, Eq. 55) is then the natural state space, and one could test whether repeated 'measurements' of $\lambda$ follow a probabilistic rule based on $\operatorname{Tr}\lambda$ or something new.
  • A numerical test the authors flag but leave open: compute the density of states over fidelity for tensors $S$ built from samples of a known Hamiltonian and check their conjecture that the distribution is shaped by the observation sample rather than by the Hamiltonian; if true, this becomes a diagnostic tool for quantum tomography.
  • The speculative step — a physical process that solves the inverse problem in a single measurement and returns a Hermitian matrix — would have a distinctive signature (a matrix-valued measurement outcome with no POVM realization); if no such process exists, the framework still stands as a classical computational model, which is the paper's immediately available application.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces 'Superstate Quantum Mechanics' (SQM), a framework in which quantum states are matrices (typically unitary or partially unitary operators) subject to multiple quadratic constraints, and the 'energy' is a quadratic form of the state with a Hermitian tensor S. The main formal result is the derivation, via Lagrange multipliers, of a stationary equation SU = λU, where λ is a Hermitian matrix of multipliers (an 'eigenmatrix'), and the claim that this algebraic problem generalizes the eigenvalue problem and captures the global maxima of the fidelity in the constrained optimization. The paper also proposes two non-stationary equations, iℏ∂U/∂t = SU and iℏ∂U/∂t = ⟨U|S|U⟩ U, discusses a hierarchy of solutions and orthogonality conditions, gives a canonical-form transformation, and outlines applications to quantum channel learning and classical computation via density-matrix networks. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations: exact quadratic fidelity is available only for pure-state mappings, the numerical algorithm's global convergence is an open question, and the exact form of the dynamics is left for future research.

Significance. The stationary derivation is clean and self-contained: constructing the Lagrangian (27) and varying it does yield the algebraic problem (28), and the orthogonality relation (30) follows from Hermiticity of S. The paper is also honest about its scope, flagging the quadratic-fidelity restriction, the open convergence question, and the speculative status of the dynamics. If the algebraic problem (28) and its hierarchy are established rigorously, the result would be a useful reformulation of a class of quadratically constrained unitary optimization problems, with potential applications in unitary learning and quantum tomography. However, the advertised 'bridge' between direct and inverse quantum mechanics rests on the non-stationary equation (51), which is shown in the paper (and acknowledged there) to violate unitarity for generic S; the bridge is therefore not established. The unproven solution count (Dn) and the mixed-state fidelity proxies further delimit the claims. Overall, the paper contains a defensible core result (the stationary equivalence) embedded in a much broader and more speculative narrative.

major comments (2)
  1. [VI, Eq. (51)] The proposed linear dynamic equation iℏ∂U/∂t = SU is not a consistent time-dependent generalization for generic Hermitian tensors S. For a stationary solution SU[s] = λ[s]U[s], the expected phase evolution U(t) = exp(−iλ[s]t/ℏ)U[s] is not a solution of (51) because S(U(t)) ≠ exp(−iλ[s]t/ℏ)SU[s] in general, and the formal exponential solution (52) violates the unitarity constraints (22) except for the special forms (53) and (64). Since the paper's abstract and Section VII claim that SQM 'naturally bridges direct and inverse quantum mechanics problems,' this claim is not supported by the demonstrated results, and the paper's own admission that the exact dynamic equation is future research (Section VII) should be reflected in the abstract.
  2. [IV, Eq. (29)] The statement 'The total number of solutions is up to Dn' (s = 0 . . . Dn−1) is presented without proof or reference. This count is load-bearing for the expansion (34) and for the claim in Eq. (37) that a mixed-unitary channel can achieve the same fidelity with a full basis Ns = Dn. Because (28) is a new algebraic problem, this completeness property requires a proof or an explicit conjecture; the numerical evidence in Appendix A, which obtains only a few solutions and in two of four test cases fails to converge for the exact orthogonality constraint (A6), does not support the count as an established fact.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Ref. [36]] The reference [36] is titled 'The code for polynomials calculation,' but the text describes it as the software accompanying this paper; please update the reference or the description so readers can locate the SQM code.
  2. [VI, Eq. (59)] Eq. (59) combines (51) and (57); since the aSU term alone violates unitarity for nonzero a, the text should state explicitly that unitarity is preserved only in the a=0 limit.
  3. [Appendix A] The statement that the runs 'clearly demonstrate the correctness of the orthogonality of solutions in the form of Eq. (30)' is too strong: two of the four reported tensors fail to converge (fdiffSK ≈ 71.9 and ≈ 172.5, flagOK=false). Please rephrase to indicate a partial demonstration.
  4. [IV.B] The 'Theorem' in Section IVB is an identity transformation rather than a structural simplification; the proof selects U and V using the solution itself. Calling it a definition or observation would be more precise.
  5. [Eq. (27)] The notation '− − → U max' in Eq. (27) is unclear; standard notation such as 'max_{U}' would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stationary algebraic reduction is derived from the stated variational principle, and self-citations are for numerical tools rather than for the central derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The stationary equation (28) is obtained by writing the Lagrangian (27) for the quadratic fidelity (9) under the unitarity constraints (22) and setting the variation with respect to U* to zero; this is a direct Lagrange-stationarity calculation, not a fit or a definitional identity. The relation F = Trλ follows algebraically from (28) and (22) rather than being assumed. The numerical solver and proxy-fidelity caveats are cited to the authors' prior works [30,31], but those citations are disclosed and are not used to justify the algebraic reduction itself; the paper even states that formal convergence of the algorithm remains an open question (Appendix A). The non-stationary proposal (51) is presented as one of two options, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that for a general S it does not preserve unitarity and that the exact dynamic equation is future research (Section VI); those are correctness limitations, not circular steps. The two-Hamiltonian approximation (64) is explicitly labeled an approximation used to connect to known higher-order quantum maps, and the inference to a possible general 'second Hamiltonian' is presented as speculation rather than as a derived prediction. No equation is invoked as a prediction after being fitted to the quantity it predicts, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on explicit postulates that are not derived from existing physics: operator-valued states, quadratic fidelity, and the identification of the stationary and dynamical operators. The paper acknowledges the speculative status of the dynamics and the lack of a known physical realization, which confines the immediate contribution to mathematical optimization and algorithm design.

free parameters (1)
  • a, b (GPE mixing coefficients)
    Introduced in Eq. (59) as unspecified weights for the linear and nonlinear dynamic terms; no values or fitting procedure are provided, so the proposed dynamics is underdetermined.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper States in SQM are unitary operators subject to multiple quadratic constraints.
    Postulated in Section III; the paper acknowledges no known physical process realizes such states.
  • domain assumption The fidelity objective must be expressible as a quadratic form in the mapping operators.
    Stated in Section II as the key requirement; exact only for pure-state mappings and approximated otherwise.
  • ad hoc to paper The same tensor S defines both the stationary energy functional and the non-stationary dynamics.
    Assumed in Section VI by analogy with quantum mechanics; the linear equation does not preserve unitarity in general.
  • domain assumption The iterative algorithm from prior work converges to the global maximum of the fidelity.
    Reported in Section III as a numerical observation; formal proof is stated to be an open question.
invented entities (3)
  • Operator-valued quantum state (superstate)
    purpose: Generalizes the wavefunction to a unitary operator subject to multiple quadratic constraints, enabling unified treatment of inverse and direct problems.
    The paper states that no known physical process realizes such states; it is a mathematical/computational construct.
  • Second Hamiltonian (eigenmatrix λ)
    purpose: Matrix-valued eigenvalue in the algebraic problem; speculated to generate evolution of the quantum system itself.
    Defined as Lagrange multipliers mathematically, but the physical interpretation as an evolution generator is speculative.
  • 2D superstate quantum circuit
    purpose: A computational abstraction in which unitary operators are transformed along horizontal and vertical gate sequences; no physical implementation is claimed.
    Explicitly described as having no known physical process behind it; it is a numerical/computational model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superstate Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GNFDAHO

@misc{pith2026250200037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superstate Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GNFDAHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00037}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Superstate Quantum Mechanics (SQM), a theory that considers states in Hilbert space subject to multiple quadratic constraints, with ``energy'' also expressed as a quadratic function of these states. Traditional quantum mechanics corresponds to a single quadratic constraint of wavefunction normalization with energy expressed as a quadratic form involving the Hamiltonian. When SQM represents states as unitary operators, the stationary problem becomes a quantum inverse problem with multiple applications in physics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Any stationary SQM problem is equivalent to a new algebraic problem that we address in this paper. The non-stationary SQM problem considers the evolution of the system itself, involving the same ``energy'' operator as in the stationary case. Two possible options for the SQM dynamic equation are considered: (1) within the framework of linear maps from higher-order quantum theory, where 2D-type quantum circuits transform one quantum system into another; and (2) in the form of a Gross-Pitaevskii-type nonlinear map. Although no known physical process currently describes such 2D dynamics, this approach naturally bridges direct and inverse quantum mechanics problems, allowing for the development of a new type of computer algorithms. As an immediately available practical application of the theory, we consider using a quantum channel as a classical computational model; this type of computation can be performed on a classical computer.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schrödinger, Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem, An- nalen der physik385, 437 (1926)

    E. Schrödinger, Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem, An- nalen der physik385, 437 (1926)

    work page 1926

  2. [2]

    M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, Zur quanten- mechanik. II., Zeitschrift für Physik35, 557 (1926)

    work page 1926

  3. [3]

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

    2010

  4. [4]

    M. M. Wilde, From classical to quantum Shannon theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.1445 10.48550/arXiv.1106.1445 (2011)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1106.1445 2011

  5. [5]

    Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on mathematical physics3, 275 (1972)

    A. Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on mathematical physics3, 275 (1972)

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Kraus,States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    K. Kraus,States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 190 (Springer-Verlag,1983) Lectures in Mathematical Physics at the University of Texas at Austin

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    V. P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, A Radon-Nikodym theorem for completely positive maps, Reports on mathe- matical physics 24, 49 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Trans- forming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps, Euro- physics Letters 83, 30004 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    A.BisioandP.Perinotti,Theoreticalframeworkforhigher- order quantum theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 475, 20180706 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Odake, H

    T. Odake, H. Kristjánsson, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, Higher-order quantum transformations of hamiltonian dynamics, Physical Review Research6, L012063 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Taranto, S

    P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi, Higher-Order Quantum Operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09693 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09693 (2025). 22

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bisio, G

    A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, S. Facchini, and P. Perinotti, Optimal quantum learning of a unitary trans- formation, Physical Review A81, 032324 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Holzäpfel,T

    M. Holzäpfel,T. Baumgratz,M. Cramer,andM. B. Plenio, Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and Hamilto- nians, Physical Review A91, 042129 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Bairey, I

    E. Bairey, I. Arad, and N. H. Lindner, Learning a local Hamiltonian from local measurements, Physical review letters 122, 020504 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Z. Li, L. Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Hamiltonian tomography via quantum quench, Physical review letters124, 160502 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Stilck França,L

    D. Stilck França,L. A. Markovich,V. V. Dobrovitski,A. H. Werner,andJ. Borregaard,Efficientandrobustestimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians, Nature Communications15, 311 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Castaneda and N

    J. Castaneda and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian learning via shadow tomography of pseudo-choi states, Quantum9, 1700 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio,et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Park and N

    C.-Y. Park and N. Killoran, Hamiltonian variational ansatz without barren plateaus, Quantum8, 1239 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    X. Wang, C. Yang, and M. Gu, Variational Quantum Circuit Decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 130602 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    G. M. D’Ariano, M. G. A. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Quan- tum Tomography (Elsevier, 2003) pp. 205–308, Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Vol 128

    2003

  15. [23]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Reviews of modern physics 81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Torlai, C

    G. Torlai, C. J. Wood, A. Acharya, G. Carleo, J. Car- rasquilla, and L. Aolita, Quantum process tomography with unsupervised learning and tensor networks, Nature Communications 14, 2858 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Ahmed, F

    S. Ahmed, F. Quijandría, and A. F. Kockum, Gradient- descent quantum process tomography by learning Kraus operators, Physical Review Letters130, 150402 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Arjovsky, A

    M. Arjovsky, A. Shah, and Y. Bengio, Unitary evolution recurrent neural networks, inInternational conference on machine learning, NY, USA, 2016(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (proceedings.mlr.press), 2016) pp. 1120–1128

    2016

  19. [27]

    T. A. Loring, Computing a logarithm of a unitary matrix with general spectrum, Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 21, 744 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum gates and circuits, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 261 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    C. H. Baldwin, A. Kalev, and I. H. Deutsch, Quantum process tomography of unitary and near-unitary maps, Physical Review A90, 012110 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    M. G. Belov and V. G. Malyshkin, Partially unitary learn- ing, Phys. Rev. E110, 055306 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    M. G. Belov, V. V. Dubov, A. V. Filimonov, and V. G. Malyshkin, Quantum channel learning, Phys. Rev. E111, 015302 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    M. M. Wilde, Recoverability for Holevo’s just-as-good fidelity, in2018 IEEE International Symposium on Infor- mation Theory (ISIT)(IEEE, 2018) pp. 2331–2335

    2018

  25. [33]

    A. A. Budini, R. L. de. M. Filho, and M. F. Santos, Quan- tum distinguishability measures: Projectors versus state maximization, Physical Review A110, 022228 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Johnston and D

    N. Johnston and D. W. Kribs, Quantum gate fidelity in terms of Choi matrices, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical44, 495303 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    P. Wang, H. Kwon, C.-Y. Luan, W. Chen, M. Qiao, Z. Zhou, K. Wang, M. Kim, and K. Kim, Snapshotting quantum dynamics at multiple time points, Nature Com- munications 15, 8900 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    V. G. Malyshkin, The code for polynomials calcu- lation (2014), http://www.ioffe.ru/LNEPS/malyshkin/ code.html and an alternative location

    2014

  29. [37]

    Gyongyosi and S

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, Properties of the quantum channel, arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.1270 10.48550/arXiv.1208.1270 (2012)

    2012 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Frison, J

    G. Frison, J. Frey, F. Messerer, A. Zanelli, and M. Diehl, Introducing the quadratically-constrained quadratic pro- gramming framework in HPIPM, in2022 European Con- trol Conference (ECC)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 447–453

    2022

  31. [39]

    Demmel, I

    J. Demmel, I. Dumitriu, and O. Holtz, Fast linear algebra is stable, Numerische Mathematik108, 59 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    V. G. Malyshkin, On The Radon-Nikodym Spectral Approach With Optimal Clustering, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00460 10.48550/arXiv.1906.00460 (2019)

    2019 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wen and W

    Z. Wen and W. Yin, A feasible method for optimization with orthogonality constraints, Mathematical Program- ming 142, 397 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Anderson, Z

    E. Anderson, Z. Bai, C. Bischof, L. S. Blackford, J. Dem- mel, J. Dongarra, J. Du Croz, A. Greenbaum, S. Hammar- ling, A. McKenney, and D. Sorensen,LAPACK Users’ Guide, 3rd ed. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathe- matics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to quan- tum mechanics(Cambridge university press, 2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    D. C. Marinescu,Classical and quantum information(Aca- demic Press, 2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Theoret- ical framework for quantum networks, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 022339 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)20, 454 (1961)

    1961

  39. [47]

    L. P. Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas, Sov. Phys. JETP13, 451 (1961)

    1961

  40. [48]

    43 (Cambridge University Press, 1947) pp

    J.CrankandP.Nicolson,Apracticalmethodfornumerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type, inMathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society, Vol. 43 (Cambridge University Press, 1947) pp. 50–67

    1947

  41. [49]

    Iitaka, Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equa- tion numerically, Physical Review E49, 4684 (1994)

    T. Iitaka, Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equa- tion numerically, Physical Review E49, 4684 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    Girard, D

    M. Girard, D. Leung, J. Levick, C.-K. Li, V. Paulsen, Y. T. Poon, and J. Watrous, On the mixed-unitary rank of quantum channels, Communications in Mathematical Physics 394, 919 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    I. N. Toptygin, Foundations of classical and quantum electrodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computa- tion, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equiva- lent to standard quantum computation, SIAM review50, 755 (2008)

    D.Aharonov,W.VanDam,J.Kempe,Z.Landau,S.Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equiva- lent to standard quantum computation, SIAM review50, 755 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    M. F. Anjos and J. B. Lasserre,Handbook on semidefinite, conic and polynomial optimization, Vol. 166 (Springer 23 Science & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Birman,A.A

    J.L. Birman,A.A. Maradudin,R.Pick,andK.K. Rebane, Ija Pavlovna Ipatova, Physics Today57, 69 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    F. Brezzi,On the existence,uniqueness andapproximation of saddle-point problems arising from Lagrangian multi- pliers, Publications des séminaires de mathématiques et informatique de Rennes , 1 (1974)

    1974

  49. [57]

    M. S. Bazaraa, H. D. Sherali, and C. M. Shetty,Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms(John Wiley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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