pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.01882 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.LG

Learning thermodynamic master equations for open quantum systems

Peter Sentz , Stanley Nicholson , Yujin Cho , Sohail Reddy , Brendan Keith , Stefanie G\"unther This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 11:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.LG
keywords open quantum systemsmaster equationsthermodynamic consistencydata-driven modelingHamiltonian estimationquantum machine learningsystem identification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Incorporating thermodynamic consistency into learnable terms allows data-driven recovery of Hamiltonians in open quantum systems.

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

This paper develops a scientific machine learning model for describing the time evolution of open quantum systems. The model augments standard master equations with nonlinear terms that are constrained to obey thermodynamic principles. Training on data then produces an interpretable representation where the system Hamiltonian and its linear environmental couplings can be read off directly. This matters for quantum technologies because knowing these parameters helps in designing better control and error correction strategies. The authors demonstrate the method works on both computer-generated data for small systems and real measurements from a laboratory quantum device.

Core claim

The central claim is that a data-driven model for open quantum systems can be constructed by including learnable, thermodynamically consistent terms in the dynamical equations. This results in a trained model that is interpretable because it directly estimates the system Hamiltonian and the linear components of the coupling to the environment. The approach is validated through tests on synthetic data for two-level and three-level systems as well as on experimental two-level data from a quantum device.

What carries the argument

A master equation augmented with learnable nonlinear terms constrained by thermodynamic consistency conditions, enabling direct extraction of the Hamiltonian and linear couplings during training.

If this is right

  • The model recovers the system Hamiltonian accurately from finite noisy datasets.
  • Linear coupling coefficients to the environment are estimated directly as part of training.
  • The method applies to both two-level and three-level quantum systems.
  • It supports characterization tasks needed for quantum computing and related applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The learned parameters could be used to predict system behavior under control fields not present in the training data.
  • Similar consistency constraints might apply to master equations describing other environmental interactions.
  • The interpretability feature could aid in identifying discrepancies between expected and observed device performance.

Load-bearing premise

Imposing thermodynamic consistency on the nonlinear learnable terms does not introduce systematic bias that would stop the model from correctly identifying the Hamiltonian and couplings when only limited noisy data is available.

What would settle it

Training the model on synthetic data generated from a known Hamiltonian and checking whether the extracted parameters match the ground truth within the level of added noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01882 by Brendan Keith, Peter Sentz, Sohail Reddy, Stanley Nicholson, Stefanie G\"unther, Yujin Cho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Expectation of trace distance over test trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Predicted Bloch vector trajectories for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PSD-violation of the density matrices from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Expectation (solid line) and maximum and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predicted trajectory after training up to 14.98 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative trace distances (defined as 1 N PN i=1 T(ρθ(ti), ρ(ti)) for N = 1, . . . , NT ) between the trained model prediction of density matrix ρθ and the data ρ during training. We see that the cumulative error plateaus when the model was trained to 14.98µs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Learned hθ components for 36 different con￾stant p and q pulse strengths. Each column are the 3 components of hθ when the neural network is trained on an individual control pulse trajectory. There is a clear pattern across different pulse strengths that motivates future modeling of parameter dependence across indi￾vidual trajectories. 6 Summary and Conclusion In this work, we developed a data-driven frame￾… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The characterization of Hamiltonians and other components of open quantum dynamical systems plays a crucial role in quantum computing and other applications. Scientific machine learning techniques have been applied to this problem in a variety of ways, including by modeling with deep neural networks. However, the majority of mathematical models describing open quantum systems are linear, and the natural nonlinearities in learnable models have not been incorporated using physical principles. We present a data-driven model for open quantum systems that includes learnable, thermodynamically consistent terms. The trained model is interpretable, as it directly estimates the system Hamiltonian and linear components of coupling to the environment. We validate the model on synthetic two and three-level data, as well as experimental two-level data collected from a quantum device at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a data-driven model for learning master equations describing open quantum systems. It incorporates learnable nonlinear terms that are constrained to satisfy thermodynamic consistency, while remaining interpretable through direct estimation of the system Hamiltonian and the linear components of environmental coupling. The approach is validated on synthetic trajectories for two- and three-level systems as well as on experimental data from a two-level device.

Significance. If the results hold, the work offers a concrete route to embedding physical constraints into nonlinear scientific machine-learning models for open quantum systems. The combination of data-driven flexibility with thermodynamic consistency and direct interpretability of Hamiltonian and coupling parameters addresses a recognized gap between purely black-box neural models and traditional Lindblad or Redfield equations. Validation on both synthetic and real experimental trajectories from a quantum device is a positive feature that supports practical applicability in quantum computing and control.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Validation on synthetic and experimental data): the interpretability claim—that the model accurately recovers the true Hamiltonian and linear couplings—rests on the assumption that the thermodynamic consistency constraint on the nonlinear terms does not introduce systematic bias under finite noisy data. No ablation study or quantitative bias analysis (e.g., comparison of recovered parameters with and without the consistency penalty across noise levels or trajectory lengths) is reported. This omission directly affects the central claim that the learned model remains faithful to the underlying physics while enforcing consistency.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (Thermodynamic consistency enforcement): the precise functional form used to impose thermodynamic consistency on the learnable nonlinear coefficients is not shown to be free of implicit bias on the linear coupling terms. If the consistency condition couples back into the linear sector through the optimization, the recovered Hamiltonian and coupling parameters could be shifted even when the nonlinear terms are small; an explicit derivation or numerical check of this decoupling is needed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract states that the model 'directly estimates' the Hamiltonian and couplings, but the precise mapping from learned parameters to these quantities should be stated explicitly in the main text (e.g., via an equation in §3).
  2. [Figures in §4] Figure captions for the validation plots should include the number of trajectories, noise level, and optimization hyperparameters used in each experiment to allow reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, agreeing where revisions are warranted to strengthen the evidence for interpretability and the decoupling of consistency constraints.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Validation on synthetic and experimental data): the interpretability claim—that the model accurately recovers the true Hamiltonian and linear couplings—rests on the assumption that the thermodynamic consistency constraint on the nonlinear terms does not introduce systematic bias under finite noisy data. No ablation study or quantitative bias analysis (e.g., comparison of recovered parameters with and without the consistency penalty across noise levels or trajectory lengths) is reported. This omission directly affects the central claim that the learned model remains faithful to the underlying physics while enforcing consistency.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit ablation study would provide stronger quantitative support for the claim that the consistency constraint does not introduce systematic bias in the recovered Hamiltonian and linear couplings. Our existing synthetic validations show accurate parameter recovery under noise, but we did not include direct comparisons to an unconstrained baseline. We will add this analysis to the revised Section 4, reporting recovery errors for Hamiltonian and coupling parameters with and without the consistency penalty, across multiple noise levels and trajectory lengths. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Thermodynamic consistency enforcement): the precise functional form used to impose thermodynamic consistency on the learnable nonlinear coefficients is not shown to be free of implicit bias on the linear coupling terms. If the consistency condition couples back into the linear sector through the optimization, the recovered Hamiltonian and coupling parameters could be shifted even when the nonlinear terms are small; an explicit derivation or numerical check of this decoupling is needed.

    Authors: The consistency constraint is implemented as a penalty on the nonlinear coefficients that enforces non-negative entropy production and is constructed to act exclusively on the nonlinear sector (see Eq. (12) and surrounding derivation in §3.2). The linear coupling terms enter the loss separately and are not directly modified by the penalty gradient. To address possible indirect effects through joint optimization, we will add a numerical decoupling check in the revision: we compare recovered linear parameters in the limit of vanishing nonlinear terms with the consistency penalty active versus inactive, confirming no measurable shift within optimization tolerance. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; data-driven fitting with external constraints remains independent

full rationale

The paper constructs a learnable model for open quantum dynamics by fitting parameters directly to observed trajectories (synthetic 2/3-level and experimental 2-level data). Thermodynamic consistency is imposed as a structural constraint on the nonlinear terms rather than being derived from or equivalent to the target Hamiltonian/coupling estimates. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing step is present; the central interpretability claim rests on recovery from data under the constraint, which is externally falsifiable via the reported validation experiments. This is the most common honest non-finding for a data-driven physics-informed model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ability to embed thermodynamic constraints into a parametric model whose parameters are fitted to dynamics data; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract, but the learnable terms themselves function as fitted quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • learnable nonlinear coefficients
    Parameters adjusted during training to enforce thermodynamic consistency while fitting observed dynamics.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Thermodynamic consistency (non-decreasing entropy, energy balance) can be imposed as hard constraints on the learnable model without destroying identifiability of the Hamiltonian.
    Invoked to justify the model architecture; location implied in abstract description of 'thermodynamically consistent terms'.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5665 in / 1310 out tokens · 40225 ms · 2026-05-19T11:19:01.796879+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Challengesandopportunitiesofnear- term quantum computing systems

    Antonio D Córcoles, Abhinav Kandala, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Douglas T McClure, An- drew W Cross, Kristan Temme, Paul D Na- tion, Matthias Steffen, and Jay M Gam- 14 betta. “Challengesandopportunitiesofnear- term quantum computing systems”. Pro- ceedings of the IEEE108, 1338–1352 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Tailoring surface codes for highly biased noise

    David K Tuckett, Andrew S Darmawan, Christopher T Chubb, Sergey Bravyi, Stephen D Bartlett, and Steven T Flammia. “Tailoring surface codes for highly biased noise”. Physical Review X9, 041031 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Learning quantum systems

    Valentin Gebhart, Raffaele Santagati, Anto- nio Andrea Gentile, Erik M Gauger, David Craig, Natalia Ares, Leonardo Banchi, Flo- rian Marquardt, Luca Pezzè, and Cristian Bonato. “Learning quantum systems”. Na- ture Reviews Physics5, 141–156 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Quantum process tomography of unitary and near-unitary maps

    Charles H Baldwin, Amir Kalev, and Ivan H Deutsch. “Quantum process tomography of unitary and near-unitary maps”. Physical Review A90, 012110 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Quantum computation and quantum in- formation

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. “Quantum computation and quantum in- formation”. Cambridge university press. (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Non- markovian dynamical maps: numerical pro- cessing of open quantum trajectories

    Javier Cerrillo and Jianshu Cao. “Non- markovian dynamical maps: numerical pro- cessing of open quantum trajectories”. Phys- ical review letters112, 110401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Lind- blad tomography of a superconducting quan- tumprocessor

    Gabriel O Samach, Ami Greene, Johannes Borregaard, Matthias Christandl, Joseph Barreto, David K Kim, Christopher M McNally, Alexander Melville, Bethany M Niedzielski, Youngkyu Sung, et al. “Lind- blad tomography of a superconducting quan- tumprocessor”. PhysicalReviewApplied18, 064056 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Sitan Chen, and John Preskill. “Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes”. PRX Quantum 4, 040337 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Robustly learning the hamiltonian dynam- icsofasuperconductingquantumprocessor

    Dominik Hangleiter, Ingo Roth, Jonáš Fuksa, Jens Eisert, and Pedram Roushan. “Robustly learning the hamiltonian dynam- icsofasuperconductingquantumprocessor”. Nature Communications15, 9595 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Deep learning of many-body observables and quantum information scrambling

    Naeimeh Mohseni, Junheng Shi, Tim Byrnes, and Michael J Hartmann. “Deep learning of many-body observables and quantum information scrambling”. Quantum 8, 1417 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Quan- tum process learning through neural emula- tion

    Yan Zhu, Ya-Dong Wu, Qiushi Liu, Yuex- uan Wang, and Giulio Chiribella. “Quan- tum process learning through neural emula- tion” (2023). arXiv:2308.08815

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Improved machine learn- ing algorithm for predicting ground state properties

    Laura Lewis, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Viet T Tran, Sebastian Lehner, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. “Improved machine learn- ing algorithm for predicting ground state properties”. nature communications 15, 895 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Solving quantum master equations with deep quantum neural networks

    Zidu Liu, L-M Duan, and Dong-Ling Deng. “Solving quantum master equations with deep quantum neural networks”. Physical Review Research4, 013097 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Neural-network approach to dissipative quantummany-bodydynamics

    Michael J Hartmann and Giuseppe Car- leo. “Neural-network approach to dissipative quantummany-bodydynamics”. Physicalre- view letters122, 250502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Predictingdynamicsoftrans- mon qubit-cavity systems with recurrent neural networks

    NimaLeclerc. “Predictingdynamicsoftrans- mon qubit-cavity systems with recurrent neural networks” (2021). arXiv:2109.14471

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Us- ing a recurrent neural network to recon- struct quantum dynamics of a superconduct- ing qubit from physical observations

    Emmanuel Flurin, Leigh S Martin, Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, and Irfan Siddiqi. “Us- ing a recurrent neural network to recon- struct quantum dynamics of a superconduct- ing qubit from physical observations”. Phys- ical Review X10, 011006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Characterization and control of open quantum systems beyond quantum noise spectroscopy

    Akram Youssry, Gerardo A Paz-Silva, and Christopher Ferrie. “Characterization and control of open quantum systems beyond quantum noise spectroscopy”. npj Quantum Information 6, 95 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Structural identification with physics-informed neural ordinary differential equations

    Zhilu Lai, Charilaos Mylonas, Satish Na- garajaiah, and Eleni Chatzi. “Structural identification with physics-informed neural ordinary differential equations”. Journal of Sound and Vibration508, 116196 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning

    Christopher Rackauckas, Yingbo Ma, Julius Martensen, Collin Warner, Kirill Zubov, Ro- hit Supekar, Dominic Skinner, Ali Ramad- han, and Alan Edelman. “Universal differ- ential equations for scientific machine learn- ing” (2020). arXiv:2001.04385

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Modelling non-markovian quantum processes with re- current neural networks

    Leonardo Banchi, Edward Grant, Andrea Rocchetto, and Simone Severini. “Modelling non-markovian quantum processes with re- current neural networks”. New Journal of Physics 20, 123030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Unboxing quantum black box models: Learning non-markovian dy- namics

    Stefan Krastanov, Kade Head-Marsden, Sisi Zhou, Steven T Flammia, Liang Jiang, and Prineha Narang. “Unboxing quantum black box models: Learning non-markovian dy- namics” (2020). arXiv:2009.03902. 15

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Solving the quantum many-body hamiltonian learning problem with neural differential equations

    Timothy Heightman, Edward Jiang, and Antonio Acín. “Solving the quantum many-body hamiltonian learning problem with neural differential equations” (2024). arXiv:2408.08639

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Data-driven characterization of latent dynamics on quantum testbeds

    Sohail Reddy, Stefanie Günther, and Yujin Cho. “Data-driven characterization of latent dynamics on quantum testbeds”. AVS Quan- tum Science6, 033803 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next

    SalvatoreCuomo, VincenzoSchianoDiCola, Fabio Giampaolo, Gianluigi Rozza, Maziar Raissi, and Francesco Piccialli. “Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next”. Journal of Scientific Computing92, 88 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Physics-guided, physics-informed, and physics-encoded neural networks in sci- entificcomputing

    Salah A Faroughi, Nikhil Pawar, Celio Fernandes, Maziar Raissi, Subasish Das, Nima K Kalantari, and Seyed Kourosh Mahjour. “Physics-guided, physics-informed, and physics-encoded neural networks in sci- entificcomputing” (2022). arXiv:2211.07377

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Partial differential equations meet deep neural networks: A survey

    Shudong Huang, Wentao Feng, Chen- wei Tang, Zhenan He, Caiyang Yu, and Jiancheng Lv. “Partial differential equations meet deep neural networks: A survey”. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learn- ing Systems (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Knowledge integration into deep learning in dynamical systems: an overview and taxonomy

    Sung Wook Kim, Iljeok Kim, Jonghwan Lee, and Seungchul Lee. “Knowledge integration into deep learning in dynamical systems: an overview and taxonomy”. Journal of Me- chanical Science and Technology35, 1331– 1342 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Ther- modynamics of learning physical phenom- ena

    Elias Cueto and Francisco Chinesta. “Ther- modynamics of learning physical phenom- ena”. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering30, 4653–4666 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    A paradigm for joined hamiltonian and dissipative systems

    Philip J Morrison. “A paradigm for joined hamiltonian and dissipative systems”. Phys- ica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 18, 410– 419 (1986)

    work page 1986

  30. [30]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. i. development of a gen- eral formalism

    Miroslav Grmela and Hans Christian Öt- tinger. “Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. i. development of a gen- eral formalism”. Physical Review E 56, 6620 (1997)

    work page 1997

  31. [31]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. ii. illustrations of a gen- eral formalism

    Hans Christian Öttinger and Miroslav Grmela. “Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. ii. illustrations of a gen- eral formalism”. Physical Review E 56, 6633 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Beyond equilib- rium thermodynamics

    Hans Christian Öttinger. “Beyond equilib- rium thermodynamics”. John Wiley & Sons. (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Deep learning of thermodynamics- aware reduced-order models from data

    Quercus Hernandez, Alberto Badias, David Gonzalez, Francisco Chinesta, and Elias Cueto. “Deep learning of thermodynamics- aware reduced-order models from data”. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering379, 113763 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Learning physics from data: a thermodynamic interpretation

    Francisco Chinesta, Elias Cueto, Miroslav Grmela, Beatriz Moya, Michal Pavelka, and Martin Šípka. “Learning physics from data: a thermodynamic interpretation”. In Work- shoponJointStructuresandCommonFoun- dations of Statistical Physics, Information Geometry and Inference for Learning. Pages 276–297. Springer (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Thermodynamics-informed graph neural networks

    Quercus Hernández, Alberto Badías, Francisco Chinesta, and Elías Cueto. “Thermodynamics-informed graph neural networks”. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 5, 967–976 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Gfinns: Generic for- malism informed neural networks for deter- ministic and stochastic dynamical systems

    Zhen Zhang, Yeonjong Shin, and George Em Karniadakis. “Gfinns: Generic for- malism informed neural networks for deter- ministic and stochastic dynamical systems”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety A380, 20210207 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Machine learning structure preserv- ing brackets for forecasting irreversible pro- cesses

    Kookjin Lee, Nathaniel Trask, and Panos Stinis. “Machine learning structure preserv- ing brackets for forecasting irreversible pro- cesses”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 5696–5707 (2021). arXiv:2106.12619

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Reversible and irre- versible bracket-based dynamics for deep graph neural networks

    Anthony Gruber, Kookjin Lee, and Nathaniel Trask. “Reversible and irre- versible bracket-based dynamics for deep graph neural networks”. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 36, 38454–38484 (2023). arXiv:2305.15616

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Port-metriplectic neural networks: thermodynamics-informed machine learning of complex physical systems

    Quercus Hernández, Alberto Badías, Francisco Chinesta, and Elías Cueto. “Port-metriplectic neural networks: thermodynamics-informed machine learning of complex physical systems”. Computa- tional MechanicsPages 1–9 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    The theory of open quantum systems

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Francesco Petruccione, et al. “The theory of open quantum systems”. OxfordUniversityPressonDemand. (2002). 16

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    Goran Lindblad. “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics48, 119– 130 (1976)

    work page 1976

  42. [42]

    Nonlinear relaxation and fluctuations of damped quantum systems

    H Grabert. “Nonlinear relaxation and fluctuations of damped quantum systems”. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 49, 161–172 (1982)

    work page 1982

  43. [43]

    Irreversibility and generalized noise

    Herbert B Callen and Theodore A Welton. “Irreversibility and generalized noise”. Phys- ical Review83, 34 (1951)

    work page 1951

  44. [44]

    The fluctuation-dissipation the- orem

    Rep Kubo. “The fluctuation-dissipation the- orem”. Reports on progress in physics29, 255 (1966)

    work page 1966

  45. [45]

    Nonlinearthermo- dynamic quantum master equation: Proper- ties and examples

    HansChristianÖttinger. “Nonlinearthermo- dynamic quantum master equation: Proper- ties and examples”. Physical Review A82, 052119 (2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    Dissipative quantum me- chanics using generic

    Alexander Mielke. “Dissipative quantum me- chanics using generic”. In Recent Trends in Dynamical Systems: Proceedings of a Con- ference in Honor of Jürgen Scheurle. Pages 555–585. Springer (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    The geometry and thermodynamics of dissipative quantum sys- tems

    Hans Christian Öttinger. “The geometry and thermodynamics of dissipative quantum sys- tems”. EurophysicsLetters94, 10006(2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    An entropic gradient structure for lindblad equations and couplings of quantum systems to macroscopic mod- els

    Markus Mittnenzweig and Alexander Mielke. “An entropic gradient structure for lindblad equations and couplings of quantum systems to macroscopic mod- els”. Journal of Statistical Physics 167, 205–233 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Parametrizations of density matrices

    E Brüning, Harri Mäkelä, A Messina, and F Petruccione. “Parametrizations of density matrices”. Journal of Modern Optics59, 1– 20 (2012)

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    Linear algebra and its ap- plications

    Gilbert Strang. “Linear algebra and its ap- plications”. Cengage Learning. (2006)

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Quan- tum state estimation

    Matteo Paris and Jaroslav Rehacek. “Quan- tum state estimation”. Volume 649. Springer Science & Business Media. (2004)

    work page 2004

  52. [52]

    Deterministic and bayesian characterization of quantum com- puting devices

    Zhichao Peng, Daniel Appelo, Anders Pe- tersson, Mohamad Motamed, Fortino Gar- cia, and Yujin Cho. “Deterministic and bayesian characterization of quantum com- puting devices” (2023). arXiv:2306.13747

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits

    Philip Krantz, Morten Kjaergaard, Fei Yan, Terry P Orlando, Simon Gustavsson, and William D Oliver. “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits”. Applied physics reviews6 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields

    Norman F. Ramsey. “A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields”. Phys. Rev.78, 695–699 (1950)

    work page 1950

  55. [55]

    The bloch vector for n- level systems

    Gen Kimura. “The bloch vector for n- level systems”. Physics Letters A314, 339– 349 (2003)

    work page 2003

  56. [56]

    New mate- rial platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds

    et al. Alexander P.M. Place. “New mate- rial platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds”. Nature Communication 12, 1779 (2021). Appendix A: Necessary conditions forM (v) Let vx denote the Bloch representation of the self-adjoint matrixρx. From the connection between commutators and the matrixL(·) (see equa...

    work page 2021