Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Quantum Wall States for Noise Mitigation and Eternal Purity Bounds

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong Hamiltonian driving of a 'wall' subsystem keeps the logical subsystem's purity within any chosen window around its initial value for all times, provided a spectral condition on the driven Hamiltonian holds.

desk verdict The wall-state framework is a genuine contribution, but the eternal-purity headline is overclaimed in the abstract; referee it and ask for the dissipative gap to be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07944 v1 pith:BF4JOUS3 submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph

Miguel Casanova , Francesco Ticozzi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P7081S22
keywords quantumwallstatesdecoherence-freesubspacesdynamicaldecouplingpuritypreservationstrongHamiltoniandrivingRiemannianoptimizationopensystemsZenoeffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper develops a hybrid passive-active scheme to protect quantum information: the controllable degrees of freedom are split into a logical subsystem, which carries the encoded information, and a wall subsystem, which mediates the dominant interaction with the environment. The wall subsystem and its initial wall state are chosen by Riemannian optimization, and then the wall state is stabilized either by repeated measurements, by engineered dissipation, or by strong Hamiltonian driving, so that the logical subsystem is barely touched by control. The headline claim, proved as Proposition 6, is that under the spectral condition $C_1 \cap K_1 \cap K_2 = \emptyset$, strong Hamiltonian driving forces the logical purity $\gamma_l(t)$ to remain inside $(\gamma_0-\epsilon,\gamma_0+\epsilon)$ for every time $t$ and any initial logical and environment states, with $\epsilon$ arbitrarily small for large enough driving gain. If correct, this gives an eternal purity bound that is independent of the logical state and can be combined with dynamical decoupling to make the protection nearly perfect in ideal closed dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spectral expansion of the logical purity in the eigenbasis of the driven Hamiltonian, written as $\gamma_l(t) = \bar\gamma + \vec e(t)^\top \vec\rho$, where $\bar\gamma$ collects all time-independent terms and $\vec\rho$ collects the amplitudes of oscillations with frequencies $\lambda_{abij} = \lambda_a-\lambda_b+\lambda_i-\lambda_j$. Proposition 5 turns this expansion into the time-independent bound $\gamma_l(t)\ge \bar\gamma - \|\vec\rho\|_1$, and Lemma 1 characterizes the asymptotic factorization of eigenstates under unbounded wall driving. The condition $C_1 \cap K_1 \cap K_2 = \emptyset$ then excludes any term that is simultaneously oscillatory, non-vanishing in the initial-state overlaps, and non-vanishing in the partial-trace factors, which is exactly what is needed for the purity window to shrink to zero width.

What would settle it

Take the three-qubit example of Section 10 with the same wall state and initial states, turn on a Lindblad term acting on the environment, and simulate the purity for large driving gain; if $\gamma_l(t)$ ever falls below $\gamma_0-\epsilon$, the eternal bound does not survive dissipation. Alternatively, scan Hamiltonians that satisfy $C_1\cap K_1\cap K_2=\emptyset$ numerically at finite but large $\kappa$: any case where the purity leaves the predicted window would falsify the sufficiency of the spectral condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that stabilizing the wall state by strong Hamiltonian driving can suppress not just the rate of purity decay but the amplitude of purity oscillations themselves, down to an arbitrarily small window around the initial value. Expressed through the driven Hamiltonian $H_\kappa = H + \kappa\,1_l\otimes H_u\otimes 1_e$, the purity of the logical subsystem splits into a constant term $\bar\gamma$ and an oscillating term whose coefficients are products of initial-state overlaps and Hilbert-Schmidt traces of partially traced eigenstate projectors. As $\kappa\to\infty$, Lemma 1 shows the eigenstates of $H_\kappa$ factorize with respect to the wall control eigenbasis, so the only terms that can survive are those in sets $K_1$ and $K_2$; Proposition 6 says the purity stays bounded if no such surviving term has nonzero oscillation frequency, i.e. if $C_1 \cap K_1 \cap K_2 = \emptyset$. The authors verify the condition analytically on a three-qubit example and numerically for the spin-lattice and central-spin models, where the wall method also improves the performance of dynamical decoupling.

Load-bearing premise

The eternal-purity proof assumes the environment evolves purely by Hamiltonian dynamics: Section 10 explicitly drops all dissipative terms, even though the general model allows Lindblad dissipation on the environment, and the abstract states the eternal claim without that restriction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the spectral condition, strong Hamiltonian wall driving makes the logical purity stay within an arbitrarily small window of its initial value for all times, with the window shrinking as the driving gain grows.
  • Because the controls act only on the wall subsystem, the logical subsystem remains available for information processing, and the method can be layered with dynamical decoupling without additional logical-level control.
  • In the studied models, wall-state engineering improves both selective and universal dynamical decoupling, although certain combinations of driving amplitude and DD frequency produce an anti-Zeno resonance that accelerates purity loss.
  • Perfect wall states exist exactly when a decoherence-free subspace exists for systems of identical subsystems, so the optimization procedure can be understood as searching for the best approximate DFS.
  • Repeated-measurement and engineered-dissipation stabilization slow purity decay but, in the paper's examples, do not provide the eternal bound that strong Hamiltonian driving provides.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One immediate testable extension is to add environment Lindblad dissipation to the Section 10 example and check whether the eternal window survives; the proof as written assumes purely Hamiltonian dynamics and drops all dissipative terms.
  • The spectral condition $C_1\cap K_1\cap K_2=\emptyset$ may be generic for non-degenerate wall control once the asymptotic eigenstates factorize; a random-Hamiltonian survey could estimate how often eternal purity preservation is achievable rather than exceptional.
  • The observed anti-Zeno resonances between wall driving and DD suggest the two controls should be co-designed spectrally, choosing the driving gain away from resonance windows, an engineering guideline the paper leaves for future work.
  • Where Proposition 6 applies, the scheme behaves like an active noiseless code with no encoding overhead; deriving finite-time, finite-gain bounds would be the natural step toward fault-tolerance thresholds.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a hybrid passive-active protection framework in which a controllable "wall" subsystem mediates the dominant coupling between a logical subsystem and an environment. The authors propose Riemannian optimization to select the logical-wall decomposition, optimize the wall state by minimizing the average initial purity-loss acceleration, and stabilize the wall state via repeated measurements, engineered dissipation, or strong Hamiltonian driving. The main theoretical result is Proposition 6, which claims that under a spectral condition, sufficiently strong Hamiltonian driving keeps the logical purity in an arbitrarily small interval around its initial value for all times, provided the environment is free of dissipation. The paper also presents numerical studies on Ising chains, a spin lattice with three-body interactions, and a central spin model, and it compares and combines the method with dynamical decoupling.

Significance. If the eternal purity bound were valid in the full model, it would be a striking and useful result: a control protocol that acts only on an ancilla-like wall subsystem and provides a uniform-in-time purity lower bound, with explicit sufficient conditions and a nontrivial analytic example. The optimization tools for approximate decoherence-free subspaces and wall-state selection are methodologically valuable, and the integration with dynamical decoupling, including the observed anti-Zeno resonances, is an interesting practical contribution. The significance is, however, substantially tempered by the fact that the eternal purity result is proved only for purely Hamiltonian dynamics, while the abstract and conclusion state it without that qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 10; Proposition 6] The eternal purity claim is proved only after all dissipative terms are dropped. Section 10 opens with "for the sake of simplicity, in this Section we do not consider any dissipative term L_k", and the derivation in Eqs. (83)-(90), the bound in Eq. (91), and Proposition 6 contain no Lindblad generator. The general model in Eq. (2) includes environmental Lindblad operators of the form L_m = 1_s ⊗ L^e_m, and environment dissipation can reduce logical purity through system-environment correlations. The abstract's unqualified statement "under suitable conditions, our method maintains system purity above a threshold for all times" therefore overstates the proven result. The authors should either restrict all eternal-purity claims to the Hamiltonian case explicitly or provide an extension (or a counterexample) for the dissipative model.
  2. [Section 10, Proposition 6] The statement of Proposition 6 is ambiguous because the set C1 is defined in Eq. (89) using the eigenvalues of the driven Hamiltonian Hκ, while K1 and K2 are defined in Eqs. (98) and (100) using the κ → ∞ limits. Thus the condition C1 ∩ K1 ∩ K2 = ∅ is κ-dependent, and the proposition does not specify for which κ it must hold. The antecedent and the existential conclusion "there exists a κ" are therefore quantified inconsistently. Please reformulate the condition, e.g. as "there exists κ0 such that for all κ ≥ κ0, C1(κ) ∩ K1 ∩ K2 = ∅", or state the appropriate limiting condition, and adjust the proof accordingly.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.6)] Equation (C.6) states Γ2(|ψj_k⟩⟨ψj_k|) = 1 − s_j²/2, but this is inconsistent with the definition in Eq. (45) unless Σ_i s_i² = 2, which is not generally true. Using Var_{|w⟩}(D_i) = 1/2 − (1/2)δ_ij for qubit walls gives Γ2 = (S − s_j²)/2 with S = Σ_i s_i². The conclusion that j = 1 minimizes Γ2 remains correct because S is independent of j and s_1 > s_i for i > 1, but the displayed formula and the surrounding derivation need to be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 10, Proposition 6] The interval in the statement "γl(t) ∈ (γ0 + ϵ, γ0 − ϵ)" should read "γl(t) ∈ (γ0 − ϵ, γ0 + ϵ)".
  2. [Section 8.3] The text says "J x_i are given by (59), (65) and (4)", but the three terms refer to J^x, J^y, and J^z respectively; the sentence should name all three operators explicitly.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "eiegenstate" (Section 4.1), "asymtpotically" (Section 7.2), "the the" (Figure 4 caption), and "γ↕" (proof of Proposition 6); these should be corrected in a final pass.
  4. [Section 10.1, Table 7] The table would be easier to follow if the asymptotic eigenstates were normalized and if the text clarified that the symbolic check of λ5,7,8,6 = 0 is performed for all κ, not only in the limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eternal purity bound is derived from a self-contained spectral decomposition, and the optimization steps are tested against independent full-dynamics simulations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The eternal-purity result (Prop. 6, Sec. 10) is obtained from an explicit spectral decomposition of H_kappa (Eqs. 83-91): the quantities C1, K1, K2 are defined directly from the eigenvalue differences lambda_abij, the asymptotic eigenstate overlaps, and the initial-state coefficients, not from the final purity curve. The sufficient condition C1 ∩ K1 ∩ K2 = ∅ is a stated spectral/resonance condition; the proof shows that when it holds, the oscillating summands either have zero frequency or vanish as kappa → ∞. No parameter is fitted to the bound and then renamed a prediction. The wall-state and subsystem optimization (Secs. 5-6) minimizes Hamiltonian-norm components and the initial purity acceleration (Eqs. 35, 45), while the reported performance is evaluated by independently simulating full purity dynamics (Figs. 1-7), so the good performance is not forced by construction. The strong-driving effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 56) is justified by the external quantum Zeno theorem [29], not by an author-specific ansatz; the dissipative-stabilization fixed-point statement cites [20,32], which are established published results and are not used to forbid alternatives in the central claim. Prior work [16] is presented as background, and the present paper supplies the missing proofs. Section 10 explicitly restricts the eternal bound to Hamiltonian evolution ('in this Section we do not consider any dissipative term L_k'); this is an honest scope limitation that may affect the abstract's unqualified phrasing, but it is a correctness/generality caveat, not a circularity. I therefore find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that the environment's dissipative action is confined to the environment subsystem, and the eternal purity result additionally requires a closed Hamiltonian setting. The wall subsystem and wall state are modeling constructs rather than empirically evidenced physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • η_reg = 0.01
    Regularization weight in the cost function (29), fixed by hand in all examples; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • β (environment temperature) = 0.01
    Inverse temperature of the environment's thermal initial state in all simulations (Eq. 57), chosen by hand.
  • control gains f, η, κ = scanned (e.g., 1 to 15)
    Measurement frequency, dissipation rate, and driving strength are swept to demonstrate trends; they are control parameters, not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Noise operators L_m act only on the environment (L_m = 1_s ⊗ L_e^m)
    Eq. (3); restricts the framework to environments whose Markovian dissipation does not act directly on the system.
  • domain assumption The environment itself is described as a finite-dimensional system coupled to a memoryless reservoir
    Section 2; the general model combines non-Markovian coupling with Markovian dissipation on the environment.
  • ad hoc to paper For the eternal purity result, all dissipative terms are dropped
    Section 10 opening: 'we do not consider any dissipative term L_k'; this restriction is essential to the proof but omitted from the abstract's claim.
  • domain assumption The control Hamiltonian H_u is nondegenerate
    Used in Lemma 1 and Section 7.3 to ensure asymptotic eigenstates factorize with the wall; needed for the purity bound.
  • ad hoc to paper Spectral condition C1 ∩ K1 ∩ K2 = ∅
    Proposition 6's sufficient condition; nontrivial and verified only for one three-qubit example.
invented entities (2)
  • Wall subsystem H_w
    purpose: Virtual subsystem of the controllable system that mediates the dominant interaction with the environment; controls are applied only to it.
    Introduced in prior work [16]; here it is a modeling construct whose utility is demonstrated only in internal simulations, with no external experimental handle.
  • Wall state |w>
    purpose: State of the wall subsystem that minimizes initial purity loss of the logical subsystem; stabilized by measurement, dissipation, or strong driving.
    Internal to the framework; its protective effect is shown numerically, not with independent data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Wall States for Noise Mitigation and Eternal Purity Bounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BF4JOUS3

@misc{pith2026250707944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Wall States for Noise Mitigation and Eternal Purity Bounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BF4JOUS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07944}
}
read the original abstract

The present work analyzes state-stabilization techniques for decoupling a subsystem from environmental interactions. The proposed framework uses analytical and numerical tools to find an approximate decoherence-free subspace (DFS) with enhanced passive noise isolation. Active state-stabilizing control on a subsystem mediating dominant environmental interactions, which we call wall subsystem, creates an effective quantum wall state. The proposed method controls only the wall subsystem, leaving the logical subsystem untouched. This simplifies logic operations in the protected subsystem, and makes it suitable for integration with other quantum information protection techniques, such as dynamical decoupling (DD). We demonstrated its effectiveness in enhancing the performance of selective or complete DD. Under suitable conditions, our method maintains system purity above a threshold for all times, achieving eternal purity preservation. Theoretical analysis links this behavior to the asymptotic spectrum of the Hamiltonian when the control gain grows unbounded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample purity dynamics of the system with Hamiltonian (58). The solid blue line shows the purity γl of the logical subsystem in the optimized frame with regularization. The dashed red line shows the purity of the logical subsystem in the optimized frame without regularization. The dotted green line shows the purity of the logical subsystem in the original frame. The markers of matching colors show the purity of the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Sample purity dynamics for different initial wall states. The solid blue line shows the purity γl for the optimal choice |wˆ⟩ = |−⟩, whereas the dashed red line shows the purity for a random choice of wall state. The markers of matching colors show the purity of the system when a Lindbladian pumping term (64) is added to the environment. (b) Difference between the purity of the logical subsystem between realizat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a), (b), (c) Purity dynamics when each of the proposed controls is applied for different values of the corresponding control gain variable. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by (66) and the wall state is |−⟩. In (a) the measurement projectors are Π = |−⟩⟨−| and Π⊥ = |+⟩⟨+|. In (b) the dissipation operator is L = |−⟩⟨+|. In (c) the control Hamiltonian is Hu = |−⟩⟨−| − |+⟩⟨+|. (d) shows the time that it takes th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Purity dynamics of the spin lattice model with different choices of initial wall state and subsystem. The blue solid line shows the purity with the optimized subsystem and state, whereas the the red dashed line shows the purity where only the wall state has been optimi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a), (b), (c) Purity dynamics when each of the proposed controls is applied to the spin lattice model for different values of the corresponding control gain variable. (d) Time to reach purity equal to 0.97 with different control schemes applied to the spin lattice mode…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The controls were applied to the system in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Purity dynamics of the central spin model with different choices of initial wall state and subsystem. The blue solid line shows the purity with the optimized subsystem and state, whereas the the red dashed line shows the purity where only the wall state has been optimi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a), (b), (c) Purity dynamics when each of the proposed controls is applied to the central spin model for different values of the corresponding control gain variable. (d) Time to reach purity equal to 0.97 with different control schemes applied to the spin lattice mode…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between DD and wall state engineering. The solid blue line represents DD with an universal pulse sequence. The red dashed line represents selective DD. The green dash-dotted line represents strong Hamiltonian driving on the wall subsystem. stabilization. The…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between different kinds of DD, enhanced by wall state engineering. The solid blue line represents DD with an universal pulse sequence. The red dashed line represents selective DD. The green dash-dotted line represents universal DD with strong Hamiltonian dri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Purity dynamics when selective DD on the logical subsystem is combined with strong Hamiltonian driving on the wall for different values of the driving amplitude κ and a DD cycle frequency of f = 10. (a), (b) For certain values of κ (here, κ = 21 in (a) and κ = 33 in (…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Value of the lower bound in function of the driving strength κ when ρl = (|0⟩+i|1⟩)(⟨0|−i⟨1|), |wˆ⟩ = |0⟩ and ρe is a thermal state with inverse temperature β = 0.01. (b) Purity dynamics for three different values of κ and the same initial states. The horizontal l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Khodjasteh K and Viola L 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett.102(8) 080501

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    Quantum Wall States for Noise Mitigation and Eternal Purity Bounds 42 Proof

    Then for i, j >0, (i) ⟨tr(σiσaρ)⟩ = 1 nu δia and (ii) ⟨tr(σiρσaρ)⟩ = 1 nu(nu+1) δia, where the average is taken over all pure states ρ ∈ extr(D(Hu)). Quantum Wall States for Noise Mitigation and Eternal Purity Bounds 42 Proof. The first point is obtained as a direct application of Lemma 2 and of the orthonormality of {σi}i, ⟨tr(σiσaρ)⟩ = tr(σiσa⟨ρ⟩) = 1 n...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Lidar D A, Chuang I L and Whaley K B 1998 Physical Review Letters81 2594–2597

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    Zanardi P and Rasetti M 1997 Physical Review Letters79 3306–3309

    work page 1997

  5. [4]

    |w⟩ must be an eigenstate of P i s2 i ⟨w|Di|w⟩Di

    By applying property 3 of lemma 4, the previous expression simplifies to 3X i=1 s2 i ⟨w|Di|w⟩Di|w⟩ = 3X i=1 s2 i (⟨w|Di|w⟩)2|w⟩, (C.2) i.e. |w⟩ must be an eigenstate of P i s2 i ⟨w|Di|w⟩Di. Consider now property 2 of lemma 4 and |w⟩ = |ψj k⟩. We get that P i s2 i ⟨w|Di|w⟩Di = s2 j λj kDj, i.e. the eigenvectors of each of the operators Di are critical poin...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Viola L, Knill E and Lloyd S 1999 Physical Review Letters82 2417–2421

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Knill E and Laflamme R 1997 Physical Review A55 900–911

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    General Case: Stabilizing and Protecting the Wall State After settling on a choice of wall subsystem (as in Section 5) and wall state (as in Section 6), we want to improve the performance of the noise suppression protocol by stabilizing the wall state, so that the optimization of the purity dynamics remains significant for longer times, with the purity γl...

    work page

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    obvious” or “physical

    Numerical Results In this section, we provide a series of examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. We start by considering two minimal three-qubit systems. This choice allows us to test the algorithms against a model with a simple known solution and highlight t...

  2. [9]

    enhanced

    Comparison and Integration with Dynamical Decoupling A widespread and successful approach for the protection of quantum information is offered by quantum dynamical decoupling (DD) techniques [5]. DD consists in actively symmetrizing the dynamics so that the leading orders in t...

  3. [10]

    Eternally bounded purity In the numerical exploration of the proposed methods, a remarkable phenomenon emerges, as illustrated in Figure 3c: under certain conditions , the strong Hamiltonian driving exhibits a uniform lower bound on the decrease in purity. Not only that, but s...

  4. [11]

    Conclusion The path towards the realization of robust, scalable devices for quantum information processing should arguably involve the use of multiple techniques aimed to producing suitable quantum hardware as well as mitigating the effect of noise in the device via protected ...

  5. [12]

    Preskill J 2018 Quantum 2 79 (Preprint 1801.00862)

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Benatti F and Floreanini R (eds) 2003 Irreversible Quantum Dynamics(Lecture Notes in Physics no 622) (Springer)

    2003

  7. [14]

    Knill E, Laflamme R and Viola L 2000 Physical Review Letters84 2525–2528

    2000

  8. [15]

    Brun T A 2020 Quantum Error Correction(Oxford University Press)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Ticozzi F and Viola L 2010 Physical Review A81 032313

    2010

  10. [18]

    Wang X, Byrd M and Jacobs K 2013 Physical Review A87 012338 (Preprint 1212.3839)

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hamann A, Sekatski P and D¨ ur W 2022 Quantum Science and Technology7 025003 ( Preprint 2106.13828)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ticozzi F and Ferrante A 2006 Systems & Control Letters55 578–584

    2006

  13. [21]

    Ma F and Morzfeld M 2011 Procedia Engineering14 2498–2502

    2011

  14. [22]

    Khodjasteh K, Dobrovitski V V and Viola L 2011 Physical Review A84 022336

    2011

  15. [23]

    Casanova M, Cortese M and Ticozzi F 2024 IEEE Control Systems Letters8 712–717

    2024

  16. [24]

    Gorini V, Kossakowski A and Sudarshan E C G 1976 Journal of Mathematical Physics17 821–825

    1976

  17. [25]

    Lindblad G 1976 Communications in Mathematical Physics48 119–130

    1976

  18. [26]

    Lidar D A and Brun T A (eds) 2013 Quantum Error Correction 1st ed (Cambridge University Press)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Ticozzi F and Viola L 2008 IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control53 2048–2063

    2008

  20. [28]

    Casanova M, Ohki K and Ticozzi F 2025 Quantum Science and Technology10 025027

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mansuroglu R, Eckstein T, N¨ utzel L, Wilkinson S A and Hartmann M J 2023 Quantum Science and Technology8 025006 ISSN 2058-9565

    2023

  22. [30]

    Luchnikov I A, Krechetov M E and Filippov S N 2021 New Journal of Physics23 073006

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kimura G and Kossakowski A 2005 Open Systems & Information Dynamics12 207–229

    2005

  24. [32]

    Sato H 2021 Riemannian Optimization and Its Applications SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering (Springer International Publishing)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Wiersema R and Killoran N 2023 Physical Review A107 062421 (Preprint 2202.06976)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen T, Glaser S J, Dirr G and Helmke U 2010 Reviews in Mathematical Physics 22 597–667

    2010

  27. [35]

    Misra B and Sudarshan E C G 1977 Journal of Mathematical Physics18 756–763

    1977

  28. [36]

    Facchi P and Pascazio S 2003 Three Different Manifestations of the Quantum Zeno Effect Irreversible Quantum Dynamics vol 622 ed Benatti F and Floreanini R (Springer Berlin Heidelberg) pp 141–156

    2003

  29. [37]

    Altafini C and Ticozzi F 2012 IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control57 1898–1917

    2012

  30. [38]

    Ticozzi F and Viola L 2009 Automatica 45 2002–2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Ticozzi F, Lucchese R, Cappellaro P and Viola L 2012 IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 57 1931–1944

    2012

  32. [40]

    Pachos J K and Plenio M B 2004 Physical Review Letters93 056402

    2004

  33. [41]

    Zhang J M, Jing J, Wang L G and Zhu S Y 2018 Physical Review A98 012135

    2018

  34. [42]

    Guardiola J H 2020 Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications 7 6 ( Preprint 2506. 04441)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Lan S, Holbrook A, Elias G A, Fortin N J, Ombao H and Shahbaba B 2020 Bayesian Analysis 15

    2020

  36. [44]

    Bertlmann R A and Krammer P 2008 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41 235303

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.