Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 147 references

Optimal schedule of multi-channel quantum Zeno dragging with application to solving the k-SAT problem

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

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-channel Zeno dragging converges under an adiabatic bound, and weak continuous measurement is provably optimal for k-SAT solving.

desk verdict Real convergence and optimality results, but the k-SAT application is conditional on an overlap assumption that fails at θ=0; still worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16128 v2 pith:YAZV5KKD submitted 2025-07-22 quant-ph

Yipei Zhang , Alain Sarlette , Philippe Lewalle , Tathagata Karmakar , Thilo Scharnhorst , K. Birgitta Whaley This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881Q93 PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a
keywords multi-channelZenodragginggeneralizedmeasurementk-SATquantumeffectadiabatictheoremoptimalcontrolPontryaginmaximumprincipleLindbladdynamics
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 aims to establish that multi-channel quantum Zeno dragging—repeatedly measuring a slowly rotating set of non-commuting observables—can reliably drag a quantum state into the solution subspace of a k-SAT instance, with explicit bounds on the required number of measurement steps. It proves a measurement-driven analogue of the adiabatic theorem: convergence is guaranteed if the measurement basis rotates slowly relative to the spectral gap of the averaged cost operator, and the bound properly accounts for finite measurement time resolution. It then shows that the total dragging time is minimized in the limit of infinitesimally weak continuous measurement, turning an earlier empirical observation into a theorem. Finally, it uses optimal-control theory to build schedules that significantly lower the time-to-solution on small instances. A sympathetic reader would care because this provides a theoretical foundation for measurement-driven quantum algorithms and a template for optimizing their speed.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the unconditional measurement channel $T(\theta)$, which averages over measurement outcomes and randomly selected clauses and reduces to Lindblad dynamics in the continuous limit. A block-decomposition lemma shows that the channel leaves populations in the zero-eigenspace invariant while shrinking coherences by a factor no larger than $1-\beta G(\theta)$; repeated application gives the exponential mixing that makes dragging possible. The schedule-optimization machinery applies the Pontryagin maximum principle both to the average Lindblad dynamics and to the stochastic path-integral action for conditioned measurement trajectories, yielding first-order optimality conditions plus a pointwise maximization condition for the optimal control $\theta^\star(t)$.

What would settle it

Compute, for a small k-SAT instance such as 2-SAT on a ring with $n=4$, the minimum overlap $\delta(\Delta\theta)$ between the solution subspaces of $\hat O(\theta)$ and $\hat O(\theta+\Delta\theta)$ over the range of $\Delta\theta$ used by Theorem 2; if any value falls below $(\cos(\Delta\theta/2))^{2n}$, the theorem's premise fails. Alternatively, measure the total dragging time $T$ needed for a fixed final fidelity as a function of $\Delta t$: a minimum at nonzero $\Delta t$ would refute Corollary 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a pair of sufficient conditions: to end with solution-space fidelity at least $1-\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$, it is enough to take $N \ge n(\theta_f-\theta_i)^2/(4\epsilon_1)$ increments in $\theta$, each accompanied by $M(\theta) \ge [\log(1/\epsilon_2)+\tfrac12\log n+\log(\theta_f-\theta_i)]/\log(1/(1-\beta G(\theta)))$ applications of the measurement channel $T(\theta)$. The coherence between solution and non-solution eigenspaces decays under repeated measurement at a rate set by the spectral gap $G(\theta)$ of the averaged cost operator $\hat O(\theta)$, while the overlap between ground subspaces at neighboring $\theta$ is assumed to be bounded below by $(\cos(\Delta\theta/2))^{2n}$. Corollary 3 then shows that the total time needed is proportional to $\Upsilon = \Delta t/(1-e^{-\Delta t/2\tau})$, which is minimized at $\Delta t\to 0$, identifying the weak continuous measurement limit as optimal.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence bound relies on the overlap between solution subspaces at neighboring $\theta$ being at least $(\cos(\Delta\theta/2))^{2n}$ for every normalized state in the ground space at $\theta$; the paper adopts this condition as inspired by the k-SAT clause projectors but does not prove it for those projectors. If the true overlap decays faster, the required number of $\theta$ steps grows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the stated step counts, Zeno-driven k-SAT acquires a guaranteed success probability rather than a heuristic one, with the same overall scaling in $n$ as earlier empirical observations.
  • The projective-measurement limit pays a constant penalty factor $\Delta t/2\tau$ in total time relative to the weak continuous limit, so weak continuous monitoring is strictly faster for the same fidelity guarantee.
  • Optimized schedules that skip regions of small spectral gap and accelerate where the gap is large outperform linear schedules for small k-SAT instances.
  • When measurement records are available for post-selection, schedules optimized for the most likely trajectory yield higher post-selected fidelity than schedules optimized for the average Lindblad dynamics.
  • Allowing a separate schedule per qubit can further improve fidelity, but only for problem instances whose symmetry admits such independent schedules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ground-space overlap assumption is sharp, the dominant bottleneck for large $n$ is the spectral gap near $\theta=0$; instances engineered with a larger minimum gap would be disproportionately faster.
  • The optimality of $\Delta t\to 0$ counts no per-step gate overhead; a digital circuit implementation with fixed cost per weak measurement could shift the optimum to finite measurement strength.
  • A practical route for larger instances is to use Theorem 2 as a reduced model, estimating $G(\theta)$ cheaply and building a near-optimal schedule without solving the full optimal-control problem.
  • Combining most-likely-path schedules with early truncation of trajectories that drift into undesired subspaces could beat the average-dynamics optimum, as the fidelity histograms suggest.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies multi-channel quantum Zeno dragging with generalized measurements, focusing on the BZF construction for k-SAT. It derives Lemma 4 (coherence decay under the measurement channel), Proposition 1 (fidelity lower bound after applying the channel), Theorem 2 (sufficient number of theta-steps and channel repetitions for a target final fidelity), and Corollary 3 (the total time predicted by the bound is minimized in the weak continuous limit). It then formulates optimal control problems for both Lindblad and conditional (CDJ path-integral) dynamics and presents numerical schedule optimizations for small 2-SAT and 3-SAT instances, reporting improved fidelity and time-to-solution over linear schedules.

Significance. If the convergence theorem were unconditional, the paper would provide a rigorous adiabatic-type guarantee for multi-channel Zeno dragging and would explain the empirically observed advantage of the weak continuous measurement limit in [33]. The detailed proofs of Lemma 4 and Proposition 1 are valuable, and the extension of CDJ-Pontryagin optimization to multi-channel settings is a useful contribution. The main caveat is that Theorem 2 is conditional on an overlap assumption that is not proven for BZF and is false at theta_i=0, so the central guarantee does not yet cover the protocol as initialized in Section 2. The numerical results are suggestive, but the schedules are only locally optimized.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2 / Appendix B] The overlap assumption in Theorem 2 is load-bearing and is not satisfied by the BZF construction at the initial point theta_i=0. The paper's own Appendix B states that the ground-space dimension is independent of theta only for theta_i>0, while Section 2 initializes the algorithm at theta=0 with |++...+>. For the n=2 ring with an added clause (Appendix A), dim Pi0(0)=3 and dim Pi0(delta)=1 for delta>0, so there exists a normalized |psi0> in Pi0(0) with zero overlap with Pi0(delta); the assumed bound <psi0|Pi0(theta+Delta_theta)|psi0> >= cos^{2n}(Delta_theta/2) is therefore false at theta=0. The remark after Theorem 2 that a first step Delta_theta0=O(1/sqrt(n)) is acceptable is not derived from the stated assumptions and would require a state-dependent overlap bound for the actual initial state |++...+>. As written, Theorem 2 does not provide the claimed convergence guarantee for the BZF protocol starting at theta_i=0.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5] The word 'optimal' is used for schedules obtained from Pontryagin necessary conditions and Nesterov-GRAPE gradient ascent (Eqs. (21)-(22) and (38)). These are stationary candidates for a nonconvex optimization problem, and the paper does not verify global optimality even for the small instances considered. Since the title and abstract promise the 'optimal schedule' and Section 6 states that the optimized dynamics sets the lower bound for the convergence time, the claims should be qualified as locally optimal, or a global optimality check should be supplied for the small instances.
  3. [Corollary 3 / Section 3.2] Corollary 3 shows that Delta_t->0 minimizes the total time predicted by the sufficient criterion of Theorem 2; it does not prove that weak continuous measurement is dynamically optimal for the actual Zeno dragging process. The distinction should be stated explicitly in the abstract and in Section 6, where the current phrasing 'optimal' could be read as a dynamical optimality theorem rather than a statement about the bound.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (39)] The denominator in Eq. (39) contains 'Tr{Pi0(rho/2)rho(Tf)}', which appears to be a typo for 'Tr{Pi0(pi/2)rho(Tf)}'.
  2. [Appendix A] There is a typographical error in the sentence 'Fork = 2, a2-SAT problem can be efficiently solved in linear time.and Fork>= 3', where spacing and capitalization need correction.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text says that the optimized schedules do not start at theta=0 and do not end at theta=pi/2, but Section 2 initializes the protocol at theta=0 and aims at a final measurement in the computational basis. Please clarify how a final state produced with theta(Tf)<pi/2 is converted into a k-SAT solution with the fidelity plotted in Fig. 3(b).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the convergence bound and optimal-control schedules are derived from explicit assumptions and PMP; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2 is a conditional statement: it assumes an explicit worst-case overlap lower bound (footnote 1) and then derives, via Proposition 1 and Lemma 4, sufficient values for N and M(theta); the proof is given in Appendix B. Corollary 3 is a direct algebraic consequence of Theorem 2's M(theta) formula together with the stated time cost M*Delta_t and beta = 1 - exp(-Delta_t/2*tau); it is not fitted to the empirical observation in [33], which it only explains. The optimal-control results in Section 4 are derived from the Pontryagin maximum principle with the stated cost functions, and the numerical optimizations are performed with Nesterov-GRAPE; they do not reduce to the earlier self-cited works [24,33]. The self-citations to [24] for the CDJ-Pontryagin method and to [33] for empirical Zeno dragging are contextual and motivational, not load-bearing: the present paper re-derives the PMP conditions (Eqs. 18-20 and 33-36) and does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from those papers. The main caveat, flagged in footnote 1 and in the first paragraph of Appendix B, is that the overlap assumption is not proved for BZF projectors and the constant-groundspace-dimension assumption excludes theta_i=0, where the algorithm starts; this is a validity gap, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are derived from standard quantum measurement models, but the convergence theorem rests on an unproven overlap assumption, and the numerical TTS depends on hand-chosen regularization constants.

free parameters (2)
  • tau_m = 5 tau for 2-SAT, 2 tau for 3-SAT
    Regularization constant in the time-to-solution cost function (Eq. 23) that avoids the trivial T_f -> 0 minimum. It is chosen by hand and directly affects the reported TTS values and speedup ratios in Fig. 5.
  • f_thre = 0.05
    Post-selection fidelity cutoff used in Fig. 4 to define filtered trajectories. The paper calls this choice a heuristic and says the correspondence 'should be taken with a grain of salt'.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-space overlap assumption: <psi0|Pi0(theta + Delta_theta)|psi0> >= (cos(Delta_theta/2))^(2n) for all |psi0> in the solution space at theta.
    Stated in Theorem 2 but not proven for the BZF k-SAT construction. The convergence proof depends on this bound.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian measurement Kraus operators (Eq. 3) model the physical measurement apparatus.
    Standard model from quantum optics; the quantum channel and Lindblad equation are derived from it.
  • domain assumption Simultaneous non-commuting measurements can be modeled by additive backaction terms with O(Delta_t^2) corrections.
    Based on cited literature [63, 78-87]; underpins the stochastic master equation (Eq. 8).
  • domain assumption A single output channel is shared by all m clauses, giving the factor 1/m in the measurement rate.
    The authors state this as a pessimistic model and note that parallel channels would change conclusions at most by a factor 1/m.
  • domain assumption The dimension of the 0-eigenspace of O(theta) is independent of theta.
    Stated in Appendix B; holds when theta_i > 0 in the k-SAT setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal schedule of multi-channel quantum Zeno dragging with application to solving the k-SAT problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAZV5KKD

@misc{pith2026250716128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal schedule of multi-channel quantum Zeno dragging with application to solving the k-SAT problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAZV5KKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16128}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum Zeno dragging enables the preparation of common eigenstates of a set of observables by frequent measurement and adiabatic-like modulation of the measurement basis. In this work, we present a deeper analysis of multi-channel Zeno dragging using generalized measurements, i.e. simultaneously measuring a set of non-commuting observables that vary slowly in time, to drag the state towards a target subspace. For concreteness, we will focus on a measurement-driven approach to solving k-SAT problems as examples. We first compute some analytical upper bounds on the convergence time, including the effect of finite measurement time resolution. We then apply optimal control theory to obtain the optimal dragging schedule that lower bounds the convergence time, for low-dimensional settings. This study provides a theoretical foundation for multi-channel Zeno dragging and its optimization, and also serves as a guide for designing optimal dragging schedules for quantum information tasks including measurement-driven quantum algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panels (a) and (b) are adapted from [98], and illustrate a quantum system monitored through its interaction with an auxiliary (environmental) degree of freedom that mediates information exchange with a detector that amplifies some outcomes to a classical scale. The representation a) is consistent with e.g. standard “collision model” approaches to modeling open quantum system processes [99]. Repeated (Markovian) inte… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic mechanism of Zeno dragging on a qubit. The circle represents the Bloch sphere cut by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Optimal schedule θ ⋆ (t) from Lindblad-OFS and MLP-OFS. The inset shows the eigenvalues of the cost operator Oˆ(θ) = 1 m P α Pˆ(θ) as a function of θ. (b) instantaneous fidelity to the final solution, from Lindblad dynamics as a function of time, for n = 2 with various total dragging times Tf and schedules optimized according to Lindblad-OFS and MLP-OFS, compared to a linear schedule. In (a), we can see that non… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistics of the final state fidelity under conditional clause measurement dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative speedup G (defined in eq. (40)) as a function of the number of qubits n for single solution 2-SAT problems on a ring. The inset shows the same calculation for 3-SAT with a single solution, where for n = 3 there are m = 7 clauses, and for n = 4 and n = 5 there …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of the optimal schedules when allowing a separate schedule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Solving k-SAT problems with generalized quantum measurement

    Yipei Zhang, Philippe Lewalle, and K. Birgitta Whaley. “Solving k-sat problems with generalized quantum measurement” (2024). arXiv:2406.13611

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [24]

    Optimal zeno dragging for quantum control: A shortcut to zeno with action-based scheduling optimization

    Philippe Lewalle, Yipei Zhang, and K. Birgitta Whaley. “Optimal zeno dragging for quantum control: A shortcut to zeno with action-based scheduling optimization”. PRX Quantum 5, 020366 (2024)

    2024

  3. [1]

    Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe

    Christiane P. Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gunther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J. Glaser, Ronnie Kosloff, Simone Montangero, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, Dominique Sugny, and Frank K. Wilhelm. “Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe”. EPJ Quantum Technol.9, 19 (2022)

    2022

  4. [2]

    Introduction to quantum control and dynamics

    D. D’Alessandro. “Introduction to quantum control and dynamics”. Chapman and Hall/CRC. (2021)

    2021

  5. [3]

    Introduction to the Pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny. “Introduction to the Pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control”. PRX Quantum2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  6. [4]

    Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control

    Sebastian Deffner and Steve Campbell. “Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  7. [5]

    Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achievements, and limitations

    Christiane P Koch. “Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achievements, and limitations”. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter28, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  8. [6]

    Engineereddissipationforquantum information science

    PatrickMHarrington, ErichJMueller, andKaterWMurch. “Engineereddissipationforquantum information science”. Nature Reviews Physics4, 660–671 (2022)

    2022

Show all 147 references
  1. [7]

    The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan. “The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory”. Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 18, 756–763 (1977)

    1977

  2. [8]

    Quantum trajectory approach to circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect

    Jay Gambetta, Alexandre 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. A 77, 012112 (2008)

    2008

  3. [9]

    Quantum zeno stabilization in weak continuous measurement of two qubits

    Rusko Ruskov, Alexander N. Korotkov, and Ari Mizel. “Quantum zeno stabilization in weak continuous measurement of two qubits”. Phys. Rev. B73, 085317 (2006)

    2006

  4. [10]

    Phase space tweezers for tailoring cavity fields by quantum zeno dynamics

    Jean-Michel Raimond, Clément Sayrin, S Gleyzes, Igor Dotsenko, Michel Brune, Serge Haroche, Paolo Facchi, and Saverio Pascazio. “Phase space tweezers for tailoring cavity fields by quantum zeno dynamics”. Physical review letters105, 213601 (2010)

    2010

  5. [11]

    Quantum zeno dynamics of a field in a cavity

    Jean-Michel Raimond, Paolo Facchi, Bruno Peaudecerf, Saverio Pascazio, Clément Sayrin, Igor Dotsenko, Sébastien Gleyzes, Michel Brune, and Serge Haroche. “Quantum zeno dynamics of a field in a cavity”. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 032120 (2012)

    2012

  6. [12]

    Confined quantum zeno dynamics of a watched atomic arrow

    Adrien Signoles, Adrien Facon, Dorian Grosso, Igor Dotsenko, Serge Haroche, Jean-Michel Rai- mond, Michel Brune, and Sébastien Gleyzes. “Confined quantum zeno dynamics of a watched atomic arrow”. Nature Physics10, 715–719 (2014)

    2014

  7. [13]

    Incoherent qubit control using the quantum zeno effect

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. P. García-Pintos, L. S. Martin, J. Dressel, and I. Siddiqi. “Incoherent qubit control using the quantum zeno effect”. Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 020505 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    Quantum computation and quantum- state engineering driven by dissipation

    Frank Verstraete, Michael M Wolf, and J Ignacio Cirac. “Quantum computation and quantum- state engineering driven by dissipation”. Nature physics5, 633–636 (2009)

    2009

  9. [15]

    Comparing and combining measurement-based and driven-dissipative en- tanglement stabilization

    Y. Liu, S. Shankar, N. Ofek, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, K. M. Sliwa, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret. “Comparing and combining measurement-based and driven-dissipative en- tanglement stabilization”. Phys. Rev. X6, 011022 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Scalable dissipative preparation of many-body entanglement

    Florentin Reiter, David Reeb, and Anders S. Sørensen. “Scalable dissipative preparation of many-body entanglement”. Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 040501 (2016)

    2016

  11. [17]

    Dissipative quan- tum error correction and application to quantum sensing with trapped ions

    Florentin Reiter, Anders Søndberg Sørensen, Peter Zoller, and CA Muschik. “Dissipative quan- tum error correction and application to quantum sensing with trapped ions”. Nature communi- cations 8, 1822 (2017)

    2017

  12. [18]

    Symmetry-protected dissipative preparation of matrix product states

    Leo Zhou, Soonwon Choi, and Mikhail D. Lukin. “Symmetry-protected dissipative preparation of matrix product states”. Phys. Rev. A104, 032418 (2021)

    2021

  13. [19]

    High fidelity dissipation engineering using parametric interactions

    E. Doucet, F. Reiter, L. Ranzani, and A. Kamal. “High fidelity dissipation engineering using parametric interactions”. Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023370 (2020)

    2020

  14. [20]

    Trade off-free entanglement stabilization in a superconducting qutrit-qubit system

    T. Brown, E. Doucet, D. Ristè, G. Ribeill, K. Cicak, J. Aumentado, R. Simmonds, L. Govia, A. Kamal, and L. Ranzani. “Trade off-free entanglement stabilization in a superconducting qutrit-qubit system”. Nat. Commun.13, 3994 (2022). 31

    2022

  15. [21]

    Scalable entanglement stabilization with modular reservoir engineering

    E. Doucet, L. C. G. Govia, and A. Kamal. “Scalable entanglement stabilization with modular reservoir engineering” (2023). arXiv:2301.05725

    2023 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Demonstration of universal control be- tween non-interacting qubits using the quantum zeno effect

    Eliya Blumenthal, Chen Mor, Asaf A Diringer, Leigh S Martin, Philippe Lewalle, Daniel Bur- garth, K Birgitta Whaley, and Shay Hacohen-Gourgy. “Demonstration of universal control be- tween non-interacting qubits using the quantum zeno effect”. npj Quantum Information 8, 88 (2022)

    2022

  17. [23]

    A Multi-Qubit Quantum Gate Using the Zeno Effect

    Philippe Lewalle, Leigh S. Martin, Emmanuel Flurin, Song Zhang, Eliya Blumenthal, Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, Daniel Burgarth, and K. Birgitta Whaley. “A Multi-Qubit Quantum Gate Using the Zeno Effect”. Quantum7, 1100 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation

    Mazyar Mirrahimi, Zaki Leghtas, Victor V Albert, Steven Touzard, Robert J Schoelkopf, Liang Jiang, and Michel H Devoret. “Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  19. [26]

    Co- herent oscillations inside a quantum manifold stabilized by dissipation

    Steven Touzard, Alexander Grimm, Zaki Leghtas, Shantanu O Mundhada, Philip Reinhold, Christopher Axline, Matt Reagor, Kevin Chou, Jacob Blumoff, Katrina M Sliwa, et al. “Co- herent oscillations inside a quantum manifold stabilized by dissipation”. Physical Review X8, 021005 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Repetition cat qubits for fault-tolerant quantum computation

    Jérémie Guillaud and Mazyar Mirrahimi. “Repetition cat qubits for fault-tolerant quantum computation”. Phys. Rev. X9, 041053 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Designing high-fidelity zeno gates for dissipative cat qubits

    Ronan Gautier, Mazyar Mirrahimi, and Alain Sarlette. “Designing high-fidelity zeno gates for dissipative cat qubits”. PRX Quantum4, 040316 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Measurement-driven quantum computing: Performance of a 3-sat solver

    Simon C Benjamin, Liming Zhao, and Joseph F Fitzsimons. “Measurement-driven quantum computing: Performance of a 3-sat solver” (2017). arXiv:1711.02687

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Measurement-driven analog of adiabatic quantum computation for frustration-free hamiltoni- ans

    Liming Zhao, Carlos A. Pérez-Delgado, Simon C. Benjamin, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons. “Measurement-driven analog of adiabatic quantum computation for frustration-free hamiltoni- ans”. Phys. Rev. A100, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    On preparing ground states of gapped hamiltonians: An efficient quantum lovász local lemma

    András Pál Gilyén and Or Sattath. “On preparing ground states of gapped hamiltonians: An efficient quantum lovász local lemma”. In 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). Pages 439–450. (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Dissipative ground state preparation and the dissipative quantum eigen- solver

    Toby S Cubitt. “Dissipative ground state preparation and the dissipative quantum eigen- solver” (2023) arXiv:2303.11962

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Grover Speedup from Many Forms of the Zeno Effect

    Jesse Berwald, Nicholas Chancellor, and Raouf Dridi. “Grover Speedup from Many Forms of the Zeno Effect”. Quantum8, 1532 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zeno-effect computation: Opportunities and challenges

    Jesse Berwald, Nicholas Chancellor, and Raouf Dridi. “Zeno-effect computation: Opportunities and challenges”. Phys. Rev. A111, 042623 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Meaning of an individual

    Y. Aharonov and M. Vardi. “Meaning of an individual "feynman path"”. Phys. Rev. D 21, 2235–2240 (1980)

    1980

  29. [37]

    Action formalism for geometric phases from self-closing quantum trajectories

    Dominic Shea and Alessandro Romito. “Action formalism for geometric phases from self-closing quantum trajectories”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 315303 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Adiabatic quantum computation

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. “Adiabatic quantum computation”. Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications

    D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Martínez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga. “Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing

    Satoshi Morita and Hidetoshi Nishimori. “Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing”. Journal of Mathematical Physics49, 125210 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation

    Arnab Das and Bikas K. Chakrabarti. “Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation”. Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1061–1081 (2008). 32

    2008

  34. [42]

    Adiabatic approximation in open quantum systems

    M. S. Sarandy and D. A. Lidar. “Adiabatic approximation in open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. A 71, 012331 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Transitionless quantum driving in open quantum systems

    G.Vacanti, R.Fazio, S.Montangero, G.M.Palma, M.Paternostro, andV.Vedral. “Transitionless quantum driving in open quantum systems”. New Journal of Physics16, 053017 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Adiabaticity in open quantum systems

    Lorenzo Campos Venuti, Tameem Albash, Daniel A. Lidar, and Paolo Zanardi. “Adiabaticity in open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. A93, 032118 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution

    Jérémie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf. “Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution”. Phys. Rev. A 65, 042308 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Exploring adiabatic quantum trajectories via optimal control

    Constantin Brif, Matthew D Grace, Mohan Sarovar, and Kevin C Young. “Exploring adiabatic quantum trajectories via optimal control”. New Journal of Physics16, 065013 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Ge- netic optimization of quantum annealing

    Pratibha Raghupati Hegde, Gianluca Passarelli, Annarita Scocco, and Procolo Lucignano. “Ge- netic optimization of quantum annealing”. Phys. Rev. A105, 012612 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Global optimization of quantum dynamics with alphazero deep exploration

    Mogens Dalgaard, Felix Motzoi, Jens Jakob Sørensen, and Jacob Sherson. “Global optimization of quantum dynamics with alphazero deep exploration”. NPJ quantum information6, 6 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Optimizing adiabatic quantum pathways via a learning algorithm

    Xiaodong Yang, Ran Liu, Jun Li, and Xinhua Peng. “Optimizing adiabatic quantum pathways via a learning algorithm”. Phys. Rev. A102, 012614 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Optimizing quantum annealing schedules with monte carlo tree search enhanced with neural networks

    Yu-Qin Chen, Yu Chen, Chee-Kong Lee, Shengyu Zhang, and Chang-Yu Hsieh. “Optimizing quantum annealing schedules with monte carlo tree search enhanced with neural networks”. Nature Machine Intelligence4, 269–278 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Action principle for continuous quantum measure- ment

    A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, and A. N. Jordan. “Action principle for continuous quantum measure- ment”. Phys. Rev. A88, 042110 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Stochastic path-integral formalism for continuous quantum measurement

    Areeya Chantasri and Andrew N. Jordan. “Stochastic path-integral formalism for continuous quantum measurement”. Phys. Rev. A92, 032125 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Quantumstate-preparationcontrol in noisy environment via most-likely paths

    WirawatKokaew, ThiparatChotibut, andAreeyaChantasri. “Quantumstate-preparationcontrol in noisy environment via most-likely paths” (2024). arXiv:2209.13164

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cdj-pontryagin optimal control for general con- tinuously monitored quantum systems

    Tathagata Karmakar and Andrew N Jordan. “Cdj-pontryagin optimal control for general con- tinuously monitored quantum systems” (2025) arXiv:2504.08173

    2025

  47. [55]

    The complexity of theorem-proving procedures

    Stephen A. Cook. “The complexity of theorem-proving procedures”. In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Page 151–158. STOC ’71New York, NY, USA (1971). Association for Computing Machinery

    1971

  48. [56]

    Reducibility among combinatorial problems

    Richard M. Karp. “Reducibility among combinatorial problems”. Pages 85–103. Springer US. Boston, MA (1972)

    1972

  49. [57]

    Universal sequential search problems

    L. A. Levin. “Universal sequential search problems”. Problems Inform. Transmission 9, 265 (1973). url: http://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=340042

    1973

  50. [58]

    The complex- ity of unique k-sat: An isolation lemma for k-cnfs

    Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Ramamohan Paturi. “The complex- ity of unique k-sat: An isolation lemma for k-cnfs”. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 74, 386–393 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Np is as easy as detecting unique solutions

    L G Valiant and V V Vazirani. “Np is as easy as detecting unique solutions”. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Page 458–463. STOC ’85New York, NY, USA (1985). Association for Computing Machinery

    1985

  52. [60]

    Selective quantum evolution of a qubit state due to continuous mea- surement

    Alexander N. Korotkov. “Selective quantum evolution of a qubit state due to continuous mea- surement”. Phys. Rev. B63, 115403 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    Continuous quantum measurement of a double dot

    Alexander N. Korotkov. “Continuous quantum measurement of a double dot”. Phys. Rev. B60, 5737–5742 (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    Quantum bayesian approach to circuit qed measurement with moderate bandwidth

    Alexander N. Korotkov. “Quantum bayesian approach to circuit qed measurement with moderate bandwidth”. Phys. Rev. A94, 042326 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Continuous measurement of a qudit using dispersively coupled radiation

    John Steinmetz, Debmalya Das, Irfan Siddiqi, and Andrew N. Jordan. “Continuous measurement of a qudit using dispersively coupled radiation”. Phys. Rev. A105, 052229 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Cavity optomechanics

    Markus Aspelmeyer, Tobias J. Kippenberg, and Florian Marquardt. “Cavity optomechanics”. Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391–1452 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn. “Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements”. Phys. Rev. A 47, 642–662 (1993). 33

    1993

  58. [66]

    Quantum-limited measurements with the atomic force microscope

    G. J. Milburn, K. Jacobs, and D. F. Walls. “Quantum-limited measurements with the atomic force microscope”. Phys. Rev. A50, 5256–5263 (1994)

    1994

  59. [67]

    Quantum measurement: Theory and practice

    Andrew N. Jordan and Irfan A. Siddiqi. “Quantum measurement: Theory and practice”. Cam- bridge University Press. (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Quantum Ito’s formula and stochastic evolutions

    R.L. Hudson and K.R. Parthasarathy. “Quantum Ito’s formula and stochastic evolutions”. Com- mun. Math. Phys.93, 301–323 (1984)

    1984

  61. [69]

    A new wave equation for a continuous nondemolition measurement

    V.P. Belavkin. “A new wave equation for a continuous nondemolition measurement”. Physics letters A 140, 355–358 (1989)

    1989

  62. [70]

    Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory

    Howard M. Wiseman. “Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory”. Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 8, 205 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    A simple model of quantum trajectories

    Todd A. Brun. “A simple model of quantum trajectories”. American Journal of Physics 70, 719 (2002)

    2002

  64. [72]

    Stochastic schrödinger equations

    Luc Bouten, Madalin Guta, and Hans Maassen. “Stochastic schrödinger equations”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37, 3189 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    Quantum noise: A handbook of markovian and non-markovian quantumstochasticmethodswithapplicationstoquantumoptics

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller. “Quantum noise: A handbook of markovian and non-markovian quantumstochasticmethodswithapplicationstoquantumoptics”. SpringerSeriesinSynergetics. Springer. (2004). url: https://books.google.fr/books?id=a_xsT8oGhdgC

    2004

  66. [74]

    A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum mea- surement

    Kurt Jacobs and Daniel A. Steck. “A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum mea- surement”. Contemporary Physics47, 279–303 (2006)

    2006

  67. [75]

    Quantum trajectories and measurements in contin- uous time: the diffusive case

    Alberto Barchielli and Matteo Gregoratti. “Quantum trajectories and measurements in contin- uous time: the diffusive case”. Volume 782. Springer Science & Business Media. (2009)

    2009

  68. [76]

    Quantum measurement and control

    Howard M Wiseman and Gerard J Milburn. “Quantum measurement and control”. Cambridge university press. (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Quantum measurement theory and its applications

    Kurt Jacobs. “Quantum measurement theory and its applications”. Cambridge University Press. (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    Continuous quantum measurement with independent detector cross correlations

    Andrew N. Jordan and Markus Büttiker. “Continuous quantum measurement with independent detector cross correlations”. Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 220401 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    Qubit state monitoring by mea- surement of three complementary observables

    Rusko Ruskov, Alexander N. Korotkov, and Klaus Mølmer. “Qubit state monitoring by mea- surement of three complementary observables”. Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 100506 (2010)

    2010

  72. [80]

    Qubit purification speed-up for three complementary continuous measurements

    Rusko Ruskov, Joshua Combes, Klaus Mølmer, and Howard M. Wiseman. “Qubit purification speed-up for three complementary continuous measurements”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences370, 5291–5307 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Efficient quantum filtering for quantum feedback control

    Pierre Rouchon and Jason F. Ralph. “Efficient quantum filtering for quantum feedback control”. Phys. Rev. A91, 012118 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observ- ables

    Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, Leigh S Martin, Emmanuel Flurin, Vinay V Ramasesh, K Birgitta Wha- ley, and Irfan Siddiqi. “Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observ- ables”. Nature 538, 491–494 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    Dynamics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing

    Q. Ficheux, S. Jezouin, Z. Leghtas, and B. Huard. “Dynamics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing”. Nat. Comm.9, 1926 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    Mea- suring fluorescence to track a quantum emitter’s state: a theory review

    Philippe Lewalle, Sreenath K. Manikandan, Cyril Elouard, and Andrew N. Jordan and. “Mea- suring fluorescence to track a quantum emitter’s state: a theory review”. Contemporary Physics 61, 26–50 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Stochastic path-integral analy- sisofthecontinuouslymonitoredquantumharmonicoscillator

    Tathagata Karmakar, Philippe Lewalle, and Andrew N. Jordan. “Stochastic path-integral analy- sisofthecontinuouslymonitoredquantumharmonicoscillator”. PRXQuantum 3, 010327(2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Simultaneous measurements of noncommuting observables: Positive transformations and instrumental lie groups

    Christopher S. Jackson and Carlton M. Caves. “Simultaneous measurements of noncommuting observables: Positive transformations and instrumental lie groups”. Entropy25 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Completely positive trace-preserving maps for higher-order unraveling of lindblad master equations

    Nattaphong Wonglakhon, Howard M. Wiseman, and Areeya Chantasri. “Completely positive trace-preserving maps for higher-order unraveling of lindblad master equations”. Phys. Rev. A 110, 062207 (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    Time-averaged continuous quantum mea- surement

    Pierre Guilmin, Pierre Rouchon, and Antoine Tilloy. “Time-averaged continuous quantum mea- surement” (2025). arXiv:2505.20382. 34

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    B.s.t.j. briefs: On the simultaneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables

    E. Arthurs and J. L. Kelly. “B.s.t.j. briefs: On the simultaneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables”. The Bell System Technical Journal44, 725–729 (1965)

    1965

  82. [90]

    Phase and amplitude uncertainties in heterodyne detection

    J. Shapiro and S. Wagner. “Phase and amplitude uncertainties in heterodyne detection”. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics20, 803–813 (1984)

    1984

  83. [91]

    The Quantum Theory of Optical Communications

    J.H. Shapiro. “The Quantum Theory of Optical Communications”. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics15, 1547–1569 (2009)

    2009

  84. [92]

    Quantum limits on phase-preserving linear amplifiers

    Carlton M. Caves, Joshua Combes, Zhang Jiang, and Shashank Pandey. “Quantum limits on phase-preserving linear amplifiers”. Phys. Rev. A86, 063802 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    Simultaneous weak measurement of non-commuting observables: a generalized Arthurs-Kelly protocol

    Maicol A Ochoa, Wolfgang Belzig, and Abraham Nitzan. “Simultaneous weak measurement of non-commuting observables: a generalized Arthurs-Kelly protocol”. Scientific reports 8, 15781 (2018)

    2018

  86. [94]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    Goran Lindblad. “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119–130 (1976)

    1976

  87. [95]

    Stochasticmethods: ahandbookforthenaturalandsocialsciences

    CrispinGardiner. “Stochasticmethods: ahandbookforthenaturalandsocialsciences”. Springer- Verlag. Berlin Heidelberg (2009)

    2009

  88. [96]

    Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry

    N. G. van Kampen. “Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry”. Elsevier Sci. and Tech. (Amsterdam). (2007)

    2007

  89. [97]

    Numerical solution of stochastic differential equations

    Peter E. Kloeden and Eckhard Platen. “Numerical solution of stochastic differential equations”. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg (1992)

    1992

  90. [98]

    Quantum trajectories and their extremal–probability paths: New phenomena and applications

    Philippe Lewalle. “Quantum trajectories and their extremal–probability paths: New phenomena and applications”. PhD Dissertation, University of Rochester (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions

    FrancescoCiccarello, SalvatoreLorenzo, VittorioGiovannetti, andG.MassimoPalma. “Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions”. Physics Reports954, 1– 70 (2022)

    2022

  92. [100]

    Ignorance is bliss: General and robust cancellation of decoherence via no-knowledge quantum feedback

    Stuart S. Szigeti, Andre R. R. Carvalho, James G. Morley, and Michael R. Hush. “Ignorance is bliss: General and robust cancellation of decoherence via no-knowledge quantum feedback”. Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020407 (2014)

    2014

  93. [101]

    Time-delayed quantum feedback and incomplete decoherence suppression with a no-knowledge measurement

    Jirawat Saiphet, Sujin Suwanna, André R. R. Carvalho, and Areeya Chantasri. “Time-delayed quantum feedback and incomplete decoherence suppression with a no-knowledge measurement”. Phys. Rev. A103, 022208 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Optimal control theory: an introduction

    Donald E Kirk. “Optimal control theory: an introduction”. Courier Corporation. (2004)

    2004

  95. [103]

    Introduction to quantum control and dynamics

    Domenico d’Alessandro. “Introduction to quantum control and dynamics”. Chapman and hall/CRC. (2021)

    2021

  96. [104]

    Mathematical theory of optimal processes

    Lev Semenovich Pontryagin. “Mathematical theory of optimal processes”. Routledge. (2018)

    2018

  97. [105]

    Optimal control for mathematical models of cancer therapies: An application of geometric methods

    Heinz Schättler and Urszula Ledzewicz. “Optimal control for mathematical models of cancer therapies: An application of geometric methods”. Volume 42 of Interdisciplinary Applied Math- ematics, pages 1–496. Springer New York. New York, NY (2015)

    2015

  98. [106]

    Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics

    V. I. Arnold. “Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics”. Springer. New York (1989)

    1989

  99. [107]

    Optimal control for quantum optimization of closed and open systems

    Lorenzo Campos Venuti, Domenico D’Alessandro, and Daniel A. Lidar. “Optimal control for quantum optimization of closed and open systems”. Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 054023 (2021)

    2021

  100. [108]

    Optimal control in large open quantum systems: The case of transmon readout and reset

    Ronan Gautier, Élie Genois, and Alexandre Blais. “Optimal control in large open quantum systems: The case of transmon readout and reset”. Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 070802 (2025)

    2025

  101. [109]

    Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms

    Navin Khaneja, Timo Reiss, Cindie Kehlet, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, and Steffen J. Glaser. “Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms”. Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296–305 (2005)

    2005

  102. [110]

    A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o(1/k2)

    Y. Nesterov. “A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o(1/k2)”. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 269, 543 (1983). url: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/ 1370862715914709505

    1983

  103. [111]

    Introductory lectures on convex optimization: A basic course

    Yurii Nesterov. “Introductory lectures on convex optimization: A basic course”. Volume 87. Springer Science & Business Media. (2013)

    2013

  104. [112]

    Time-optimal quantum evolution

    Alberto Carlini, Akio Hosoya, Tatsuhiko Koike, and Yosuke Okudaira. “Time-optimal quantum evolution”. Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006). 35

    2006

  105. [113]

    Defining and detecting quantum speedup

    Troels F. Rønnow, Zhihui Wang, Joshua Job, Sergio Boixo, Sergei V. Isakov, David Wecker, John M. Martinis, Daniel A. Lidar, and Matthias Troyer. “Defining and detecting quantum speedup”. Science 345, 420–424 (2014)

    2014

  106. [114]

    Demonstration of a scaling advantage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. “Demonstration of a scaling advantage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing”. Phys. Rev. X8, 031016 (2018)

    2018

  107. [115]

    Stochastic action functionals for diffusive quantum trajectories (in preparation)

    Arianna C. Cylke, Philippe Lewalle, Tanawut Noungneaw, Howard M. Wiseman, Andrew N. Jordan, and Areeya Chantasri. “Stochastic action functionals for diffusive quantum trajectories (in preparation)” (2025)

    2025

  108. [116]

    Error-correctingbacon-shorcode with continuous measurement of noncommuting operators

    JuanAtalaya, AlexanderN.Korotkov, andK.BirgittaWhaley. “Error-correctingbacon-shorcode with continuous measurement of noncommuting operators”. Phys. Rev. A102, 022415 (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    Bacon- shor code with continuous measurement of noncommuting operators

    Juan Atalaya, Mohammad Bahrami, Leonid P. Pryadko, and Alexander N. Korotkov. “Bacon- shor code with continuous measurement of noncommuting operators”. Phys. Rev. A 95, 032317 (2017)

    2017

  110. [118]

    Rigorous location of phase transitions in hard optimization problems

    Dimitris Achlioptas, Assaf Naor, and Yuval Peres. “Rigorous location of phase transitions in hard optimization problems”. Nature435, 759–764 (2005)

    2005

  111. [119]

    Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications

    Jing Zhang, Yu xi Liu, Re-Bing Wu, Kurt Jacobs, and Franco Nori. “Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications”. Physics Reports679, 1–60 (2017)

    2017

  112. [120]

    Continuous quantum error correc- tion via quantum feedback control

    Charlene Ahn, Andrew C. Doherty, and Andrew J. Landahl. “Continuous quantum error correc- tion via quantum feedback control”. Phys. Rev. A65, 042301 (2002)

    2002

  113. [121]

    Quantum error correction for continuously detected errors

    Charlene Ahn, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Milburn. “Quantum error correction for continuously detected errors”. Phys. Rev. A67, 052310 (2003)

    2003

  114. [122]

    Quantum error correction for continuously detected errors with any number of error channels per qubit

    Charlene Ahn, Howard Wiseman, and Kurt Jacobs. “Quantum error correction for continuously detected errors with any number of error channels per qubit”. Phys. Rev. A70, 024302 (2004)

    2004

  115. [123]

    Practical scheme for error control using feedback

    Mohan Sarovar, Charlene Ahn, Kurt Jacobs, and Gerard J. Milburn. “Practical scheme for error control using feedback”. Phys. Rev. A69, 052324 (2004)

    2004

  116. [124]

    Optimal error tracking via quantum coding and con- tinuous syndrome measurement

    Ramon van Handel and Hideo Mabuchi. “Optimal error tracking via quantum coding and con- tinuous syndrome measurement” (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0511221

    2005 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Continuous quantum error correction for non-markovian decoherence

    Ognyan Oreshkov and Todd A. Brun. “Continuous quantum error correction for non-markovian decoherence”. Phys. Rev. A76, 022318 (2007)

    2007

  118. [126]

    Con- tinuous quantum error correction through local operations

    Eduardo Mascarenhas, Breno Marques, Marcelo Terra Cunha, and Marcelo França Santos. “Con- tinuous quantum error correction through local operations”. Phys. Rev. A82, 032327 (2010)

    2010

  119. [127]

    Always-On Quantum Error Tracking with Continuous Parity Measurements

    Razieh Mohseninia, Jing Yang, Irfan Siddiqi, Andrew N. Jordan, and Justin Dressel. “Always-On Quantum Error Tracking with Continuous Parity Measurements”. Quantum4, 358 (2020)

    2020

  120. [128]

    Continuous quantum error correction for evolution under time-dependent hamiltonians

    J. Atalaya, S. Zhang, M. Y. Niu, A. Babakhani, H. C. H. Chan, J. M. Epstein, and K. B. Whaley. “Continuous quantum error correction for evolution under time-dependent hamiltonians”. Phys. Rev. A 103, 042406 (2021)

    2021

  121. [129]

    A Logarithmic Bayesian Approach to Quantum Error Detection

    Ian Convy and K. Birgitta Whaley. “A Logarithmic Bayesian Approach to Quantum Error Detection”. Quantum 6, 680 (2022)

    2022

  122. [130]

    Experimental demonstration of continuous quantum error correction

    William P. Livingston, Machiel S. Blok, Emmanuel Flurin, Justin Dressel, Andrew N. Jordan, and Irfan Siddiqi. “Experimental demonstration of continuous quantum error correction”. Nat. Commun. 13, 2307 (2022)

    2022

  123. [131]

    Machine learning for continuous quantum error correction on superconducting qubits

    Ian Convy, Haoran Liao, Song Zhang, Sahil Patel, William P Livingston, Ho Nam Nguyen, Irfan Siddiqi, and K Birgitta Whaley. “Machine learning for continuous quantum error correction on superconducting qubits”. New Journal of Physics24, 063019 (2022)

    2022

  124. [132]

    Feedback- based quantum optimization

    Alicia B. Magann, Kenneth M. Rudinger, Matthew D. Grace, and Mohan Sarovar. “Feedback- based quantum optimization”. Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  125. [133]

    Rapid state reduction of quantum systems using feedback control

    Joshua Combes and Kurt Jacobs. “Rapid state reduction of quantum systems using feedback control”. Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010504 (2006)

    2006

  126. [134]

    Noise-canceling quantum feedback: non-hermitian dynamics with applications to state preparation and magic state distillation

    Tathagata Karmakar, Philippe Lewalle, Yipei Zhang, and K. Birgitta Whaley. “Noise-canceling quantum feedback: non-hermitian dynamics with applications to state preparation and magic state distillation” (2025). arXiv:2507.05611. 36

    2025

  127. [135]

    A probabilistic algorithm for k-sat and constraint satisfaction problems

    T. Schoning. “A probabilistic algorithm for k-sat and constraint satisfaction problems”. In 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039). Pages 410–414. (1999)

    1999

  128. [136]

    A quantum version of sch\

    Edward Farhi, Shelby Kimmel, and Kristan Temme. “A quantum version of sch\" oning’s algo- rithm applied to quantum 2-sat” (2016). arXiv:1603.06985

    2016 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Quantum adiabatic brachistochrone

    A. T. Rezakhani, W.-J. Kuo, A. Hamma, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi. “Quantum adiabatic brachistochrone”. Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 080502 (2009)

    2009

  130. [138]

    Dissipation-induced continuous quantum error correc- tion for superconducting circuits

    Joachim Cohen and Mazyar Mirrahimi. “Dissipation-induced continuous quantum error correc- tion for superconducting circuits”. Phys. Rev. A90, 062344 (2014)

    2014

  131. [139]

    Implementation-independent sufficient condition of the knill-laflamme type for the autonomous protection of logical qudits by strong engineered dissipation

    Jae-Mo Lihm, Kyungjoo Noh, and Uwe R. Fischer. “Implementation-independent sufficient condition of the knill-laflamme type for the autonomous protection of logical qudits by strong engineered dissipation”. Phys. Rev. A98, 012317 (2018)

    2018

  132. [140]

    Au- tonomous quantum error correction and quantum computation

    José Lebreuilly, Kyungjoo Noh, Chiao-Hsuan Wang, Steven M. Girvin, and Liang Jiang. “Au- tonomous quantum error correction and quantum computation” (2021). arXiv:2103.05007

    2021 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Protect- ing a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction

    Jeffrey M. Gertler, Brian Baker, Juliang Li, Shruti Shirol, Jens Koch, and Chen Wang. “Protect- ing a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction”. Nature590, 243–248 (2021)

    2021

  134. [142]

    Au- tonomous quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation with squeezed cat qubits

    Qian Xu, Guo Zheng, Yu-Xin Wang, Peter Zoller, Aashish A. Clerk, and Liang Jiang. “Au- tonomous quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation with squeezed cat qubits”. npj Quantum Information9, 1–11 (2023)

    2023

  135. [143]

    Quantum error mitigation

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. “Quantum error mitigation”. Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  136. [144]

    An error mitigated non-orthogonal quantum eigensolver via shadow tomography

    Hang Ren, Yipei Zhang, Wendy M Billings, Rebecca Tomann, Nikolay V Tkachenko, Martin Head-Gordon, and K Birgitta Whaley. “An error mitigated non-orthogonal quantum eigensolver via shadow tomography” (2025). arXiv:2504.16008

    2025

  137. [145]

    Error mitigated metasurface-based randomized measurement schemes

    Hang Ren, Yipei Zhang, Ze Zheng, Cuifeng Ying, Lei Xu, Mohsen Rahmani, and K. Birgitta Whaley. “Error mitigated metasurface-based randomized measurement schemes”. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033310 (2024)

    2024

  138. [146]

    Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code

    Chris N Self, Marcello Benedetti, and David Amaro. “Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code”. Nature Physics20, 219–224 (2024)

    2024

  139. [147]

    Demonstration of robust and efficient quantum property learning with shallow shadows

    Hong-Ye Hu, Andi Gu, Swarnadeep Majumder, Hang Ren, Yipei Zhang, Derek S Wang, Yi- Zhuang You, Zlatko Minev, Susanne F Yelin, and Alireza Seif. “Demonstration of robust and efficient quantum property learning with shallow shadows”. Nature Communications16, 2943 (2025). 37

    2025

Pith tools

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