Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Continuous measurement-based holonomic quantum computation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that logical gates on stabilizer codes can be generated purely by measurements, by slowly rotating the code space and letting the Quantum Zeno effect confine the state.

desk verdict Discrete measurement-based holonomies on stabilizer codes are a real result; the continuous-weak-measurement claim is plausible but not yet derived, and that is the thing referees should pressure. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.06725 v2 pith:JJSCPPJQ submitted 2025-10-08 quant-ph

Anirudh Lanka , Juan Garcia-Nila , Todd A. Brun This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumZenoeffectholonomiccomputationstabilizercodesweakmeasurementsholonomylogicalgatesmeasurement-inducederrorserrorcorrection
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 proposes a way to perform logical quantum gates on stabilizer codes using only measurements, no coherent Hamiltonian driving. The code space is adiabatically rotated by measuring a succession of rotated stabilizer generators; when the rotation is slow, the Quantum Zeno effect keeps the state inside the instantaneous code space, and when the rotation returns to the starting point, the accumulated holonomy is the logical unitary exp(iθH). The paper derives the success probability for both discrete projective measurements and continuous weak measurements, and it shows how to detect and correct the measurement-induced jumps that occur when the rotation is not perfectly adiabatic. If correct, this offers a measurement-only route to holonomic quantum computation that naturally integrates with the syndrome information already available in quantum error correction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the holonomic path (V, Φ), where V(ϕ) = exp(iθϕH/2π)exp(iϕX) rotates the code projector P(ϕ) = V(ϕ)P₀V†(ϕ) through a loop. Measuring the rotated stabilizers (or the projector) at small increments produces the Zeno confinement, and the per-step operator P₀V†(φ)V(φ−δφ)P₀ = c_φ exp(−iξ_φH)P₀ carries the accumulated logical phase; the ξ_φ terms cancel over a full loop, leaving exactly exp(iθH). The horizontal lift of the curve on the Grassmannian supplies the geometric holonomy that makes the final logical transformation path-dependent but independent of the state.

What would settle it

Simulate or experimentally run the continuous protocol on the smallest nontrivial code, e.g. the [[3,1,3]] bit-flip code with a logical Pauli rotation, for several values of ω/κ. Perform quantum process tomography conditioned on no detected jump: if the resulting logical map differs from exp(iθH) by a rotation angle that scales with ω/κ, or is not a pure unitary, the continuous-path central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that rotating the code space of a stabilizer code along a closed loop, while continuously or projectively measuring the rotated stabilizer generators, implements a holonomy equal to a desired logical unitary G = exp(iθH). For a rotation family V(ϕ) = exp(iθϕH/2π)exp(iϕX), with X chosen to anticommute with H and at least one stabilizer, each small measurement step confines the state to the instantaneous code space with probability near one, and the product of the step operators reduces to the target logical gate. The paper derives the no-jump probability for discrete steps as exp[−(δϕ/2π)(θ²/2 + 4π²)] and for continuous measurements as (1/2)[1 + (1 − ωθ²/(2πκ))exp(−4πω/κ

Load-bearing premise

The continuous-path claim assumes that the diffusive measurement dynamics produces the same logical unitary as the discrete projective sequence, but the paper only computes the average no-jump probability from the Lindblad equation and never derives the conditional final unitary from the stochastic Schrödinger equation; extra measurement backaction or residual mixing could break the continuous holonomy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any stabilizer-code logical gate of the form exp(iθH) can, in principle, be implemented without Hamiltonian control, using only rotated stabilizer measurements.
  • The explicit success probabilities give a direct trade-off between gate speed and fidelity: smaller rotation increments or slower continuous rotations exponentially suppress the chance of a measurement-induced jump.
  • Measurement-induced jumps can be corrected during the protocol by dynamically switching to a modified path, so the gate still completes with the right logical action instead of aborting.
  • The sufficient error-correcting conditions, combined with the at-most-two-ancilla construction, mean the protocol can be made compatible with a desired error set for any stabilizer code.
  • Because the measurements themselves provide syndrome information, the scheme is naturally compatible with ongoing quantum error correction rather than being a separate control layer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper derives the continuous-path success probability from the averaged Lindblad dynamics, but it does not explicitly derive the final logical unitary from the stochastic Schrödinger equation; a direct derivation or trajectory simulation would be a natural test of whether the continuous protocol really implements exp(iθH) rather than an additional measurement-backaction rotation.
  • The jump-detection hypothesis test on the measurement current suggests a practical avenue: the same current used to detect measurement-induced jumps could be reused as an online fault-detection signal in a larger error-corrected computation.
  • The constant-rotation-rate assumption could be relaxed; an optimized, time-dependent rotation schedule might reduce the total gate time for a fixed success probability while preserving the holonomy.
  • The framework is stated for Pauli stabilizer codes, but the geometric mechanism is general enough that a similar measurement-loop construction could be explored for qudit stabilizer codes or subsystem codes.
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. The paper proposes a measurement-based holonomic quantum computation scheme for stabilizer codes. The code space is rotated by a family of unitaries V(ϕ), and frequent projective or weak measurements of rotated stabilizer generators confine the state to the instantaneous code space by the Zeno effect. Over a closed loop the sequence of rotated projectors is claimed to implement the logical unitary G=exp(iθH). For discrete projective steps, Lemma 1 gives the small-step operator and Theorem 1 gives the no-jump survival probability; Theorem 2 gives modified paths after a single measurement-induced jump. For continuous weak measurements, Section III C computes an average no-jump probability via a Lindblad-equation perturbative expansion. Section IV derives sufficient conditions for the instantaneous codes to preserve correctability and proposes ancilla-augmentation for codes that do not satisfy them.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper introduces a genuinely measurement-driven route to holonomic logical gates, with the attractive feature that the measurement outcomes provide syndrome information along the way. The discrete-path algebra is clean and self-contained: Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 give explicit, checkable expressions, and the path-modification construction in Theorem 2 is an interesting contribution. The correctability analysis and ancilla-augmentation idea are also useful. However, the continuous-path protocol — which is central to the title and abstract — is not actually derived: the paper computes only an averaged survival probability and then asserts the holonomy. The numerical example does not substitute for a derivation of the conditional logical channel. The paper is therefore not yet ready for publication in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III C, Eqs. (90)–(104)] The central claim of the continuous-path protocol is that the diffusive measurement dynamics implements the same logical unitary G=exp(iθH) as the discrete projective sequence. The paper never derives the conditional final unitary from the stochastic Schrödinger equation (Eq. 90). It computes only the average code-space probability 1−p_jump = 1/2[1+(1−ωθ²/(2πκ))exp(−4πω/κ)] from the Lindblad equation (Eq. 91), and then asserts that the state has acquired the desired holonomy. This does not follow: different unravelings of the same Lindblad equation have the same average state but different conditional operations, and the measurement record itself can carry logical information. Moreover, the quantity defined in Eq. (95) is the average probability of being in the code space at the final time T, not the probability that no jump occurred during the interval. The numerical Example 3 checks on
  2. [Section IV, Theorem 5 and Eq. (129)] Theorem 5 claims that 'the number of ancilla qubits required ... for an arbitrary stabilizer code' is at most two. The proof of the two-ancilla case relies on an unstated assumption: in the case D=E_bE_a with one factor on the ancilla register, the proof requires that the ancilla error acts on only a single ancilla qubit ('by assumption of no spatially correlated errors among the ancilla qubits'). This assumption is absent from the theorem statement and from the abstract's claim 'at most two ancilla qubits.' If the correctable set contains a weight-2 error on the two ancillas, the factor ⟨00|E_b|11⟩ need not vanish, and the expression in Eq. (129) is not automatically zero. The theorem should either state this restriction explicitly or provide a proof for general error sets.
  3. [Section IV, Proposition 7 and Theorem 4 proof] Proposition 7 as stated is false. For D∈E^(2) a stabilizer, P0HDP0 = P0HP0, which is HP0 for a logical Pauli H and is not proportional to P0. The proof appears to analyze only the Table I cases in which HD does not appear; in the cases where HD does appear (D anticommutes with H), D cannot be a stabilizer, so the conclusion P0HDP0=0 follows from Lemma 3. The proposition and its use in Theorem 4 need to be restated with this qualification. The same subsection contains the incorrect sentence 'P0HP0 ∝ P0' in the X=D case: for a non-scalar logical Pauli, P0HP0 is HP0, which is exactly the type of term that violates the Knill–Laflamme condition.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (45)] The statement that the sum ∑ξ_lδϕ vanishes exactly is only true when 2π/δϕ is an integer. With the ceiling function used in Eq. (41), the sum is O(δϕ), not zero. The authors should either choose δϕ such that 2π/δϕ is an integer or retain the O(δϕ) correction in the final logical rotation.
  2. [Section III C, Eq. (90)] The stochastic Schrödinger equation in Eq. (90) contains no explicit rotation Hamiltonian term, even though the observables g_j(t) are time-dependent. The relationship between the time-dependence of the measured observables and the rotation V(t) should be clarified, or a rotating-frame derivation should be given explicitly.
  3. [Example 3 and Fig. 5] The text describes Fig. 5 as a plot of the probability of a jump, but Example 3 states that the average fidelity to |111⟩ was computed. Please clarify the quantity plotted and whether it is obtained by Monte Carlo simulation of Eq. (90) or from Eq. (104). If it is simulated, specify the number of trajectories and the estimator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target gate is deliberately encoded in the rotation path, but the measurement-sequence phase factors are derived and cancel; the continuous-section gap is an unverified premise, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central discrete-path result is self-contained. The target G=exp(iθH) is built into the path through V(φ)=exp(iθφH/2π)exp(iφX), so V(2π)=G; however, the paper does not simply read off G. Lemma 1 (Eq. 42) derives the per-step effect P0V†(φ)V(φ−δφ)P0 = cφ e^{-iξφH} P0 with ξφ=(θ/2π)cos(2φ)δφ, and Eq. (45) shows the accumulated ξ phases cancel, leaving G as the holonomy (Eq. 44). This is a derived cancellation, not a definitional identity. The correction-path angle θ̃ in Theorem 2 is solved algebraically to meet endpoint conditions, which is control design rather than fitting a prediction. The continuous survival probability (Eq. 104) is obtained by second-order perturbation theory from the Lindblad equation (Eq. 91), with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Some self-citations appear ([13], [43], [44], [49], [50], [52], [55], [56]), but they support background material and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The paper does contain a real support gap: in Section III C, after writing the SSE (Eq. 90), it asserts 'The code state should have acquired the desired holonomy' without deriving the conditional final unitary from the diffusive dynamics; only the average no-jump probability ⟨P0⟩ is computed. This is an unverified premise / missing derivation, not a circular reduction, because the discrete result and the survival probability are independently derived. Hence the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Zeno-effect physics, standard fiber-bundle holonomy formalism, and a few domain assumptions about the noise/error model. The most fragile assumptions are the unrestricted use of the error-space ansatz (no external noise) and the unstated single-qubit-ancilla-error condition in Theorem 5.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Quantum Zeno effect confines the state to the instantaneous eigenspace of a frequently measured observable; the evolution is given by |dψ⟩ = -i[H(t),P0(t)]|ψ⟩dt (Eq. 8).
    This is the core physical premise: repeated projections with small δt keep the state in the moving code space. It is standard but not derived from first principles in this paper.
  • standard math The horizontal lift of the loop in the Grassmannian is unique and the holonomy is given by Γ = L†(0)L(T) P exp(-∫L†dL) (Eqs. 23, 26-27).
    Standard differential geometry of the Stiefel/Grassmannian bundle, following [13].
  • domain assumption X can be chosen such that it anticommutes with at least one stabilizer and with the logical operator H, and exp(2πiX)=I (Eq. 33).
    The protocol requires such an X to generate the loop; not every code/logical pair admits a suitable X (the paper later gives conditions).
  • domain assumption Measurement-induced jumps occur only into the single error space V(ζ)(I-P0)V†(ζ) (Eq. 61), and the error operator has the form E(ζ)=V(ζ)X e^{-iχ(ζ)H} V†(ζ).
    Neglects external noise and assumes the only failure channel is the non-adiabatic jump generated by X.
  • ad hoc to paper In Theorem 5, correctable errors on the ancilla register act on only a single ancilla qubit (no spatially correlated ancilla errors).
    This assumption is introduced in the proof of the two-ancilla case but not stated in the theorem or earlier.
  • domain assumption Continuous weak measurements of the rotating stabilizers are described by the diffusive SSE (Eq. 90) and the average dynamics by the Lindblad equation (Eq. 91).
    Standard model for continuous measurement; the paper relies on this to derive the survival probability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous measurement-based holonomic quantum computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJSCPPJQ

@misc{pith2026251006725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous measurement-based holonomic quantum computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJSCPPJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.06725}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a scheme to generate holonomies using the Quantum Zeno effect, enabling logical unitary operations on quantum stabilizer codes purely through measurements. The quantum error-correcting code space is adiabatically rotated by measuring a succession of rotated stabilizer generators. When the rotation is sufficiently slow, the state remains confined to the instantaneous code space by the Zeno effect; otherwise, measurement-induced jumps can occur into a rotated orthogonal subspace. If the rotation completes a closed loop, the code state is transformed by a holonomy: a logical unitary transformation. We analytically derive the sequence of rotated stabilizer generators that produce a desired holonomy, and find the total time required to implement this procedure with a given success probability. If a measurement moves the state to the orthogonal subspace, we present a method to alter the path of the rotated observables to return the state either to the original code or the original error space with the desired holonomy; in the latter case, the holonomy is emulated. Finally, we establish conditions on the code and the measured observables that preserve the correctability of a given error set. When a code fails to meet the error-correcting conditions, our protocol can be applicable by augmenting the code with ancilla qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The horizontal lift as a unique curve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Jump into the rotated error space. When the code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Real-time error correction by dynamic path mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability of no fault at the end of the evolution as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Probability of a jump as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    But the second-order correction is ˜x(2)(1)1 =− ωθ2 2πκ exp − 4πω κ +O (ω/κ)2 ,(110) giving ⟨g⟩ ˜ρ(T)≈ 1− ωθ2 2πκ exp − 4πω κ .(111) 13 FIG

    Then the unperturbed solution is ˜x(0)(t)1 = exp − 4πω κ +O (ω/κ)2 .(109) Due to the structure ofA(t), the first-order correction ˜x(1)(t)1 = 0. But the second-order correction is ˜x(2)(1)1 =− ωθ2 2πκ exp − 4πω κ +O (ω/κ)2 ,(110) giving ⟨g⟩ ˜ρ(T)≈ 1− ωθ2 2πκ exp − 4πω κ .(111) 13 FIG. 5. Probability of a jump as a function ofω/κ. The analytical equation i...

  2. [2]

    We compared the probability of no faults when the path is kept constant atV(ϕ)throughout the evolution, with the one where the path is changed once at the first jump as shown in Fig. 4. The plots shown are averaged over an ensemble of1000 trajectories. The error bars represent a95%confidence interval. FIG. 4. Probability of no fault at the end of the evol...

    2000

  3. [3]

    One unitary that can perform this isG= exp(iθσ z 1σz 2σz 3)

    Suppose we want to apply a logicalZrotation. One unitary that can perform this isG= exp(iθσ z 1σz 2σz 3). By the condi- tions mentioned in Eq.(33), we can chooseX=σ x 3 so that it anticommutes withH, and the stabilizer generator g2. With this choice, the stabilizer generatorg 1 remains constant since g1(ϕ) = exp i θϕ 2π H exp (iϕX)g 1 exp (−iϕX) exp −i θϕ...

  4. [4]

    The measurement current for one channel (corresponding to a single stabilizer) reads i(t) =µ+ 1 2√κ dWt dt ,(112) whereµ≡ ⟨g(t)⟩ ρ(t)

    Jump detection Suppose a set of stabilizer generators{g(t)}are con- tinuously measured. The measurement current for one channel (corresponding to a single stabilizer) reads i(t) =µ+ 1 2√κ dWt dt ,(112) whereµ≡ ⟨g(t)⟩ ρ(t). Sinceg(t) are Pauli operators ro- tated by a unitary, their eigenvalues are preserved; the two extreme values of its expectation are±1...

  5. [5]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, Pro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science , 56 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Steane, Multiple-Particle Interference and Quan- tum Error Correction, Proceedings of the Royal Soci- 17 ety of London Series A452, 2551 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9601029 [quant-ph]

    A. Steane, Multiple-Particle Interference and Quan- tum Error Correction, Proceedings of the Royal Soci- 17 ety of London Series A452, 2551 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9601029 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Hence, d(X, m)>2∀m∈ N(S(0)),(125) where d(·,·) denotes the Hamming distance, andN(·) is the normalizer group

    A numerical search shows thats X ̸=s D ∀D∈ E (2). Hence, d(X, m)>2∀m∈ N(S(0)),(125) where d(·,·) denotes the Hamming distance, andN(·) is the normalizer group. With this choice ofH,XandE, we can satisfy the error-correcting conditions throughout the loop. It is easy to verify that the syndromes of all pairs of er- rors include all syndromes for the [ [5,1...

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Lidar and T

    D. Lidar and T. Brun, eds.,Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation, Science279, 342 (1998), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.279.5349.342

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Holonomic quantum compu- tation, Physics Letters A264, 94 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Topological quantum computation (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0101025 [quant-ph]

    2002

  7. [15]

    Sj¨ oqvist, D

    E. Sj¨ oqvist, D. M. Tong, L. Mauritz Andersson, B. Hes- smo, M. Johansson, and K. Singh, Non-adiabatic holo- nomic quantum computation, New Journal of Physics14, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103035 (2012)

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Lahtinen and J

    V. Lahtinen and J. Pachos, A short introduction to topological quantum computation, SciPost Physics3, 10.21468/scipostphys.3.3.021 (2017)

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    L.-A. Wu, P. Zanardi, and D. A. Lidar, Holonomic quan- tum computation in decoherence-free subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 130501 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Zheng and T

    Y.-C. Zheng and T. A. Brun, Fault-tolerant scheme of holonomic quantum computation on stabilizer codes with robustness to low-weight thermal noise, Physical Review A89, 10.1103/physreva.89.032317 (2014)

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Oreshkov, Holonomic quantum computation in sub- systems, Phys

    O. Oreshkov, Holonomic quantum computation in sub- systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 090502 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Zhang, S

    J. Zhang, S. J. Devitt, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Holo- nomic surface codes for fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A97, 022335 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Oreshkov, T

    O. Oreshkov, T. A. Brun, and D. A. Lidar, Scheme for fault-tolerant holonomic computation on stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. A80, 022325 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Cesare, A

    C. Cesare, A. J. Landahl, D. Bacon, S. T. Flammia, and A. Neels, Adiabatic topological quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A92, 012336 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Oreshkov, T

    O. Oreshkov, T. A. Brun, and D. A. Lidar, Fault-tolerant holonomic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 070502 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    P. V. Buividovich and V. I. Kuvshinov, Fidelity of holo- nomic quantum computations in the case of random er- rors in the values of control parameters, Physical Review A73, 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022336 (2006), arXiv:quant- ph/0601146

    2006

  17. [27]

    Liang, T

    Y. Liang, T. Chen, and Z.-Y. Xue, Robust holonomic quantum gates via cyclic evolution protection, APL Quantum2, 10.1063/5.0249368 (2025)

    2025 doi

  18. [28]

    P. Shen, Y. Liang, T. Chen, and Z.-Y. Xue, Accelerated super-robust nonadiabatic holonomic quantum gates, Physical Review A108, 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.032601 (2023)

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    Florio, P

    G. Florio, P. Facchi, R. Fazio, V. Giovannetti, and S. Pas- cazio, Robust gates for holonomic quantum computation, Physical Review A73, 022327 (2006)

    2006

  20. [30]

    Solinas, M

    P. Solinas, M. Sassetti, P. Truini, and N. Zanghi, On the stability of quantum holonomic gates, New Journal of Physics14, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/093006 (2012)

    2012 doi

  21. [31]

    Fuentes-Guridi, F

    I. Fuentes-Guridi, F. Girelli, and E. R. Livine, Holo- nomic quantum computation in the presence of de- coherence, Physical Review Letters94, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.94.020503 (2005)

    2005 doi

  22. [32]

    M. S. Sarandy and D. A. Lidar, Abelian and non-Abelian geometric phases in adiabatic open quantum systems, Physical Review A73, 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062101 (2006)

    2006 doi

  23. [33]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  24. [34]

    Wassner, T

    C. Wassner, T. Guaita, J. Eisert, and J. Carrasco, Holo- nomic quantum computation: a scalable adiabatic archi- tecture (2025), arXiv:2502.17188 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [35]

    G. Feng, G. Xu, and G. Long, Experimental realization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 190501 (2013)

    2013

  26. [36]

    Toyoda, K

    K. Toyoda, K. Uchida, A. Noguchi, S. Haze, and S. Urabe, Realization of holonomic single-qubit opera- tions, Phys. Rev. A87, 052307 (2013)

    2013

  27. [37]

    Solinas, P

    P. Solinas, P. Zanardi, N. Zangh ` ı, and F. Rossi, Semiconductor-based geometrical quantum gates, Phys. Rev. B67, 121307 (2003)

    2003

  28. [38]

    V. V. Albert, C. Shu, S. Krastanov, C. Shen, R.- B. Liu, Z.-B. Yang, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and L. Jiang, Holonomic quantum con- trol with continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 140502 (2016)

    2016

  29. [39]

    L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Geo- metric manipulation of trapped ions for quan- tum computation, Science292, 1695 (2001), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1058835

    2001 doi

  30. [40]

    Zheng and T

    Y.-C. Zheng and T. A. Brun, Fault-tolerant holonomic quantum computation in surface codes, Physical Review A91, 10.1103/physreva.91.022302 (2015)

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Facchi and S

    P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Quantum zeno subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 080401 (2002)

    2002

  33. [43]

    Facchi, Quantum zeno effect, adiabaticity and dynami- cal superselection rules, inFundamental Aspects of Quan- tum Physics(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2003) p

    P. Facchi, Quantum zeno effect, adiabaticity and dynami- cal superselection rules, inFundamental Aspects of Quan- tum Physics(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2003) p. 197–221

    2003

  34. [44]

    Kitano, Quantum zeno effect and adiabatic change, Phys

    M. Kitano, Quantum zeno effect and adiabatic change, Phys. Rev. A56, 1138 (1997)

    1997

  35. [45]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, G. Gramegna, and K. Yuasa, One bound to rule them all: from Adiabatic to Zeno, Quantum6, 737 (2022)

    2022

  36. [46]

    Facchi, S

    P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse, and D. A. Lidar, Control of decoherence: Analysis and comparison of three different strategies, Phys. Rev. A71, 022302 (2005)

    2005

  37. [47]

    C. J. G. Mommers and E. Sj¨ oqvist, Universal quantum computation and quantum error correction using discrete 18 holonomies, Phys. Rev. A105, 022402 (2022)

    2022

  38. [48]

    S. L. Adler, D. C. Brody, T. A. Brun, and L. P. Hughston, Martingale models for quantum state reduction, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 8795 (2001)

    2001

  39. [49]

    Oreshkov and T

    O. Oreshkov and T. A. Brun, Weak measurements are universal, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 110409 (2005)

    2005

  40. [50]

    Bouten, R

    L. Bouten, R. van Handel, and M. James, An introduc- tion to quantum filtering (2006), arXiv:math/0601741 [math.OC]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [51]

    J. E. Gough, An introduction to quantum filtering (2018), arXiv:1804.09086 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems, Quantum4, 361 (2020)

    2020

  43. [53]

    V. P. Belavkin, Quantum stochastic calculus and quan- tum nonlinear filtering, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 42, 171 (1992)

    1992

  44. [54]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. A. Brun, Continuous quantum er- ror detection and suppression with pairwise local inter- actions, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043093 (2020)

    2020

  45. [55]

    Raghunathan and T

    S. Raghunathan and T. Brun, Continuous moni- toring can improve single-photon probability (2010), arXiv:1010.5851 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, Theory of quantum error correction for general noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2525 (2000)

    2000

  47. [57]

    Hsu and T

    K.-C. Hsu and T. A. Brun, Method for quantum-jump continuous-time quantum error correction, Physical Re- view A93, 10.1103/physreva.93.022321 (2016)

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    Convy, H

    I. Convy, H. Liao, S. Zhang, S. Patel, W. P. Liv- ingston, H. N. Nguyen, I. Siddiqi, and K. B. Whaley, Machine learning for continuous quantum error correc- tion on superconducting qubits, New Journal of Physics 24, 10.1088/1367-2630/ac66f9 (2022)

    2022 doi

  49. [59]

    C. Ahn, A. C. Doherty, and A. J. Landahl, Continuous quantum error correction via quantum feedback control, Physical Review A65, 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042301 (2002)

    2002 doi

  50. [60]

    Lanka, S

    A. Lanka, S. Hegde, and T. A. Brun, Optimizing continuous-time quantum error correction for arbitrary noise (2025), arXiv:2506.21707 [quant-ph]

    2025

  51. [61]

    J. G. Nila and T. A. Brun, Continuous quantum cor- rection on markovian and non-markovian models (2025), arXiv:2505.18400 [quant-ph]

    2025

  52. [62]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, A. T. Rezakhani, J. M. Dominy, and D. A. Lidar, Zeno effect for quantum computation and control, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 080501 (2012)

    2012

  53. [63]

    J. M. Dominy, G. A. Paz-Silva, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar, Analysis of the quantum zeno effect for quantum control and computation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 075306 (2013)

    2013

  54. [64]

    Marvian, T

    M. Marvian, T. A. Brun, and D. A. Lidar, Suppression of effective noise in hamiltonian simulations, Phys. Rev. A96, 052328 (2017)

    2017

  55. [65]

    C.-L. Hung, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Quantum spin dynamics with pairwise-tunable, long-range interactions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 10.1073/pnas.1603777113 (2016)

    2016 doi

  56. [66]

    H. Haas, D. Puzzuoli, F. Zhang, and D. G. Cory, En- gineering effective hamiltonians, New Journal of Physics 21, 103011 (2019). Appendix A: Proof of Lemma 1 Assume that the rotation incrementδϕ≪1. Then the rotation operatorV †(φ)V(φ−δϕ) isweak; sandwiching it betweenP 0, we ob...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.