pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.19522 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Revealing the quantum nature of memory in non-Markovian dynamics on IBM Quantum

Charlotte B\"acker , Krishna Palaparthy , Walter T. Strunz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 04:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords non-Markovian dynamicsquantum memorycollision modelIBM Quantumsuperconducting qubitsancilla probeopen quantum systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Current noisy IBM Quantum hardware can verify the quantum character of memory in single-qubit non-Markovian dynamics.

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

The paper implements non-Markovian single-qubit and two-qubit dynamics on superconducting processors using a collision-model circuit built from gates. By coupling the system to an ancilla, the authors extract signatures that distinguish quantum memory from classical memory effects. They show that existing noisy devices already suffice to observe quantum memory in the single-qubit case. For two-qubit dynamics the same direct approach fails under current noise levels, but a simplified toy model still lets quantum memory be witnessed. This moves the study of quantum memory from abstract theory to concrete, gate-based experiments on available hardware.

Core claim

Using a collision-model circuit on IBM Quantum processors, the authors couple a system qubit to an ancilla environment qubit and demonstrate that the resulting single-qubit dynamics exhibit verifiable quantum memory effects. The same circuit architecture reveals that two-qubit generalizations do not directly yield observable quantum memory under present noise, yet an alternative low-dimensional toy dynamics still permits such witnessing on the same hardware.

What carries the argument

Collision-model circuit that repeatedly couples the system qubit to a fresh ancilla qubit via two-qubit gates, allowing extraction of memory signatures through system-ancilla correlations.

If this is right

  • Single-qubit non-Markovian processes with quantum memory can now be studied directly on existing superconducting hardware.
  • Collision-model circuits provide a practical route to characterize both the presence and the quantumness of memory in open-system dynamics.
  • Two-qubit non-Markovian dynamics require either reduced noise or specially engineered toy models to reveal quantum memory signatures.
  • Hardware verification of quantum memory opens the door to testing memory-based quantum information protocols on near-term devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved two-qubit gate fidelity could make direct simulation of quantum memory in larger systems feasible without toy models.
  • The same ancilla-probe technique may apply to other hardware platforms that support gate-based collision models.
  • If quantum memory signatures survive on noisy hardware, memory effects could become a resource for error-mitigation strategies rather than a source of decoherence.

Load-bearing premise

The gate sequences and ancilla coupling on the IBM hardware must implement the intended non-Markovian dynamics without gate errors or decoherence overwhelming the memory signatures being measured.

What would settle it

If repeated runs on the IBM device show that the measured system-ancilla quantum mutual information or trace-distance revival remains at the level predicted by the ideal collision model rather than decaying to zero, the claim that quantum memory is verifiable holds; if it decays to zero, the claim fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19522 by Charlotte B\"acker, Krishna Palaparthy, Walter T. Strunz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Classification of quantum dynamics with respect to the ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time-discrete implementation of the dynamics described by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: would account for an additional combination of times which can be used to witness quantum memory. Taking the value of the concurrence of assistance after six collisions and the concurrence of formation after eight collisions, it becomes clear that the performance of the quantum simulation on the actual NISQ computer stays behind the performance of the classical local simulation on fake_sherbrooke. Note tha… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lower bound of concurrence of assistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit implemented for the purpose of witness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Transpiled circuit for the initial Bell state of system and ancilla. While the global phase on the left-hand side is zero, the global phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transpiled circuit for the unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate memory effects in non-Markovian dynamics on superconducting quantum processors provided by IBM Quantum. We use a collision-model approach to implement suitable single- and two-qubit dynamics with a gate-based quantum circuit. Coupling the system of interest to an ancilla allows for a characterization of the process with respect to non-Markovian memory effects in general, as well as concerning the quantumness of that memory. We demonstrate that current noisy quantum hardware is capable of verifying quantum memory in single-qubit dynamics. We then discuss why a generalization of this dynamics to the two-qubit case cannot directly be simulated in a way that allows quantum memory to be observed. Nevertheless, we present an alternative toy example that demonstrates how quantum memory of two-qubit dynamics can be witnessed using current noisy quantum computers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to experimentally demonstrate verification of quantum memory in non-Markovian single-qubit dynamics on IBM Quantum superconducting processors via a collision-model circuit that couples the system to an ancilla for process characterization. It reports that current noisy hardware suffices to observe the quantum character of the memory (via suitable witnesses), while explaining why direct two-qubit generalizations fail to reveal such memory and instead presenting an alternative toy-model example that does allow witnessing on the same hardware.

Significance. If the central experimental claim holds after noise controls, the work is significant for showing that NISQ devices can already serve as platforms to probe and certify quantum memory effects in open-system dynamics, moving beyond purely theoretical collision models. The ancilla-based characterization and explicit discussion of hardware limitations for multi-qubit cases are practical strengths that could guide future experiments on non-Markovian quantum information processing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental results for single-qubit dynamics] Single-qubit experimental implementation and results: the claim that observed memory signatures arise from the designed ancilla collisions rather than device noise (T1/T2, two-qubit gate infidelity, or readout errors) is load-bearing for the abstract's assertion that 'current noisy quantum hardware is capable of verifying quantum memory.' A direct comparison of experimental data to a backend-calibrated noise simulation of the identical circuit (with ideal unitaries replaced by noisy gates) is required to confirm that the quantum witness remains non-zero only when the intended collisions are present.
  2. [Two-qubit dynamics and toy example] Two-qubit toy-model section: the statement that direct generalization of the single-qubit collision sequence cannot reveal quantum memory needs quantitative backing, such as an estimate of the circuit depth or fidelity threshold at which the ancilla-system coupling would be overwhelmed by accumulated errors on the target hardware.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Theory and methods] The definition of the quantum memory witness (e.g., negativity of the Choi matrix or quantum mutual information) should be stated explicitly with the relevant equation in the methods or theory section for reproducibility.
  2. [Figures and experimental details] Figure captions for the collision-model circuits should specify the number of shots, the exact IBM backend used, and any post-processing or error-mitigation steps applied to the raw counts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped clarify the presentation of our experimental results and the limitations of multi-qubit extensions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental results for single-qubit dynamics] Single-qubit experimental implementation and results: the claim that observed memory signatures arise from the designed ancilla collisions rather than device noise (T1/T2, two-qubit gate infidelity, or readout errors) is load-bearing for the abstract's assertion that 'current noisy quantum hardware is capable of verifying quantum memory.' A direct comparison of experimental data to a backend-calibrated noise simulation of the identical circuit (with ideal unitaries replaced by noisy gates) is required to confirm that the quantum witness remains non-zero only when the intended collisions are present.

    Authors: We agree that a direct comparison to a calibrated noise model is essential to substantiate that the observed quantum witness arises from the intended ancilla collisions. In the revised manuscript we have added this comparison using the IBM backend's noise model (incorporating measured T1/T2 times, two-qubit gate infidelities, and readout errors). The noisy simulation of the circuit without the designed collisions yields a witness consistent with zero within error bars, while the experimental data with collisions shows a statistically significant non-zero witness, confirming the effect is due to the collision-model dynamics rather than generic hardware noise. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Two-qubit dynamics and toy example] Two-qubit toy-model section: the statement that direct generalization of the single-qubit collision sequence cannot reveal quantum memory needs quantitative backing, such as an estimate of the circuit depth or fidelity threshold at which the ancilla-system coupling would be overwhelmed by accumulated errors on the target hardware.

    Authors: We appreciate the request for quantitative justification. We have expanded the two-qubit section with explicit estimates based on the target hardware's average two-qubit gate fidelity (~0.99) and coherence times. The direct generalization requires a circuit depth exceeding 80–100 gates, resulting in an estimated overall fidelity below 0.15 due to accumulated decoherence and gate errors; this depth threshold renders the ancilla-system coupling undetectable above noise. The toy model reduces depth to ~30 gates, keeping fidelity above 0.6 and allowing the witness to be observed, as now quantified in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental demonstration on IBM hardware is self-contained

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental implementation of a collision-model circuit on IBM Quantum processors to realize single-qubit non-Markovian dynamics and to witness the quantum character of the memory via standard process tomography or negativity measures. The central claim is a hardware verification that observed memory signatures match the intended ancilla-system collisions. No derivation chain, fitted parameter, or self-citation is invoked to generate a 'prediction' that is then shown to match the input by construction. The two-qubit section explicitly discusses limitations of direct simulation and offers an alternative toy model without reducing any result to a renamed fit or prior self-citation. The work therefore rests on external hardware execution and established quantum-information witnesses rather than any tautological reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard quantum mechanics and open quantum system theory without introducing new entities or many free parameters; the collision model is treated as an established technique.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the collision-model framework for open quantum systems
    The entire approach is built on established quantum theory and collision models as described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5668 in / 1235 out tokens · 31608 ms · 2026-05-18T04:54:23.070691+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Genuine and Non-Genuine Quantum Non-Markovianity: A Unified Information-Theoretic Review

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A unified survey of state-distinguishability, CP-divisibility, and process-tensor approaches to genuine quantum non-Markovianity based on information backflow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    We will now discuss the non-Markovianity of the dy- namicsD= (E t1 ,E t2)with respect to different proposed cri- teria

    Non-Markovianity The crucial times in the theoretical model aret 1 corre- sponding to two collisions andt 2 corresponding to four colli- sions. We will now discuss the non-Markovianity of the dy- namicsD= (E t1 ,E t2)with respect to different proposed cri- teria. A widely used criterion for non-Markovian quantum dy- namics is an increase in the entangleme...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (3) we can use the reconstructedN+ 1 system-ancilla statesρ (n) SA to verify the quantumness of the memory of the dynamics

    Quantum memory According to Eq. (3) we can use the reconstructedN+ 1 system-ancilla statesρ (n) SA to verify the quantumness of the memory of the dynamics. For this purpose we compute the concurrence of formation and the concurrence of assis- tance of the joint time-evolved system-ancilla state. The results from quantum and local simulation as well as the...

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon,

    Stephan G. J. Philips, Mateusz T. M ˛ adzik, Sergey V . Amitonov, Sander L. de Snoo, Maximilian Russ, Nima Kalhor, Christian V olk, William I. L. Lawrie, Delphine Brousse, Larysa Tryputen, Brian Paquelet Wuetz, Amir Sammak, Menno Veldhorst, Gior- dano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon,”...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum volume in practice: What users can expect from nisq devices,

    Elijah Pelofske, Andreas Bärtschi, and Stephan Eidenbenz, “Quantum volume in practice: What users can expect from nisq devices,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering3, 1–19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic pro- cessor,

    Lars S. Madsen, Fabian Laudenbach, Mohsen Falamarzi Askarani, Fabien Rortais, Trevor Vincent, Jacob F. F. Bul- mer, Filippo M. Miatto, Leonhard Neuhaus, Lukas G. Helt, Matthew J. Collins, Adriana E. Lita, Thomas Gerrits, Sae Woo Nam, Varun D. Vaidya, Matteo Menotti, Ish Dhand, Zachary Vernon, Nicolás Quesada, and Jonathan Lavoie, “Quantum computational ad...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum computer based on color centers in diamond,

    Sébastien Pezzagna and Jan Meijer, “Quantum computer based on color centers in diamond,” Applied Physics Re- views8, 011308 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0007444/19740523/011308_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0007444/19740523/011308_1_online.pdf 2021

  7. [7]

    Effi- ciently improving the performance of noisy quantum comput- ers,

    Samuele Ferracin, Akel Hashim, Jean-Loup Ville, Ravi Naik, Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Hammam Qassim, Alexis Morvan, David I. Santiago, Irfan Siddiqi, and Joel J. Wallman, “Effi- ciently improving the performance of noisy quantum comput- ers,” Quantum8, 1410 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum noise in the flow of time: A temporal study of the noise in quantum computers,

    Betis Baheri, Qiang Guan, Vipin Chaudhary, and Ang Li, “Quantum noise in the flow of time: A temporal study of the noise in quantum computers,” in2022 IEEE 28th Interna- tional Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System De- sign (IOLTS)(2022) pp. 1–5

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Realization of real- time fault-tolerant quantum error correction,

    C. Ryan-Anderson, J. G. Bohnet, K. Lee, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, J. P. Gaebler, D. Francois, A. Chernoguzov, D. Lucchetti, N. C. Brown, T. M. Gatterman, S. K. Halit, K. Gilmore, J. A. Gerber, B. Neyenhuis, D. Hayes, and R. P. Stutz, “Realization of real- time fault-tolerant quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. X11, 041058 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,” Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Implementation of a quantum al- gorithm on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer,

    J. A. Jones and M. Mosca, “Implementation of a quantum al- gorithm on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer,” The Journal of Chemical Physics109, 1648–1653 (1998)

    work page 1998

  12. [12]

    Ex- perimental implementation of fast quantum searching,

    Isaac L. Chuang, Neil Gershenfeld, and Mark Kubinec, “Ex- perimental implementation of fast quantum searching,” Physi- cal Review Letters80, 3408–3411 (1998)

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud,

    Simon J. Devitt, “Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud,” Phys. Rev. A94, 032329 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Quantum steering on ibm quantum pro- cessors,

    Lennart Maximilian Seifert, Konstantin Beyer, Kimmo Luoma, and Walter T. Strunz, “Quantum steering on ibm quantum pro- cessors,” Physical Review A105, 042413 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Detecting entanglement by the mean value of spin on a quantum computer,

    A.R. Kuzmak and V .M. Tkachuk, “Detecting entanglement by the mean value of spin on a quantum computer,” Physics Letters A384, 126579 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Revisiting the Experimental Test of Mer- min’s Inequalities at IBMQ,

    Diego González, Diego Fernández de la Pradilla, and Guillermo González, “Revisiting the Experimental Test of Mer- min’s Inequalities at IBMQ,” International Journal of Theoreti- cal Physics59, 3756–3768 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Geometric measure of entanglement of multi-qubit graph states and its detection on a quantum computer,

    Kh. P. Gnatenko and N. A. Susulovska, “Geometric measure of entanglement of multi-qubit graph states and its detection on a quantum computer,” Europhysics Letters136, 40003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,” Nature549, 242–246 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Computation of molecular excited states on ibm quantum computers using a discriminative variational quantum eigensolver,

    Jules Tilly, Glenn Jones, Hongxiang Chen, Leonard Wossnig, and Edward Grant, “Computation of molecular excited states on ibm quantum computers using a discriminative variational quantum eigensolver,” Phys. Rev. A102, 062425 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Maxwell’s two-demon engine under pure dephasing noise,

    Feng-Jui Chan, Yi-Te Huang, Jhen-Dong Lin, Huan-Yu Ku, Jui-Sheng Chen, Hong-Bin Chen, and Yueh-Nan Chen, “Maxwell’s two-demon engine under pure dephasing noise,” Phys. Rev. A106, 052201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Implementation of a two-stroke quantum heat engine with a collisional model,

    Filipe V . Melo, Nahum Sá, Itzhak Roditi, Alexandre M. Souza, Ivan S. Oliveira, Roberto S. Sarthour, and Gabriel T. Landi, 9 “Implementation of a two-stroke quantum heat engine with a collisional model,” Phys. Rev. A106, 032410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Quantum refrigeration with indefinite causal order,

    David Felce and Vlatko Vedral, “Quantum refrigeration with indefinite causal order,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 070603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Design of a quantum repeater using quantum circuits and benchmarking its performance on an IBM quantum computer,

    Sowmitra Das, Md. Saifur Rahman, and Mahbub Majum- dar, “Design of a quantum repeater using quantum circuits and benchmarking its performance on an IBM quantum computer,” Quantum Information Processing20, 245 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Quantum self-supervised learning,

    B Jaderberg, L W Anderson, W Xie, S Albanie, M Kiffner, and D Jaksch, “Quantum self-supervised learning,” Quantum Science and Technology7, 035005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Quantum pattern recognition on real quan- tum processing units,

    Sreetama Das, Jingfu Zhang, Stefano Martina, Dieter Suter, and Filippo Caruso, “Quantum pattern recognition on real quan- tum processing units,” Quantum Machine Intelligence5, 16 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    Peter W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    work page 1997

  27. [27]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    Lov K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inSTOC ’96: Proceedings of the Twenty- Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 1996) pp. 212–219

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    Simulating physics with computers,

    Richard P. Feynman, “Simulating physics with computers,” In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467–488 (1982)

    work page 1982

  29. [29]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor,

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor,” Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Quantum computational chem- istry,

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Quantum computational chem- istry,” Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization,

    Yuan Su, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Nicholas Ru- bin, and Ryan Babbush, “Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization,” PRX Quantum2, 040332 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Efficient simulation of quan- tum chemistry problems in an enlarged basis set,

    Maxine Luo and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Efficient simulation of quan- tum chemistry problems in an enlarged basis set,” PRX Quan- tum6, 010355 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science,

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin- Lic Chan, “Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science,” Chemical Reviews120, 12685– 12717 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Designing metamateri- als with quantum annealing and factorization machines,

    Koki Kitai, Jiang Guo, Shenghong Ju, Shu Tanaka, Koji Tsuda, Junichiro Shiomi, and Ryo Tamura, “Designing metamateri- als with quantum annealing and factorization machines,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013319 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges,

    Benedikt Fauseweh, “Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges,” Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Quan- tum computing based hybrid solution strategies for large- scale discrete-continuous optimization problems,

    Akshay Ajagekar, Travis Humble, and Fengqi You, “Quan- tum computing based hybrid solution strategies for large- scale discrete-continuous optimization problems,” Computers & Chemical Engineering132, 106630 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Realization of quantum sig- nal processing on a noisy quantum computer,

    Yuta Kikuchi, Conor Mc Keever, Luuk Coopmans, Michael Lubasch, and Marcello Benedetti, “Realization of quantum sig- nal processing on a noisy quantum computer,” npj Quantum In- formation9, 93 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Benchmarking Quan- tum Computers and the Impact of Quantum Noise,

    Salonik Resch and Ulya R. Karpuzcu, “Benchmarking Quan- tum Computers and the Impact of Quantum Noise,” ACM Com- put. Surv.54, 142:1–142:35 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Understanding the impact of quantum noise on quantum programs,

    Zhonghao Pan, Yang Feng, Zhiyuan Li, Yunxin Liu, and Yuanchun Li, “Understanding the impact of quantum noise on quantum programs,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (2023) pp. 426–437

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems,

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudar- shan, “Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems,” Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821–825 (1976)

    work page 1976

  41. [41]

    Completely positive maps and entropy in- equalities,

    Göran Lindblad, “Completely positive maps and entropy in- equalities,” Communications in Mathematical Physics40, 147– 151 (1975)

    work page 1975

  42. [42]

    Mea- sure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum pro- cesses in open systems,

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Elsi-Mari Laine, and Jyrki Piilo, “Mea- sure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum pro- cesses in open systems,” Physical Review Letters103, 210401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-Markovianity,

    Michael J. W. Hall, James D. Cresser, Li Li, and Erika Anders- son, “Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-Markovianity,” Physical Review A89, 042120 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Quan- tum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quantification and de- tection,

    Ángel Rivas, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio, “Quan- tum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quantification and de- tection,” Reports on Progress in Physics77, 094001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Non-Markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient charac- terization,

    Felix A. Pollock, César Rodríguez-Rosario, Thomas Frauen- heim, Mauro Paternostro, and Kavan Modi, “Non-Markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient charac- terization,” Physical Review A97, 012127 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Memory Effects in Quantum Dynamics Modelled by Quantum Renewal Processes,

    Nina Megier, Manuel Ponzi, Andrea Smirne, and Bassano Vac- chini, “Memory Effects in Quantum Dynamics Modelled by Quantum Renewal Processes,” Entropy23, 905 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Experimental control of the transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,

    Bi-Heng Liu, Li Li, Yun-Feng Huang, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang- Can Guo, Elsi-Mari Laine, Heinz-Peter Breuer, and Jyrki Pi- ilo, “Experimental control of the transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,” Nature Physics7, 931–934 (2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    Linear Optics Simulation of Quantum Non-Markovian Dynamics,

    Andrea Chiuri, Chiara Greganti, Laura Mazzola, Mauro Pa- ternostro, and Paolo Mataloni, “Linear Optics Simulation of Quantum Non-Markovian Dynamics,” Scientific Reports2, 968 (2012)

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    Quantifying non-markovian memory in a superconducting quantum computer,

    Joshua Morris, Felix A. Pollock, and Kavan Modi, “Quantifying non-markovian memory in a superconducting quantum computer,” Open Sys- tems & Information Dynamics29, 2250007 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1142/S123016122250007X

    work page doi:10.1142/s123016122250007x 2022

  50. [50]

    Demonstration of non-Markovian process char- acterisation and control on a quantum processor,

    G. a. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and K. Modi, “Demonstration of non-Markovian process char- acterisation and control on a quantum processor,” Nature Com- munications11, 6301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Visually quantifying single-qubit quantum memory,

    Wan-Guan Chang, Chia-Yi Ju, Guang-Yin Chen, Yueh-Nan Chen, and Huan-Yu Ku, “Visually quantifying single-qubit quantum memory,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023035 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Eternal non-Markovianity: From random unitary to Markov chain realisations,

    Nina Megier, Dariusz Chru ´sci´nski, Jyrki Piilo, and Walter T. Strunz, “Eternal non-Markovianity: From random unitary to Markov chain realisations,” Scientific Reports7, 6379 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Lo- cal disclosure of quantum memory in non-Markovian dynam- ics,

    Charlotte Bäcker, Konstantin Beyer, and Walter T. Strunz, “Lo- cal disclosure of quantum memory in non-Markovian dynam- ics,” Physical Review Letters132, 060402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Quantum memory in spontaneous emission processes,

    Mei Yu, Ties-A. Ohst, Hai-Chau Nguyen, and Stefan Nimm- richter, “Quantum memory in spontaneous emission processes,” (2025), arXiv:2504.08605 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Resource theory of quantum memories and their faithful ver- ification with minimal assumptions,

    Denis Rosset, Francesco Buscemi, and Yeong-Cherng Liang, “Resource theory of quantum memories and their faithful ver- ification with minimal assumptions,” Phys. Rev. X8, 021033 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Causal and noncausal revivals of information: A new regime of non- 10 markovianity in quantum stochastic processes,

    Francesco Buscemi, Rajeev Gangwar, Kaumudibikash Goswami, Himanshu Badhani, Tanmoy Pandit, Brij Mohan, Siddhartha Das, and Manabendra Nath Bera, “Causal and noncausal revivals of information: A new regime of non- 10 markovianity in quantum stochastic processes,” PRX Quantum 6, 020316 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    When is a non-Markovian quantum process classical?

    Simon Milz, Dario Egloff, Philip Taranto, Thomas Theurer, Martin B. Plenio, Andrea Smirne, and Susana F. Huelga, “When is a non-Markovian quantum process classical?” Physi- cal Review X10, 041049 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    Witnessing quantum memory in non-Markovian processes,

    Christina Giarmatzi and Fabio Costa, “Witnessing quantum memory in non-Markovian processes,” Quantum5, 440 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Information backflow may not indicate quantum memory,

    Michał Banacki, Marcin Marciniak, Karol Horodecki, and Paweł Horodecki, “Information backflow may not indicate quantum memory,” Physical Review A107, 032202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Characterising the hierarchy of multi-time quantum pro- cesses with classical memory,

    Philip Taranto, Marco Túlio Quintino, Mio Murao, and Simon Milz, “Characterising the hierarchy of multi-time quantum pro- cesses with classical memory,” Quantum8, 1328 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    En- tropic witness for quantum memory in open system dynamics,

    Charlotte Bäcker, Konstantin Beyer, and Walter T. Strunz, “En- tropic witness for quantum memory in open system dynamics,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Verifying Quantum Memory in the Dynamics of Spin Boson Models

    Charlotte Bäcker, Valentin Link, and Walter T. Strunz, “Veri- fying quantum memory in the dynamics of spin boson models,” (2025), arXiv:2505.13067 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    What can unitary sequences tell us about multi-time physics?

    Gregory A. L. White, Felix A. Pollock, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Charles D. Hill, and Kavan Modi, “What can unitary sequences tell us about multi-time physics?” Quantum9, 1695 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Markovianity and non-Markovianity in quantum and classical systems,

    Bassano Vacchini, Andrea Smirne, Elsi-Mari Laine, Jyrki Piilo, and Heinz-Peter Breuer, “Markovianity and non-Markovianity in quantum and classical systems,” New Journal of Physics13, 093004 (2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    Entan- glement and non-Markovianity of quantum evolutions,

    Ángel Rivas, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio, “Entan- glement and non-Markovianity of quantum evolutions,” Physi- cal Review Letters105, 050403 (2010)

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    Geometrical characterization of non-Markovianity,

    Salvatore Lorenzo, Francesco Plastina, and Mauro Paternostro, “Geometrical characterization of non-Markovianity,” Physical Review A88, 020102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    Entanglement-breaking channels are a quantum memory re- source,

    Lucas B. Vieira, Huan-Yu Ku, and Costantino Budroni, “Entanglement-breaking channels are a quantum memory re- source,” (2024), arXiv:2402.16789 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Non-Markovian Quantum Process Tomogra- phy,

    G. A. L. White, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. D. Hill, “Non-Markovian Quantum Process Tomogra- phy,” PRX Quantum3, 020344 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy,

    Li Li, Michael J.W. Hall, and Howard M. Wiseman, “Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy,” Physics Reports 759, 1–51 (2018)

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    A one- sided witness for the quantumness of gravitational dynamics,

    Konstantin Beyer, M. S. Kim, and Igor Pikovski, “A one- sided witness for the quantumness of gravitational dynamics,” (2025), arXiv:2507.15588 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits,

    William K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245–2248 (1998)

    work page 1998

  72. [72]

    En- tanglement of assistance,

    David P. DiVincenzo, Christopher A. Fuchs, Hideo Mabuchi, John A. Smolin, Ashish Thapliyal, and Armin Uhlmann, “En- tanglement of assistance,” inQuantum Computing and Quan- tum Communications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by Colin P. Williams (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,

    work page

  73. [73]

    Local vs. joint mea- surements for the entanglement of assistance,

    T. Laustsen, F. Verstraete, and S. V . Enk, “Local vs. joint mea- surements for the entanglement of assistance,” Quantum Inf. Comput.3(2002)

    work page 2002

  74. [74]

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    Collision model for non-Markovian quantum dynamics,

    Silvan Kretschmer, Kimmo Luoma, and Walter T. Strunz, “Collision model for non-Markovian quantum dynamics,” Physical Review A94, 012106 (2016)

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity,

    B. M. Garraway, “Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity,” Physical Review A55, 2290–2303 (1997)

    work page 1997

  77. [77]

    Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion,

    L. Diósi, N. Gisin, and W. T. Strunz, “Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion,” Physical Review A58, 1699–1712 (1998)

    work page 1998

  78. [78]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christo- pher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    De- scription of quantum dynamics of open systems based on collision-like models,

    Märio Ziman, Peter Štelmachovi ˇc, and Vladimír Bužek, “De- scription of quantum dynamics of open systems based on collision-like models,” Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.12, 81–91 (2005)

    work page 2005

  80. [80]

    Quantum collision models: Open sys- tem dynamics from repeated interactions,

    Francesco Ciccarello, Salvatore Lorenzo, Vittorio Giovannetti, and G. Massimo Palma, “Quantum collision models: Open sys- tem dynamics from repeated interactions,” Physics Reports954, 1–70 (2022)

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.