Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

A single local Z control suffices to generate Dicke states in Heisenberg chains with minimal times scaling quadratically with qubit number.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

In Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays, Dicke states including W states can be prepared with a single local control in times that grow approximately quadratically with qubit number (numerically up to N=9).

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The genuinely new part is the dCRAB numerics, not the controllability theorem, but the 'shortest possible' claim and the abstract's scaling exponents both overreach what the optimization actually certifies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24406 v4 pith:RWSBKROE submitted 2025-12-30 quant-ph

Harnessing subspace controllability: Dynamical generation of Dicke states in Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays with a single local control

Vladimir M. Stojanovic , Tommaso Calarco , Andrea Muratori This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Dicke statesW statessubspace controllabilityHeisenberg couplingsingle local controlquantum optimal controldCRABtime-optimal state preparation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 establishes that Dicke states — symmetric equal-weight superpositions of all bit strings with a fixed number of excitations — can be prepared in a Heisenberg-coupled qubit chain using just one local Z control on a single actuator qubit, starting from any product state with the same excitation number. The theoretical basis is subspace controllability: the excitation-number symmetry decomposes the Hilbert space into invariant fixed-Hamming-weight subspaces, and on each such subspace a single local control is provably sufficient to reach any state. Using the dCRAB optimal-control algorithm with a multistart global search, the authors find numerically that the shortest preparation times for W states and two-excitation Dicke states scale close to quadratically with N for arrays up to 9 qubits, with fitted curves T_min = 0.12 N^{2.02} (W) and T_min = 0.14 N^{2.17} (a=2). If correct, this gives a near-minimal-control route to a practically important family of entangled states, with favorable scaling compared to other analog schemes.

Core claim

The central claim is that the minimal time needed to evolve a fixed-Hamming-weight product state into the corresponding Dicke state under the isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus a single local Z field grows quadratically with the number of qubits N. The paper proves reachability from Lie-algebraic subspace controllability on each excitation subspace, then supplies numerical optimal-control evidence: for W states (a=1) and a=2 Dicke states in arrays of 3–9 qubits, the fitted minimal times are T_min = 0.12 N^{2.02} and T_min = 0.14 N^{2.17}, with infidelities between 10^-3 and 10^-4 at these times; the abstract quotes exponents 2.08 and 1.78, both consistent with a quadratic law. The authors

What carries the argument

The key objects are (i) the excitation-number symmetry S_exc = (1/2) Σ(1+Z_n), which commutes with both the Heisenberg drift Hamiltonian and the local Z control, decomposing the Hilbert space into invariant subspaces of fixed Hamming weight; and (ii) the dressed Chopped Random Basis (dCRAB) algorithm, which optimizes smooth control fields in a truncated random Fourier basis with dressing iterations and multistart clustering. Together they turn a Lie-algebraic existence guarantee into concrete, near-time-optimal pulses: the symmetry ensures any same-weight state is reachable, while dCRAB locates the shortest duration T at which the target fidelity exceeds 1−10^-3.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 'shortest possible' times are taken from a multistart local search that has no certificate of global optimality, so if better control fields exist at shorter times the quadratic scalings become upper bounds rather than true minimal times.

What would settle it

For any N in 3–9, run a more exhaustive search (e.g., M ≥ 30 harmonics, multiple global optimizers, or a grid of T below the reported T_min) and check whether a control field with the same fidelity threshold 1−10^-3 exists. If one is found, the claim of shortest-possible time fails. Alternatively, an analytic lower bound on T_min growing faster than N^2 would falsify the extrapolated scaling.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the quadratic scaling holds for larger N, Dicke and W states can be prepared in times of order N^2/J without individual qubit addressing, improving on superlinear analog-scheme scalings.
  • The single-control, always-on-interaction setting is compatible with spin-based qubit arrays where global addressing is hard; the smooth bounded pulses are within reach of arbitrary waveform generators.
  • The subspace-controllability argument applies to any final state with the same Hamming weight as the initial state, so the same machinery can target other fixed-weight entangled states, not only Dicke states.
  • The reported robustness to 5% parameter errors suggests that the scheme tolerates realistic control-field imperfections in experiment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An editorial extension left implicit by the paper: the fitted exponents for N=3..9 are treated as indicators of an asymptotic quadratic law, but the true asymptotic exponent could be slightly different; a testable prediction is that the a=2 exponent remains at or below the W-state exponent at larger N.
  • A natural extension is to other coupling geometries and actuator placements; one could test whether the quadratic scaling persists when the actuator sits at an interior qubit or when the chain becomes a ring.
  • The minimal-time scaling may reflect a Lie-algebraic speed limit set by the control Hamiltonian's norm on each subspace; deriving an analytic lower bound of order N^2 would convert the numerical finding into a theorem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Dicke-state generation in a linear qubit array with always-on isotropic Heisenberg nearest-neighbor coupling and a single local Zeeman-type Z control on one actuator qubit. It invokes an existing Lie-algebraic subspace-controllability result to argue that any Hamming-weight-a product state can be steered to the a-excitation Dicke state, and then uses a dCRAB-based optimal-control search (with multistart clustering and Nelder-Mead local optimization) to find smooth control pulses that achieve target-state infidelity below 10^-3 for arrays up to N=9. The reported shortest preparation times are fitted as T_min ≈ 0.12 N^{2.02} for W states and T_min ≈ 0.14 N^{2.17} for a=2 Dicke states, leading the authors to claim that the shortest possible state-preparation times scale quadratically with N. The paper also reports an analysis of robustness to errors in the pulse-expansion coefficients.

Significance. If the scaling claim were certified, the result would be of clear interest: it would show that a minimal control resource—a single local Z field on a Heisenberg chain—can generate highly entangled Dicke states in times growing only quadratically with system size, and it would complement existing Lie-algebraic controllability results with concrete pulse-level constructions. The numerical study is carefully described: the algorithm parameters, fidelity threshold, and state-evolution method are specified, and the reported infidelities are direct Schrödinger-evolution results. The robustness analysis, though limited, addresses a practical concern. The main weakness is that the word 'shortest possible' is not supported by the numerical evidence: the dCRAB/multistart procedure is a heuristic global-search method without a global-optimality certificate, so the reported T_min values are upper bounds. In addition, the abstract's scaling exponents do not match the fitted exponents in Sec. VI, and the fit uses only seven points with no uncertainty quantification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V C and Sec. VI] The central claim—'shortest possible state-preparation times'—is load-bearing in the abstract and in Sec. VI, but it is not supported by the optimization methodology. The multistart/dCRAB procedure described in Sec. V C samples ~10^3 random points, keeps ~20, runs Nelder-Mead local searches, and adopts the lowest minimum as 'the desired global minimum' based on stability under changing the sample size. This is a heuristic without a global-optimality certificate, and no independent optimizer (e.g., GRAPE/Krotov) is used for cross-validation. Every reported T_min is therefore an upper bound on the true minimal time; a better control pulse at shorter T would lower the fitted exponents. The dependence on the chosen amplitude bound B_max = 4π J is also not explored. Please either (i) soften the claim to 'shortest times found by this search' and revise the abstract and Sec. VI accordingly, or
  2. [Abstract vs. Sec. VI; Fig. 6] The abstract states that the shortest times scale as O(N^{2.08}) for W states and O(N^{1.78}) for a=2 Dicke states, while Sec. VI and Fig. 6 report fitted curves T_min = 0.12 N^{2.02} and T_min = 0.14 N^{2.17}. These are not minor rounding differences: the exponents differ by 0.06 and 0.39, respectively. Since the quantitative scaling is the paper's principal conclusion, this inconsistency must be resolved. Furthermore, the fit uses only N=3,...,9 (seven points), with no confidence intervals, residuals, or sensitivity analysis; the extrapolation to 'scale quadratically with N' is therefore not quantitatively established beyond the fitted range.
  3. [Sec. VI, robustness subsection (Figs. 11-12)] The robustness analysis perturbs the expansion coefficients c_m^(l) and s_m^(l), not the actual control field B(t). The abstract and Sec. VII claim robustness against 'small control-field deviations from the optimal values,' which is a stronger statement. Because B(t) is a sum of many oscillatory Fourier terms, a 5% error in an individual coefficient does not imply a 5% bound on the pointwise field B(t) or on its time derivative. Please either test direct additive/multiplicative field noise, or reformulate the robustness conclusion as being specifically about the pulse parametrization coefficients.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VII] Typo: 'neigbor' should be 'neighbor' in the opening sentence.
  2. [Eq. (26)] The penalty term in the figure of merit is discontinuous (linear in the violation via a Heaviside factor). Since the local optimizer is Nelder-Mead, a nonsmooth objective may affect convergence; a brief remark or a smooth quadratic penalty would be preferable.
  3. [Sec. V C] The statement that the results depend on M 'only in an implicit fashion' is made without numerical evidence. A short M-scan (e.g., M=10,15,20 for one state) would make this claim verifiable.
  4. [Sec. VI, Fig. 5 caption] The caption refers to 'the highest fidelities achieved,' while the text says infidelities are mostly between 10^-3 and 10^-4. Please clarify whether the plotted quantity is fidelity or infidelity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: reachability is an external theorem, fidelities are direct simulations, and the scaling law is an ex-post fit rather than a renamed input.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. The reachability of Dicke states is not self-derived: it is imported from the external Lie-algebraic theorem of Wang, Burgarth and Schirmer (ref. [40]), stated as 'As already proven in [40], an XXZ spin-1/2 chain of length N with a single local Z control on an end spin ... is controllable on each of the N+1 invariant excitation subspaces.' The Dicke target is defined independently in Eq. (1), and the figure of merit in Eq. (21) is evaluated by direct Schroedinger evolution; no parameter of the model is fitted to the target Dicke state. The reported times T_min are obtained by scanning T and applying dCRAB, and the fitted power laws T_min = 0.12 N^2.02 and T_min = 0.14 N^2.17 are ex-post summaries of those simulated T_min values, not predictions forced by a fitted parameter. The paper contains several self-citations (e.g. refs [6,19,49,50,53]), but none is load-bearing: the controllability premise rests on the external ref. [40], and the dCRAB global-search claim is corroborated by a sample-size stability check, not by a self-citation. The genuine weakness is that 'shortest possible' is not certified: the multistart search supplies upper bounds, so the quoted T_min values and exponents may be pessimistic. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity. No circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central protocol leans on an external controllability theorem and a heuristic optimizer. Free parameters are mostly algorithmic thresholds/bounds that shape the reported T_min; the only physically-fitted quantities are the power-law coefficients. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Control amplitude bound B_max = 4π J = 4π (in units of J)
    Chosen by hand in Sec. V C (Eq. 26); larger allowed amplitude could reduce T_min, so all reported times depend on this arbitrary bound.
  • Fidelity threshold for T_min = 1 - F = 10^{-3}
    T_min is defined as the shortest duration with infidelity below this threshold (Sec. VI). A stricter threshold would generally increase T_min.
  • Number of dCRAB Fourier harmonics M = 15
    Fixed in all reported optimizations (Sec. VI, Fig. 5 caption); authors argue results are M-independent for large M, but T_min values are generated with M=15.
  • Maximum number of dressing iterations L_max = 10
    Set in Sec. V C; optimization may terminate early if threshold reached. The pulse parameterization Eq. (25) depends on L.
  • W-state power-law prefactor and exponent = 0.12 N^{2.02} (full text); O(N^{2.08}) in abstract
    Two-parameter least-squares fit to T_min for N=3..9, Sec. VI. The abstract/text discrepancy is a red flag.
  • a=2 Dicke-state power-law prefactor and exponent = 0.14 N^{2.17} (full text); O(N^{1.78}) in abstract
    Same fitting procedure as W states; limited to seven data points and no error bars.
  • Multistart sample sizes = ~10^3 random points; ~20 local searches
    Heuristic choices for global search in Sec. V C; the 'global minimum' is the best of these runs.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Subspace controllability of XXZ/XXX spin chains with a single local Z control on an end spin (theorem from Wang, Burgarth, Schirmer, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052319 (2016)).
    Imported in Sec. IV B without proof; it is the entire reason Dicke states are reachable from product states of equal Hamming weight.
  • domain assumption The qubit array is a closed system with homogeneous always-on nearest-neighbor Heisenberg coupling of constant strength J and a single control field on qubit 1.
    Hamiltonian Eq. (20); no decoherence, disorder, or leakage is included.
  • ad hoc to paper The dCRAB/multistart optimized pulse is the true global optimum of the infidelity landscape.
    Sec. V C adopts the best of ~20 local searches as 'the desired global minimum'; no certificate. This underpins the 'shortest possible' language.
  • standard math The numerical time-ordered evolution (Eq. 22) is computed with sufficient accuracy that infidelities ~1e-3/1e-4 reflect control quality, not integration error.
    No convergence study in integration step/order is reported; standard assumption for this type of simulation.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harnessing subspace controllability: Dynamical generation of Dicke states in Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays with a single local control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWSBKROE

@misc{pith2026251224406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harnessing subspace controllability: Dynamical generation of Dicke states in Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays with a single local control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWSBKROE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.24406}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We explore the feasibility of realizing Dicke states in qubit arrays with always-on isotropic Heisenberg coupling between adjacent qubits, assuming a single Zeeman-type control acting in the $z$ direction on an actuator qubit. The Lie-algebraic criteria of controllability imply that such an array is not completely controllable, but satisfies the conditions for subspace controllability on any subspace with a fixed number of excitations. Therefore, a qubit array described by the model under consideration is state-to-state controllable for an arbitrary choice of initial and final states that have the same Hamming weight. This limited controllability is exploited here for the time-efficient dynamical generation of an $a$-excitation Dicke state $|D^{N}_{a}\rangle$ ($a=1,2,\ldots, N-1$) in a linear array with $N$ qubits starting from a generic Hamming-weight-$a$ product state. To dynamically generate the desired Dicke states -- including $W$ states $|W_{N}\rangle$ as their special ($a=1$) case -- in the shortest possible time with a single local $Z$ control, we employ an optimal-control scheme based on the {\em dressed chopped random basis} (dCRAB) algorithm. We optimize the target-state fidelity over the expansion coefficients of smoothly-varying control fields in a truncated random Fourier basis; this is done by combining Nelder-Mead-type local optimizations with the multistart-based clustering algorithm that facilitates searches for global extrema. In this manner, we obtain the optimal control fields for Dicke-state preparation in arrays with up to $9$ qubits. Based on our numerical results, we find that the shortest possible state-preparation times scale as $\mathcal{O}(N^{2.08})$ for $W$ states and $\mathcal{O}(N^{1.78})$ for $a=2$ Dicke states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24406 by Andrea Muratori, Tommaso Calarco, Vladimir M. Stojanovic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Pictorial illustration of the concept of local control. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Schematic illustration of possible complete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Schematic illustration of possible subspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Schematic illustration of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Pictorial overview of the results obtained using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Illustration of the scaling of the shortest possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Time-dependent control fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Time dependence of the target-state fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Optimal parameters (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Deviation from the optimal fidelity due to errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Deviation from the optimal fidelity due to simulta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    |ψ(t=T)⟩=|D N a ⟩.(19) In this manner, the state|D N a ⟩is dynamically gener- ated within a time interval of durationTfrom an initial Hamming-weight-aproduct state [cf

    0| {z } N−a ⟩,(18) then the above Lie-algebraic result guarantees that an ap- propriate time dependence of the fieldB(t) can be found such that at a later timeTthe Dicke state|D N a ⟩of the N-qubit array is engineered, i.e. |ψ(t=T)⟩=|D N a ⟩.(19) In this manner, the state|D N a ⟩is dynamically gener- ated within a time interval of durationTfrom an initial...

  2. [2]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  3. [3]

    Bergmann and O

    M. Bergmann and O. G¨ uhne, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 385304 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Neven, J

    A. Neven, J. Martin, and T. Bastin, Phys. Rev. A98, 062335 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Z

    W. Zhang, Z. Han, F. Shi, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 112, 022408 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    D. A. Lidar and K. B. Whaley, inIrreversible Quantum Dynamics(Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 83- 120

    2003

  7. [7]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c and J. K. Nauth, Phys. Rev. A108, 012608 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    S. K. ¨Ozdemir, J. Shimamura, and N. Imoto, New J. Phys.9, 43 (2007)

    2007

  9. [9]

    Prevedel, G

    R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P. Walther, M. S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 103, 020503 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Toth, Phys

    G. Toth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    Z. H. Saleem, M. Perlin, A. Shaji, and S. K. Gray, Phys. Rev. A109, 052615 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Ouyang, Phys

    See, e.g., Y. Ouyang, Phys. Rev. A90, 062317 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Golden, A

    See, e.g., J. Golden, A. B¨ artschi, D. O’Malley, and S. Ei- denbenz, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Comput. Eng., pp. 137 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    D. B. Hume, C. W. Chou, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A80, 052302 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    P. A. Ivanov, D. Porras, S. S. Ivanov, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.46, 104003 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Lamata, C

    L. Lamata, C. E. L´ opez, B. P. Lanyon, T. Bastin, J. C. Retamal, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. A87, 032325 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    J. K. Stockton, R. van Handel, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A70, 022106 (2004)

    2004

  18. [18]

    Xiao, X.-B

    Y.-F. Xiao, X.-B. Zou, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A75, 012310 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    X.-Q. Shao, L. Chen, S. Zhang, Y.-F. Zhao, and K.-H. Yeon, EPL90, 50003 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Muratori, V

    A. Muratori, V. M. Stojanovi´ c, E. Cuestas, T. Calarco, and F. Motzoi, arXiv:2512.19545

    arXiv

  21. [21]

    Wieczorek, R

    W. Wieczorek, R. Krischek, N. Kiesel, P. Michelberger, G. Toth, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 020504 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    C. Wu, C. Guo, Y. Wang, G. Wang, X.-L. Feng, and J.-L. Chen, Phys. Rev. A95, 013845 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Ikuta1, S ¸. Kaya¨Ozdemir, M. Tame, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, New J. Phys.16, 023005 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Jurdjevi´ c and H

    V. Jurdjevi´ c and H. J. Sussmann, J. Differ. Equations 12, 313 (1972)

    1972

  25. [25]

    G. M. Huang, T. J. Tarn, and J. W. Clark, J. Math. Phys.24, 2608 (1983)

    1983

  26. [26]

    Ramakrishna and H

    V. Ramakrishna and H. Rabitz, Phys. Rev. A54, 1715 (1996)

    1996

  27. [27]

    D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics(Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2008)

    D. D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics(Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, EPJ Quan- tum Tech.9, 19 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 076001 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Ansel, E

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, F. Arrouas, B. Peaudecerf, S. Guerin, D. Guery-Odelin, and D. Sugny, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.57, 133001 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    For a recent review, see C. W. Duncan, P. M. Poggi, M. Bukov, N. T. Zinner, and S. Campbell, PRX Quantum 6, 040201 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Cappellaro, C

    P. Cappellaro, C. Ramanathan, and D. G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 250506 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    Stefanescu, L

    L. Stefanescu, L. Edwards-Pratt, J. O’Connor, E. Tsegaye, N. H. Le, and F. Mintert, Phys. Rev. A112, 012609 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    A. L. P. de Lima, J.-S. Li, L. S. Baker, A. Zlotnik, A. K. Harter, and M. J. Martin, arXiv:2511.01085

    arXiv

  35. [35]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K. B. Whaley, Nature (London)408, 339 (2000)

    2000

  36. [36]

    Levy, Phys

    J. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 147902 (2002)

    2002

  37. [37]

    Bacon, J

    D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1758 (2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    Tanamoto, D

    T. Tanamoto, D. Becker, V. M. Stojanovi´ c, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. A86, 032327 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    Tanamoto, V

    See, e.g., T. Tanamoto, V. M. Stojanovi´ c, C. Bruder, and D. Becker, Phys. Rev. A87, 052305 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    S. G. Schirmer, I. C. H. Pullen, and P. J. Pemberton- Ross, Phys. Rev. A78, 062339 (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    X. Wang, D. Burgarth, and S. G. Schirmer, Phys. Rev. A94, 052319 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Heule, C

    R. Heule, C. Bruder, D. Burgarth, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A82, 052333 (2010)

    2010

  43. [43]

    Zimboras, R

    Z. Zimboras, R. Zeier, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and D. Burgarth, Phys. Rev. A92, 042309 (2015)

    2015

  44. [44]

    Albertini and D

    F. Albertini and D. D’Alessandro, Linear Algebra Appl. 705, 207 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Heule, C

    R. Heule, C. Bruder, D. Burgarth, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Eur. Phys. J. D63, 41 (2011)

    2011

  46. [46]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A99, 012345 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, New J. Phys.15, 095004 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Sci- entific Computing(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1999)

    1999

  49. [49]

    T¨ orn and A

    A. T¨ orn and A. ˇZilinskas,Global Optimization, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 350 (Springer, Berlin, 1989)

    1989

  50. [50]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 190504 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A103, 022410 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Zheng, J

    J. Zheng, J. Peng, P. Tang, F. Li, and N. Tan, Phys. Rev. A105, 062408 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    G. Q. Zhang, W. Feng, W. Xiong, Q. P. Su, and C. P. Yang, Phys. Rev. A107, 012410 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c and J. K. Nauth, Phys. Rev. A106, 052613 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    L¨ otstedt and K

    E. L¨ otstedt and K. Yamanouchi, Phys. Rev. A111, 062416 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Haase, G

    T. Haase, G. Alber, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032427 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Haase, G

    T. Haase, G. Alber, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033087 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    J. K. Nauth and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A106, 032605 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, inFundamentals of Com- putation Theory, FCT 2019, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11651, edited by L. A. Gasieniec, J. Jansson, and C. Levcopoulos (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 126–139

    2019

  60. [60]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, inProceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Broomfield, CO, USA(IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 87–96

    2022

  61. [61]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  62. [62]

    Pfeifer,The Lie Algebrassu(N): An Introduction (Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2003)

    W. Pfeifer,The Lie Algebrassu(N): An Introduction (Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Lorenzo, T

    See, e.g., S. Lorenzo, T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Sindona, and F. Plastina, Phys. Rev. A87, 042313 (2013)

    2013

  64. [64]

    Veldhorst, H

    M. Veldhorst, H. G. J. Eenink, C. H. Yang, and A. S. Dzurak, Nat. Commun.8, 1766 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Hansen, A

    See, e.g., I. Hansen, A. E. Seedhouse, A. Saraiva, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, and C. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062415 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    H. C. George, M. T. Madzik, E. M. Henry, A. J. Wagner, M. M. Islam, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. 16 Curry, M. K. Harper,et al., Nano Lett.25, 793 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  68. [68]

    J. Chen, Y. Zhou, J. Bian, J. Li, and X. Peng, Phys. Rev. A102, 032602 (2020)

    2020

  69. [69]

    Evangelakos, E

    V. Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, and D. Stefanatos, Phys. Rev. A110, 052601 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Koutromanos, D

    D. Koutromanos, D. Stefanatos, and E. Paspalakis, EPJ Quantum Technol.11, 85 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Evangelakos, E

    V. Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, and D. Stefanatos, Sci. Rep., in press (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    See, e.g., S. S. Ivanov, P. A. Ivanov, I. E. Linington, and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A81, 042328 (2010)

    2010

  73. [73]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. B85, 054504 (2012)

    2012

  74. [74]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, J. Magn. Reson.172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  75. [75]

    de Fouqui` eres, S

    P. de Fouqui` eres, S. G. Schirmer, S. J. Glaser, and I. Kuprov, J. Magn. Reson.,212, 412 (2011)

    2011

  76. [76]

    M. H. Goerz, D. Basilewitsch, F. Gago-Encinas, M. G. Krauss, K. P. Horn, D. M. Reich, and C. Koch, SciPost Phys.7, 080 (2019)

    2019

  77. [77]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. A84, 022326 (2011)

    2011

  78. [78]

    N. Rach, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. A92, 062343 (2015)

    2015

  79. [79]

    Lucarelli, Phys

    D. Lucarelli, Phys. Rev. A97, 062346 (2018)

    2018

  80. [80]

    Lewis, R

    D. Lewis, R. Wiersema, and S. Bose, arXiv:2508.16029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.