Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 85 references

One entangling gate between a qubit and an incoherent ancilla removes the slowest-decaying relaxation mode, cutting passive reset time by up to a factor of T2/T1 — as much as 50% when T2 = 2T1.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:51 UTC pith:XKBKQQW4

load-bearing objection Clean spectral argument shows a single entangling gate can speed passive reset when T2>T1, but the experimental evidence is indirect; theory deserves review, experiment needs a direct reset-time measurement. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.03765 v2 pith:XKBKQQW4 submitted 2026-02-03 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Accelerating qubit reset through the Mpemba effect

Th\'eo Lejeune , Miha Papi\v{c} , John Goold , Felix C. Binder , Fran\c{c}ois Damanet , Mattia Moroder This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantum Mpemba effectqubit resetpassive initializationcoherence delocalizationLiouvillian spectrumT2/T1 ratiosuperconducting qubitsCNOT gate
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.

Passive qubit reset — waiting for natural relaxation to the ground state — is a bottleneck on current quantum computers, especially when qubit coherence times T2 exceed energy relaxation times T1, because leftover quantum coherence decays slowly and prolongs the wait. This paper establishes that a single entangling gate between the target qubit and an incoherent ancilla removes that slow component: the gate converts local single-qubit coherences into global two-qubit coherences whose decay rate is roughly doubled, eliminating the overlap with the slowest-decaying relaxation mode of the open-system dynamics. The asymptotic speedup is the ratio of the third to the second Liouvillian decay rates, which equals T2/T1, so in the regime T2 > T1 the reset time drops by up to a factor of two. The paper reports that the speedup survives non-Markovian noise, gate calibration errors, and finite temperature, and demonstrates the coherence suppression experimentally on a superconducting processor. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's central claim to be: the Mpemba effect can be turned into a practical, overhead-free reset primitive.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a qubit relaxing to its ground state under weak-coupling Markovian dissipation with additional pure dephasing, the slowest-decaying eigenmode of the Liouvillian is a single-qubit coherence whenever T2 > T1. Applying a controlled-Ry(π) or CNOT gate to an incoherent ancilla — whose relative unitary is equivalent to X or Y — makes the gate act as a perfect dephasing channel on the target qubit: all local coherence C is converted into global two-qubit coherence of the form |00⟩⟨11| + h.c. Those global terms couple to a faster Liouvillian eigenmode with real part −(Γ1 + 2Γφ), so the state's overlap with the slow mode ⟨⟨l2|ρi⟩⟩ vanishes. Because the next slowe

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the controlled two-qubit unitary Û = |0⟩⟨0|⊗V0 + |1⟩⟨1|⊗V1 applied to a product state ρ1⊗ρ2, where ρ2 is diagonal in the computational basis. Its action on q1 is characterized by the coherence-transfer factor κ = Tr[ρ2 V0† V1]; when the relative unitary W = V0†V1 is proportional to X or Y, κ = 0 for any incoherent ancilla and the gate becomes a perfect local dephasing channel. CNOT and CRy(π) realize this condition. The analysis then uses the spectral decomposition of the two-qubit Lindbladian: the slow mode λ2 (single-qubit coherence, rate Γ1/2 + Γφ) is suppressed, while the next mode λ3 (population, rate Γ1) governs relaxation. The ratio Re(λ3)/Re(λ2) = T2/T1 is

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's speedup vanishes unless the ancilla qubit is initially incoherent and uncorrelated with the target qubit; the paper's Appendix B shows that residual ancilla coherence above about C = 0.2 shifts the speedup distribution toward S = 1.

What would settle it

Measure the reset time of a qubit with T2/T1 ≈ 1.5 initially in an equal superposition, with and without a CNOT onto an ancilla that was just measured (so it is incoherent), and compare trace-distance-to-ground-state curves; the ratio of reset times at small tolerance should approach ≈1.4, and the coherence decay should show a fast component at about Γ1 + 2Γφ. If no such speedup appears, or if it fails to vanish when the ancilla is prepared with coherence C = 0.3, the central claim is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • In any algorithm where only part of the register is measured, the measured qubits are naturally incoherent and can serve as the ancilla, so the acceleration costs no additional hardware or control.
  • If T2/T1 is 1.5 on a device, the asymptotic reset time shortens by about a third; at T2/T1 = 2 the saving is 50%.
  • The protocol requires no knowledge of the target qubit's state: Haar-random coherent states all show a speedup, with median ~1.4 at T2/T1 = 1.5.
  • Non-Markovian environments modeled by a damped two-level-system defect, imperfect gate rotations, and finite temperature all leave a substantial speedup, per the paper's robustness analysis.
  • The measured suppression of local coherence — T2-with-CNOT of about 0.4 µs versus T1 of about 24.5 µs on the tested superconducting processor — indicates the mechanism is compatible with current hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same coherence-delocalization trick could be iterated with multiple ancillas in a ladder, pushing coherence into even faster multi-qubit sectors; the paper does not explore this, but the spectral mechanism suggests the speedup could grow beyond T2/T1.
  • Editorial inference: because the gate erases single-qubit coherence without measurement, it could serve as a mid-circuit coherence reset before an error-mitigation shot, not only at the end of an algorithm; the paper frames it as reset, but the primitive is more general.
  • Editorial inference: a practical implementation should verify ancilla incoherence before each use; the paper's Appendix B quantifies that residual ancilla coherence above C ≈ 0.2 shifts the speedup distribution toward S = 1, which is an operational requirement not emphasized in the main protocol.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol for accelerating passive qubit reset in the T2 > T1 regime. The idea is to apply one entangling gate — a controlled-Ry(π), CNOT, or equivalent — between the target qubit and an incoherent ancilla. This converts local single-qubit coherences into global two-qubit coherences that decay faster under local dissipation, thereby removing the overlap with the slowest-decaying Liouvillian mode. The central analytic result is that the asymptotic speedup equals T2/T1 (Eqs. 17–18, 22). The authors support this with Haar-random numerical simulations, analyze robustness against non-Markovian noise, finite temperature, and coherent control errors, and report an experiment on an IQM Garnet processor measuring T1, T2, and T2 with a CNOT inserted. The reported experimental speedup is S ≈ 1.47, obtained from the measured T2/T1 ratio.

Significance. If the claims hold, the protocol is an appealingly simple reset primitive: it requires no measurement feedback or engineered dissipation, and it can reuse already-measured qubits as ancillas. The analytic derivation of κ = 0 for controlled-Ry(π) and the spectral speedup T2/T1 are clean, explicit, and parameter-free; the Haar-random simulations give state-averaged speedups consistent with the asymptotic formula, and the non-Markovian and finite-temperature extensions are valuable. The main weakness is that the experimental section does not actually implement the full reset protocol: the reported speedup T2/T1 is constructed from measured T1 and T2 and is independent of the CNOT data. Thus the experiment is a proof-of-principle of coherence delocalization, not an end-to-end validation of accelerated reset.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (26), Fig. 7] The experimental section does not measure the reset-time speedup. The value S(0) = T2/T1 ≈ 1.47 is obtained by inserting the measured T1 and T2 into the single-qubit evolution formula Eq. (26); it is independent of the 'T2 with CNOT' data and of any direct comparison of reset times with and without the protocol. The CNOT measurement (T2 with CNOT = 0.4 ± 0.3 μs) demonstrates fast local-coherence suppression, which is necessary for the mechanism, but it does not verify that the two-qubit global coherence decays at the predicted rate or that the target reaches the steady state faster by the factor T2/T1. No trace-distance-versus-time curves with and without the gate are presented. The abstract and Section 6 claim an 'experimental implementation of our protocol'; as it stands, Section 5 is a mechanism demonstration only. Please either run the full reset experiment (prepare a coherent target
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (27)–(30)] Eq. (30) reports that the finite-temperature asymptotic speedup is still T2/T1, but the steady state is no longer the ground state: p_e,ss = (1 + e^{βω})^{-1}. Therefore finite temperature does not 'negatively affect' reset performance only when the target accuracy ε is larger than p_e,ss. The main text (Section 2.3 and Conclusion) repeatedly says the protocol resets the qubit to the ground state and that finite temperature is harmless. That statement is too strong: the protocol accelerates relaxation to the thermal steady state, while the achievable ground-state fidelity remains limited by temperature. Please qualify the ground-state language and state how Eq. (15) and the reset-time definition are modified when ρ_ss is not |00>.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (16)] The right-hand side contains overlaps ⟨⟨l2|ρi⟩⟩ and ⟨⟨l3|ρ′_i⟩⟩ without absolute values. These overlaps are generally complex, and the trace distance involves their magnitudes. Please take absolute values (or define the left eigenvectors so the overlaps are real and positive) and adjust the finite-ε expression accordingly.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'overlap ⟨⟨lk|+0⟩⟩'; this appears to be a typo for the overlap with the state |+0⟩⟩. Please correct the notation.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (39)] The expression for Λ(t) uses 'K' and 'v' without definitions. From context, these should be κ and ν_zx. Please fix the notation.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract calls the protocol 'passive qubit reset ... without the need for active control,' but the protocol requires an entangling two-qubit gate. Please clarify that 'passive' refers to the relaxation phase after the gate, not to the absence of any control operations.
  5. [Code and Data Availability] The text says 'available here' but no URL or repository identifier is provided. Please add the actual link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the asymptotic speedup T2/T1 is analytic from the Lindblad rates, and the experimental section infers rather than directly measures reset time.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The asymptotic speedup S(ε→0) = Re(λ3)/Re(λ2) = T2/T1 follows from explicitly stated Lindblad rates for the two-qubit Davies map (Eqs. 13, 14, 18), not from fitting or from the experimental data. The nontrivial content—that a controlled-Ry(π) or CNOT gate removes the overlap with the slowest-decaying Liouvillian mode—is derived from the gate structure and the incoherent ancilla condition (Eqs. 6–11), and the overlap removal is demonstrated numerically in Fig. 2. No parameter is fitted to produce the reported speedup. The non-Markovian results (Eqs. 20–24) are analytic series expansions from the stated qubit-TLS embedding Hamiltonian and Born approximation, not fits. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [30], [50], [63], [64]) are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claim; the quantum Mpemba framework is supported by independent external references. The main weakness is experimental: Section 5 reports T1 and T2 measurements and then states that these yield the asymptotic speedup T2/T1 ≈ 1.47, computed from the measured ratio rather than from a direct end-to-end reset-time comparison. The CNOT data (T2 with CNOT ≈ 0.4 μs) support the coherence-suppression mechanism but do not independently verify the full reset-time speedup. This is an evidentiary/indirectness concern, not a circularity of the derivation: the theoretical speedup was derived before and independently of the experiment, and no predicted quantity was constructed from its own input. Minor self-citation and indirect experimental validation are present, but no load-bearing circular step was identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained within the standard Lindblad/Davies framework. The only inputs are device parameters T1, T2 and literature-based non-Markovian parameters; no ad hoc entities are introduced. The most fragile assumptions are the incoherent ancilla condition and the product-state initial condition.

free parameters (3)
  • T1 (energy relaxation time) = 24.5±0.7 μs (experiment); model input Γ1=1/T1
    Measured on IQM Garnet and used in Eq. (26) to reconstruct reset dynamics; enters the claimed speedup T2/T1. Fitted to the device, not to the speedup.
  • T2 (coherence time) = 36.0±1.7 μs (experiment)
    Measured with dynamical decoupling; defines the slow-mode decay rate in Eq. (18) and therefore the asymptotic speedup.
  • Non-Markovian model parameters (κ, ν_zx, ω_t, Γ1, Γφ) = from Ref. [71]; e.g., κ/ν_zx=0.05
    Taken from a published fit to transmon data; used in Section 3 to compute non-Markovian speedups. Not fitted in this paper.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Weak-coupling Markovian Davies map: the environment acts as a memoryless bath with Lindblad jump operators and detailed balance, yielding a thermal steady state.
    Used as the master equation in Sec. 2.1 (Eq. 1) and in Eq. (13) for idling superconducting qubits.
  • standard math Spectral ordering: λ1=0 unique steady state; λ2 is the slowest non-zero mode; initial states with zero overlap with ⟨l2| relax at |Re(λ3)|.
    Standard Lindbladian spectral theory (Eq. 3), used to define the speedup.
  • domain assumption The ancilla is prepared in an incoherent state (diagonal in the computational basis) and the joint initial state is a product state.
    Required for κ=0 in Eq. (11); Appendix B shows degradation with ancilla coherence and broadened speedup distribution for unbalanced populations.
  • domain assumption The regime T2>T1, so the slowest-decaying mode is a single-qubit coherence.
    The protocol accelerates only in this regime; Fig. 2(c) shows no speedup for T2<T1.
  • domain assumption Born approximation and neglect of intrinsic qubit damping in the adjoint equation when deriving the Redfield non-Markovian model.
    Stated in Section C to obtain Eq. (20); assumes intrinsic relaxation is slower than TLS-induced dephasing.
  • domain assumption Local, independent dissipation on the two qubits; no correlated noise between them during idling.
    The Lindbladian Eq. (13) is a sum of single-qubit dissipators; correlated noise would alter global coherence decay rates.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21899 in / 13246 out tokens · 138211 ms · 2026-08-03T04:51:17.134967+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Passive qubit reset is a key primitive for quantum information processing, whereby qubits are initialized by allowing them to relax to their ground state through natural dissipation, without the need for active control or feedback. However, passive reset occurs on timescales that are much longer than those of gate operations and measurements, making it a significant bottleneck for algorithmic execution. Here, we show that this limitation can be overcome by exploiting the Mpemba effect, originally indicating the faster cooling of hot systems compared to cooler ones. Focusing on the regime where coherence times exceed energy relaxation times ($T_2 > T_1$), we propose a simple protocol based on a single entangling two-qubit gate that converts local single-qubit coherences into fast-decaying global two-qubit coherences. This removes their overlap with the slowest decaying Liouvillian mode and enables a substantially faster relaxation to the ground state. For realistic parameters, we find that our protocol can reduce reset times by up to $50\%$ compared to standard passive reset. We analyze the robustness of the protocol under non-Markovian noise, imperfect coherent control and finite temperature, finding that the accelerated reset persists across a broad range of realistic error sources. Finally, we present an experimental implementation of our protocol on an IQM superconducting quantum processor. Our results demonstrate how Mpemba-like accelerated relaxation can be harnessed as a practical tool for fast and accurate qubit initialization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.03765 by Felix C. Binder, Fran\c{c}ois Damanet, John Goold, Mattia Moroder, Miha Papi\v{c}, Th\'eo Lejeune.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Enhancing qubit reset via coherence delocalization. (a) In the regime T2 > T1, single-qubit coherences decay more slowly than populations, causing a coherent qubit q1 (blue) to relax to the ground state more slowly than an incoherent qubit q2 (red). (b) Applying an entangling two-qubit gate (e.g., CNOT or CRy(π), see Section 2.2) between q1 and an incoherent ancilla converts local coherences of q1 into glo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Speeding up qubit reset in the presence of Markovian noise. Panel (a) and (b) show the Liouvillian spectra from Eq. (13), along with the overlap ⟨⟨lk| + 0⟩⟩ between the initial state and the left eigenvectors before and after the application of the C-Ry gate, respectively. Panel (c) displays the asymptotic Mpemba speedup |Re(λ3)|/|Re(λ2)| as a function of the T1 and T2 relaxation times. The red crosses rep… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Markovian (a) and non-Markovian (b) descriptions of the system considered in Section 3, where a flux-tunable transmon qubit of frequency ωq is coupled, with strength νzx, to a single TLS of frequency ωt. Both are subject to amplitude damping with rates Γ1 and κ, respectively. Additionally, the qubit is subject to dephasing with a rate Γϕ/2. (a) Markovian description of the combined qubit-TLS system describ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Spectra of the full Markovian embedding [Eq. (19)] (orange points) and of the reduced Liouvillian [Eq. (20)] as a function of time (green lines) and for long times (green points). The lower plots show the time evolution of Re(λ2) as a function of time, with ωq = 3.105 Hz (left plot) and 3.1010 Hz (right plot), while κ/νzx = 0.05. (b) Trace distance to the ground state of 1000 two-qubit states as a func… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the dynamics of the two-qubit state coherence [panel (a)] and purity [panel (b)], obtained from the Markovian embedding of Eq. (19) (blue curves) and the reduced Redfield model of Eq. (20) (orange curves). Both are evaluated for ωq = 105 Hz (solid line) and ωq = 107 Hz (dashed line), while κ/νzx = 0.05. which corresponds to the Markovian case [Eq. (17)]. On the other hand, the full Markovian … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Robustness of the C-Ry–based reset protocol under imperfect control. The robustness measure R(ϵ) Eq. (25) is shown as a function of systematic rotation errors δθy in the intended conditional y rotation and spurious rotations δθx about the x axis. Panel (a) considers the Markovian model Eq. (13), panel (b) corresponds to the non-Markovian model Eq. (19) and panel (c) shows the difference between the two. In… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Decay time measurements from IQM Garnet, illustrating the rapid suppression of local qubit coherences via an entangling gate. Assuming near-ideal single-qubit gate and measurement fidelity, the excited-state probability corresponds to ρ11(∆t) for the T1 measurement (black) and to 1 2 (1 − |ρ01(∆t)|) for both T2 measurements (red and blue). In the latter case, the value 1/2 corresponds to an incoherent stat… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trace distance to the ground state as a function of time (main plot) and corresponding speedup histogram for ϵ = 10−3 (inset), obtained using the same parameters as in panel (d) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized speedup distributions P(S(ϵ)) over 1000 q1 random Haar states, as a function of (a) the ancilla qubit’s excited state population (incoherent states) and (b) the ancilla’s coherences, with a ground state population fixed to 0.5. C Deriving the non-Markovian effective model In this appendix, we derive the effective master equation considered in Section 3. It describes the temporal evolution of a s… 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

85 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The physical implementation of quantum computation

    David P DiVincenzo. “The physical implementation of quantum computation”. In:Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics48.9-11 (2000), pp. 771–783.url:https://doi.org/10.1002/1521- 3978(200009)48:9/11%3C771::AID-PROP771%3E3.0.CO;2-E

    doi:10.1002/1521- 2000

  2. [2]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000.isbn: 9780521635035.url:https : / / www . cambridge . org / highereducation / books / quantum - computation - and - quantum - information / 01E10196D0A682A6AEFFEA52D53BE9AE

    2000

  3. [3]

    All-Microwave Leakage Reduction Units for Quantum Error Correction with Superconducting Transmon Qubits

    J. F. Marques et al. “All-Microwave Leakage Reduction Units for Quantum Error Correction with Superconducting Transmon Qubits”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (25 June 2023), p. 250602.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.250602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.250602 2023

  4. [4]

    Fast Flux-Activated Leakage Reduction for Superconducting Quantum Cir- cuits

    Nathan Lacroix et al. “Fast Flux-Activated Leakage Reduction for Superconducting Quantum Cir- cuits”. In:Physical Review Letters134.12 (Mar. 2025).issn: 1079-7114.url:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.120601. 15

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.120601 2025

  5. [5]

    Initialization by Mea- surement of a Superconducting Quantum Bit Circuit

    D. Rist` e, J. G. van Leeuwen, H.-S. Ku, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo. “Initialization by Mea- surement of a Superconducting Quantum Bit Circuit”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (5 Aug. 2012), p. 050507.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050507

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.050507 2012

  6. [6]

    Heralded State Preparation in a Superconducting Qubit

    J. E. Johnson, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, R. Vijay, E. B. Weingarten, John Clarke, and I. Siddiqi. “Heralded State Preparation in a Superconducting Qubit”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (5 Aug. 2012), p. 050506.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050506

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.050506 2012

  7. [7]

    Unitary-Feedback-Improved Qubit Initialization in the Dispersive Regime

    Luke C. G. Govia and Frank K. Wilhelm. “Unitary-Feedback-Improved Qubit Initialization in the Dispersive Regime”. In:Phys. Rev. Appl.4 (5 Nov. 2015), p. 054001.url:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.4.054001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.4.054001 2015

  8. [8]

    Microwave-Induced Cooling of a Superconducting Qubit

    Sergio O. Valenzuela, William D. Oliver, David M. Berns, Karl K. Berggren, Leonid S. Levitov, and Terry P. Orlando. “Microwave-Induced Cooling of a Superconducting Qubit”. In:Science314.5805 (Dec. 2006), pp. 1589–1592.issn: 1095-9203.url:http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1126 / science . 1134008

    2006

  9. [9]

    Sisyphus cooling and amplification by a superconducting qubit

    M. Grajcar, S. H. W. van der Ploeg, A. Izmalkov, E. Il’ichev, H.-G. Meyer, A. Fedorov, A. Shnirman, and Gerd Sch¨ on. “Sisyphus cooling and amplification by a superconducting qubit”. In:Nature Physics4.8 (July 2008), pp. 612–616.issn: 1745-2481.url:http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1038 / nphys1019

    2008

  10. [10]

    Demonstrating a Driven Reset Protocol for a Superconducting Qubit

    K. Geerlings, Z. Leghtas, I. M. Pop, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret. “Demonstrating a Driven Reset Protocol for a Superconducting Qubit”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (12 Mar. 2013), p. 120501.url:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.110.120501

    2013

  11. [11]

    Thermal and Residual Excited-State Population in a 3D Transmon Qubit

    X. Y. Jin et al. “Thermal and Residual Excited-State Population in a 3D Transmon Qubit”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (24 June 2015), p. 240501.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.114.240501

    2015

  12. [12]

    Quantum circuit refrigerator

    Kuan Yen Tan, Matti Partanen, Russell E. Lake, Joonas Govenius, Shumpei Masuda, and Mikko M¨ ott¨ onen. “Quantum circuit refrigerator”. In:Nature Communications8 (May 2017), p. 15189. issn: 2041-1723.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15189

    2017

  13. [13]

    Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting qubit

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf. “Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting qubit”. In:Applied Physics Letters96.20 (May 2010).issn: 1077-3118.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1063/1.3435463

    2010

  14. [14]

    Online documen- tation

    IBM Quantum.Qubit initialization and passive reset on IBM Quantum backends. Online documen- tation. Accessed: 22 December 2025. 2025.url:https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/guides/ repetition-rate-execution

    2025

  15. [15]

    Pulsed Reset Protocol for Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits

    D.J. Egger, M. Werninghaus, M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, P. M¨ uller, and S. Filipp. “Pulsed Reset Protocol for Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits”. In:Phys. Rev. Appl.10 (4 Oct. 2018), p. 044030.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.044030

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.10.044030 2018

  16. [16]

    Fast and Unconditional All-Microwave Reset of a Superconducting Qubit

    P. Magnard et al. “Fast and Unconditional All-Microwave Reset of a Superconducting Qubit”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (6 Aug. 2018), p. 060502.url:https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.121.060502

    2018

  17. [17]

    Rapid and unconditional parametric reset protocol for tunable superconducting qubits

    Yu Zhou et al. “Rapid and unconditional parametric reset protocol for tunable superconducting qubits”. In:Nature Communications12.1 (Oct. 2021), p. 5924.url:https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41467-021-26205-y

    2021

  18. [18]

    Active reset of superconducting qubits using the electronics based on RF switches

    Lian-Chen Han et al. “Active reset of superconducting qubits using the electronics based on RF switches”. In:AIP Advances13.9 (Sept. 2023), p. 095206.url:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/ article/13/9/095206/2909527/Active-reset-of-superconducting-qubits-using-the

    2023

  19. [19]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute et al. “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”. In: Nature574.7779 (Oct. 2019), pp. 505–510.issn: 1476-4687.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1666-5

    2019

  20. [20]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Youngseok Kim et al. “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance”. In: Nature618.7965 (2023), pp. 500–505.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- 023- 06096-3

    2023

  21. [21]

    Leonid Abdurakhimov et al.Technology and Performance Benchmarks of IQM’s 20-Qubit Quantum Computer. 2024. arXiv:2408.12433 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12433. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Rajeev Acharya et al. “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”. In:Nature 638.8052 (Dec. 2024), pp. 920–926.issn: 1476-4687.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 024-08449-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586- 2024

  23. [23]

    Experimental Quantum Error Correction below the Surface Code Threshold via All-Microwave Leakage Suppression

    Tan He et al. “Experimental Quantum Error Correction below the Surface Code Threshold via All-Microwave Leakage Suppression”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (26 Dec. 2025), p. 260601.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/rqkg-dw31

    doi:10.1103/rqkg-dw31 2025

  24. [24]

    Thermally driven quantum refrigerator autonomously resets a superconducting qubit

    Mohammed Ali Aamir, Paul Jamet Suria, Jos´ e Antonio Mar ´ ın Guzm´ an, Claudia Castillo-Moreno, Jeffrey M. Epstein, Nicole Yunger Halpern, and Simone Gasparinetti. “Thermally driven quantum refrigerator autonomously resets a superconducting qubit”. In:Nature Physics21.2 (2025), pp. 318– 323.issn: 1745-2481.url:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02708-5

    doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02708-5 2025

  25. [25]

    Quantum simulation

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori. “Quantum simulation”. In:Reviews of Modern Physics 86.1 (Mar. 2014), pp. 153–185.issn: 1539-0756.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys. 86.153

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2014

  26. [26]

    Fedorov, Bo Peng, Niranjan Govind, and Yuri Alexeev.VQE Method: A Short Survey and Recent Developments

    Dmitry A. Fedorov, Bo Peng, Niranjan Govind, and Yuri Alexeev.VQE Method: A Short Survey and Recent Developments. 2021. arXiv:2103.08505 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2103.08505

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics

    Alexander Miessen, Pauline J. Ollitrault, Francesco Tacchino, and Ivano Tavernelli. “Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics”. In:Nature Computational Science3.1 (2023), pp. 25–37.url: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00374-2

    2023

  28. [28]

    Millisecond lifetimes and coherence times in 2D transmon qubits

    Matthew P. Bland et al. “Millisecond lifetimes and coherence times in 2D transmon qubits”. In: Nature647.8089 (Nov. 2025), pp. 343–348

    2025

  29. [29]

    The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility

    Fei Yan et al. “The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility”. In:Nature Communications7 (Nov. 2016), p. 12964

    2016

  30. [30]

    Miha Papiˇ c, Adrian Auer, and In´ es de Vega.Fast Estimation of Physical Error Contributions of Quantum Gates. 2023. arXiv:2305.08916 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 08916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits

    Lukasz Cywi´ nski, Roman M. Lutchyn, Cody P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma. “How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits”. In:Physical Review B77.17 (May 2008).issn: 1550-235X.url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.174509

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.77.174509 2008

  32. [32]

    Gambetta, and Blake R

    Andrew Wack, Hanhee Paik, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Petar Jurcevic, Ismael Faro, Jay M. Gambetta, and Blake R. Johnson.Quality, Speed, and Scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers. 2021. arXiv:2110.14108 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv. org/abs/2110.14108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Quantum error mitigation

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. “Quantum error mitigation”. In:Rev. Mod. Phys.95 (4 Dec. 2023), p. 045005.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  34. [34]

    Abanin et al.Constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodic dynamics

    Dmitry A. Abanin et al.Constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodic dynamics. 2025. arXiv:2506.10191 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of the Markovian Mpemba effect and its inverse

    Zhiyue Lu and Oren Raz. “Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of the Markovian Mpemba effect and its inverse”. In:Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.114.20 (2017), pp. 5083–5088.url:https://www. pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1701264114

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1701264114 2017

  36. [36]

    Mpemba Index and Anomalous Re- laxation

    Israel Klich, Oren Raz, Ori Hirschberg, and Marija Vucelja. “Mpemba Index and Anomalous Re- laxation”. In:Phys. Rev. X9 (2 June 2019), p. 021060.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.9.021060

    2019

  37. [37]

    Exponentially faster cooling in a colloidal system

    Avinash Kumar and John Bechhoefer. “Exponentially faster cooling in a colloidal system”. In: Nature584.7819 (Aug. 2020), pp. 64–68.url:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2560-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2560-x 2020

  38. [39]

    Relaxation Shortcuts through Boundary Coupling

    Gianluca Teza, Ran Yaacoby, and Oren Raz. “Relaxation Shortcuts through Boundary Coupling”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (1 July 2023), p. 017101.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.017101

    2023

  39. [40]

    Speedups in nonequilibrium thermal relaxation: Mpemba and related effects

    Gianluca Teza, John Bechhoefer, Antonio Lasanta, Oren Raz, and Marija Vucelja. “Speedups in nonequilibrium thermal relaxation: Mpemba and related effects”. In:Physics Reports1164 (2026), pp. 1–97.issn: 0370-1573.url:https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0370157325002984. 17

    2026

  40. [41]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    G. Lindblad. “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. In:Communications in Math- ematical Physics48.2 (June 1976), pp. 119–130.issn: 1432-0916.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01608499

    1976

  41. [42]

    Morag Am-Shallem, Amikam Levy, Ido Schaefer, and Ronnie Kosloff.Three approaches for rep- resenting Lindblad dynamics by a matrix-vector notation. 2015. arXiv:1510.08634 [quant-ph]. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [44]

    Lindblad dissipative dynamics in the presence of phase coex- istence

    Andrea Nava and Michele Fabrizio. “Lindblad dissipative dynamics in the presence of phase coex- istence”. In:Phys. Rev. B100 (12 Sept. 2019), p. 125102.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.100.125102

    2019

  43. [45]

    Accelerating Quantum Relaxation via Temporary Reset: A Mpemba-Inspired Approach

    Ruicheng Bao and Zhonghuai Hou. “Accelerating Quantum Relaxation via Temporary Reset: A Mpemba-Inspired Approach”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (15 Oct. 2025), p. 150403.url:https : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/g94p-7421

    work page doi:10.1103/g94p-7421 2025

  44. [46]

    Accelerating the approach of dissipative quantum spin systems towards stationarity through global spin rotations

    Simon Kochsiek, Federico Carollo, and Igor Lesanovsky. “Accelerating the approach of dissipative quantum spin systems towards stationarity through global spin rotations”. In:Phys. Rev. A106 (1 July 2022), p. 012207.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.012207

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.106.012207 2022

  45. [47]

    Hyperacceleration of quantum thermal- ization dynamics by bypassing long-lived coherences: An analytical treatment

    Felix Ivander, Nicholas Anto-Sztrikacs, and Dvira Segal. “Hyperacceleration of quantum thermal- ization dynamics by bypassing long-lived coherences: An analytical treatment”. In:Phys. Rev. E 108 (1 July 2023), p. 014130.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.108.014130

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.108.014130 2023

  46. [48]

    Mpemba effects in nonequilibrium open quantum systems

    Xuanhua Wang and Jin Wang. “Mpemba effects in nonequilibrium open quantum systems”. In: Phys. Rev. Res.6 (3 Sept. 2024), p. 033330.url:https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevResearch.6.033330

    2024

  47. [49]

    Inverse Mpemba Effect Demonstrated on a Single Trapped Ion Qubit

    Shahaf Aharony Shapira, Yotam Shapira, Jovan Markov, Gianluca Teza, Nitzan Akerman, Oren Raz, and Roee Ozeri. “Inverse Mpemba Effect Demonstrated on a Single Trapped Ion Qubit”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (1 July 2024), p. 010403.url:https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.133.010403

    2024

  48. [50]

    Thermodynamics of the Quan- tum Mpemba Effect

    Mattia Moroder, Ois ´ ın Culhane, Krissia Zawadzki, and John Goold. “Thermodynamics of the Quan- tum Mpemba Effect”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (14 Oct. 2024), p. 140404.url:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.140404

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.140404 2024

  49. [51]

    Mingdi Xu, Zijun Wei, Xiang-Ping Jiang, and Lei Pan.Expedited thermalization dynamics in in- commensurate systems. 2025. arXiv:2505.03645 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.03645

    arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    Mpemba effect and super-accelerated thermalization in the damped quantum harmonic oscillator

    Stefano Longhi. “Mpemba effect and super-accelerated thermalization in the damped quantum harmonic oscillator”. In:Quantum9 (Mar. 2025), p. 1677.issn: 2521-327X.url:https://doi. org/10.22331/q-2025-03-26-1677

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-03-26-1677 2025

  51. [53]

    Bettmann, Xhek Turkeshi, Iman Marvian, and John Goold.A resource theoretical unification of Mpemba effects: classical and quantum

    Alessandro Summer, Mattia Moroder, Laetitia P. Bettmann, Xhek Turkeshi, Iman Marvian, and John Goold.A resource theoretical unification of Mpemba effects: classical and quantum. 2025. arXiv:2507.16976 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16976

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [54]

    Parvinder Solanki, Igor Lesanovsky, and Gabriele Perfetto.Universal relaxation speedup in open quantum systems through transient conditional and unconditional resetting. 2025. arXiv:2512 . 10005 [cond-mat.stat-mech].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10005

    arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    Non-Markovian Quantum Mpemba Effect

    David J. Strachan, Archak Purkayastha, and Stephen R. Clark. “Non-Markovian Quantum Mpemba Effect”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (22 June 2025), p. 220403.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.134.220403

    2025

  54. [56]

    Ergotropic Mpemba effect in non-Markovian quantum systems

    Yan Li, Wenlin Li, and Xingli Li. “Ergotropic Mpemba effect in non-Markovian quantum systems”. In:Phys. Rev. A112 (3 Sept. 2025), p. 032209.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/5xrr- x2rm

    work page doi:10.1103/5xrr- 2025

  55. [57]

    Ze-Zhou Zhang, Hong-Gang Luo, and Wei Wu.Quantum Mpemba Effect Induced by Non-Markovian Exceptional Point. 2025. arXiv:2511.13173 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2511. 13173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [58]

    Entanglement asymmetry as a probe of symmetry breaking

    Filiberto Ares, Sara Murciano, and Pasquale Calabrese. “Entanglement asymmetry as a probe of symmetry breaking”. In:Nat. Commun.14.1 (Apr. 2023), p. 2036.url:https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-023-37747-8. 18

    2023

  57. [59]

    The quantum Mpemba effects

    Filiberto Ares, Pasquale Calabrese, and Sara Murciano. “The quantum Mpemba effects”. In:Nat. Rev. Phys.(July 2025).issn: 2522-5820.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-025-00838- 0

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-025-00838- 2025

  58. [60]

    Microscopic Origin of the Quantum Mpemba Effect in Integrable Systems

    Colin Rylands, Katja Klobas, Filiberto Ares, Pasquale Calabrese, Sara Murciano, and Bruno Bertini. “Microscopic Origin of the Quantum Mpemba Effect in Integrable Systems”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (1 July 2024), p. 010401.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 133.010401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2024

  59. [61]

    Quantum Mpemba effect in random circuits

    Xhek Turkeshi, Pasquale Calabrese, and Andrea De Luca. “Quantum Mpemba effect in random circuits”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.(June 2025).issn: 1079-7114.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ 5d6p-8d1b

    2025

  60. [62]

    Symmetry Restoration and Quantum Mpemba Effect in Symmetric Random Circuits

    Shuo Liu, Hao-Kai Zhang, Shuai Yin, and Shi-Xin Zhang. “Symmetry Restoration and Quantum Mpemba Effect in Symmetric Random Circuits”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (14 Oct. 2024), p. 140405. url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.140405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.140405 2024

  61. [63]

    Fast and direct preparation of a genuine lattice Bose-Einstein condensate via the quantum Mpemba effect

    Philipp Westhoff, Sebastian Paeckel, and Mattia Moroder. “Fast and direct preparation of a genuine lattice Bose-Einstein condensate via the quantum Mpemba effect”. In:Phys. Rev. A112 (6 Dec. 2025), p. L061304.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/nm4b-9w5c

    work page doi:10.1103/nm4b-9w5c 2025

  62. [64]

    Anomalous Discharging of Quantum Batteries: The Ergotropic Mpemba Effect

    Ivan Medina, Ois ´ ın Culhane, Felix C. Binder, Gabriel T. Landi, and John Goold. “Anomalous Discharging of Quantum Batteries: The Ergotropic Mpemba Effect”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (22 June 2025), p. 220402.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.220402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.220402 2025

  63. [65]

    Generators of dynamical semigroups

    E.B. Davies. “Generators of dynamical semigroups”. In:J. Funct. Anal.34.3 (1979), pp. 421– 432.issn: 0022-1236.url:https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / 0022123679900855

    1979

  64. [66]

    Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits

    Jonathan J. Burnett, Andreas Bengtsson, Marco Scigliuzzo, David Niepce, Marina Kudra, Per Dels- ing, and Jonas Bylander. “Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits”. In:npj Quantum Information5.1 (2019), p. 54.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-019-0168-5

    2019

  65. [67]

    Simulating noise on a quantum processor: interactions between a qubit and resonant two-level system bath

    Yujin Cho, Dipti Jasrasaria, Keith G Ray, Daniel M Tennant, Vincenzo Lordi, Jonathan L DuBois, and Yaniv J Rosen. “Simulating noise on a quantum processor: interactions between a qubit and resonant two-level system bath”. In:Quantum Science and Technology8.4 (Sept. 2023), p. 045023. issn: 2058-9565.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/acf685

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/acf685 2023

  66. [68]

    2025.url:https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/129477/

    Philipp Westhoff.A method to investigate many-body Liouvillian spectra beyond the steady state. 2025.url:https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/129477/

    2025

  67. [69]

    Average coherence and its typicality for random pure states

    Uttam Singh, Lin Zhang, and Arun Kumar Pati. “Average coherence and its typicality for random pure states”. In:Phys. Rev. A93 (3 Mar. 2016), p. 032125.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.93.032125

    2016

  68. [70]

    Neural-network-based qubit-environment characterization

    Miha Papiˇ c and In´ es de Vega. “Neural-network-based qubit-environment characterization”. In: Physical Review A105.2 (Feb. 2022).issn: 2469-9934.url:http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevA.105.022605

    2022

  69. [71]

    Modelling non-Markovian noise in driven superconducting qubits

    Abhishek Agarwal, Lachlan P Lindoy, Deep Lall, Fran¸ cois Jamet, and Ivan Rungger. “Modelling non-Markovian noise in driven superconducting qubits”. In:Quantum Science and Technology9.3 (Apr. 2024), p. 035017.url:https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ad3d7e

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad3d7e 2024

  70. [72]

    Thermal cycling: Evidence for a generalized tunneling model and a tool to distinguish noise sources in quantum circuits

    Yigal Reiss and Moshe Schechter. “Thermal cycling: Evidence for a generalized tunneling model and a tool to distinguish noise sources in quantum circuits”. In:Phys. Rev. B111 (20 May 2025), p. L201403.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.L201403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.l201403 2025

  71. [73]

    Origin and Reduction of 1/fMagnetic Flux Noise in Superconducting Devices

    P. Kumar et al. “Origin and Reduction of 1/fMagnetic Flux Noise in Superconducting Devices”. In:Phys. Rev. Appl.6 (4 Oct. 2016), p. 041001.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevApplied.6.041001

    2016

  72. [74]

    Towards understanding two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits

    Clemens M¨ uller, Jared H Cole, and J¨ urgen Lisenfeld. “Towards understanding two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits”. In:Reports on Progress in Physics82.12 (Oct. 2019), p. 124501.issn: 1361-6633.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab3a7e

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab3a7e 2019

  73. [75]

    Characterizing and Optimizing Qubit Coherence Based on SQUID Ge- ometry

    Jochen Braum¨ uller et al. “Characterizing and Optimizing Qubit Coherence Based on SQUID Ge- ometry”. In:Physical Review Applied13.5 (May 2020).issn: 2331-7019.url:http://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.13.054079

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.13.054079 2020

  74. [76]

    Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process

    R. Landauer. “Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process”. In:IBM Journal of Research and Development5.3 (1961), pp. 183–191.url:https : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document/5392446. 19

    arXiv 1961

  75. [77]

    Thermodynamics of information

    Juan M R Parrondo, Jordan M Horowitz, and Takahiro Sagawa. “Thermodynamics of information”. In:Nature Physics11.2 (Feb. 2015), pp. 131–139.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/ nphys3230

    2015

  76. [78]

    Quantum Fluctua- tions Hinder Finite-Time Information Erasure near the Landauer Limit

    Harry J. D. Miller, Giacomo Guarnieri, Mark T. Mitchison, and John Goold. “Quantum Fluctua- tions Hinder Finite-Time Information Erasure near the Landauer Limit”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (16 Oct. 2020), p. 160602.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.160602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.160602 2020

  77. [79]

    Yongtao Zhan, Zhiyan Ding, Jakob Huhn, Johnnie Gray, John Preskill, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Lin Lin.Rapid quantum ground state preparation via dissipative dynamics. 2025. arXiv:2503.15827 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15827

    arXiv 2025

  78. [80]

    Lin Lin.Dissipative Preparation of Many-Body Quantum States: Towards Practical Quantum Ad- vantage. 2025. arXiv:2505.21308 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21308

    arXiv 2025

  79. [81]

    Quasi- particle Cooling Algorithms for Quantum Many-Body State Preparation

    Jerome Lloyd, Alexios A. Michailidis, Xiao Mi, Vadim Smelyanskiy, and Dmitry A. Abanin. “Quasi- particle Cooling Algorithms for Quantum Many-Body State Preparation”. In:PRX Quantum6 (1 Mar. 2025), p. 010361.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010361

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010361 2025

  80. [82]

    Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissipation

    X. Mi et al. “Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissipation”. In: Science383.6689 (2024), pp. 1332–1337.url:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.adh9932

    2024

Showing first 80 references.