pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27856 · v1 · pith:Y5IKURL7new · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Simulating the Dynamics of Markovian Quantum Processes by Quantum Collision Models on Quantum Computers

Zeqing Wang , Julian D. Teske , Anshuman Bhardwaj , Masahiro O. Takahashi , Seiji Yunoki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 04:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum collision modelsMarkovian dynamicsquantum simulationopen quantum systemstrapped ionssuperconducting qubitsdissipationquantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hardware-specific collision models simulate Markovian quantum dynamics up to 13 qubits and 40 steps on both ion-trap and superconducting platforms.

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

The paper shows how quantum collision models can implement nonunitary Markovian evolution on quantum computers by coupling the system to ancillas and resetting them. This approach overcomes the difficulty of directly realizing dissipation on hardware. Previous experiments stayed small because of circuit depth, noise, and limited qubits. The authors reach seven system qubits and 40 time steps by choosing ancilla strategies that match each platform's strengths. They also find that the same model needs different implementations on trapped-ion versus superconducting devices.

Core claim

We experimentally simulate Markovian quantum processes with local and nonlocal dissipation on both trapped-ion and superconducting quantum computers. By employing hardware-specific ancilla strategies, we realize simulations with up to seven system qubits, corresponding to 13 qubits in total, and 40 time steps. Our results demonstrate that, even for the same physical model, the optimal implementation strategy depends strongly on the hardware characteristics of the quantum computer.

What carries the argument

Quantum collision models that induce dissipation by repeated coupling of the system to fresh ancillas followed by ancilla reset and tracing out.

If this is right

  • Markovian open-system simulations become practical at the scale of seven system qubits on present devices.
  • Local and nonlocal dissipation channels can both be realized within the same collision framework.
  • The best ancilla-reset protocol must be chosen according to the specific quantum hardware rather than applied uniformly.
  • Simulations can sustain 40 discrete time steps before noise dominates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same collision-model structure could be adapted to approximate non-Markovian dynamics by reusing ancillas instead of resetting them.
  • Platform-dependent optimization may become a standard step when porting open-system simulations between different quantum processors.
  • Error rates in the ancilla resets set a practical limit on the longest reliable simulation time for a given hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The ancilla resets and partial traces produce dynamics that match the target Markovian master equation without large uncontrolled errors from noise or leftover entanglement.

What would settle it

Running the circuits and observing that the measured system density matrix deviates significantly from the numerical solution of the corresponding Lindblad master equation at long times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27856 by Anshuman Bhardwaj, Julian D. Teske, Masahiro O. Takahashi, Seiji Yunoki, Zeqing Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (g), although the overall accuracy remains below that achieved on Reimei. D. Experimental results for M = 7 Since the M = 3 experiment on Reimei accurately re￾produces the solution of the Lindblad master equation, we next consider a larger case with M = 7 on Reimei, us￾ing six ancillas and 13 qubits in total. As in the M = 3 case, the initial state is chosen such that the first sys￾tem qubit is in the exci… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hamiltonian dynamics have been widely implemented on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices in recent years. In contrast, experimental demonstrations of Markovian quantum dynamics remain limited, because implementing nonunitary evolution on quantum computers is challenging. Quantum collision models provide a natural approach to this problem by coupling the system to ancillas to realize dissipation. However, previous implementations of quantum collision models on quantum computers have typically been restricted to one or two system qubits and fewer than 12 time steps, owing to noise, circuit depth, the overhead of ancilla reset, and limited qubit resources. In this work, we experimentally simulate Markovian quantum processes with local and nonlocal dissipation on both trapped-ion and superconducting quantum computers. By employing hardware-specific ancilla strategies, we realize simulations with up to seven system qubits, corresponding to 13 qubits in total, and 40 time steps. Our results demonstrate that, even for the same physical model, the optimal implementation strategy depends strongly on the hardware characteristics of the quantum computer.

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 experimentally implements quantum collision models to simulate Markovian open-system dynamics (local and nonlocal dissipation) on trapped-ion and superconducting quantum computers. It reports scaling to seven system qubits (13 total) and 40 time steps by using hardware-specific ancilla strategies and reset protocols, and concludes that the optimal implementation depends on platform characteristics.

Significance. If the reported dynamics faithfully reproduce the target Lindblad evolution, the work extends collision-model simulations of Markovian processes well beyond prior 1-2 qubit, <12-step limits and supplies concrete hardware-dependent guidance for NISQ open-system simulation. The dual-platform comparison is a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section] Results section (and associated figures/tables): the central claim of faithful Markovian simulation up to 7 qubits/40 steps requires quantitative validation that repeated ancilla coupling + reset + partial trace reproduces the target master equation. No process tomography, trace-distance bounds, or direct comparison to analytic Lindblad solutions with error bars are reported to bound deviations from residual entanglement or platform noise, leaving the weakest assumption untested.
  2. [Methods/Implementation subsections] Methods/Implementation subsections on ancilla reset: the manuscript does not specify reset fidelity, residual system-ancilla correlation after reset, or any error-mitigation protocol used to suppress non-Markovian contributions; these quantities are load-bearing for the claim that the implemented channel matches the ideal collision model.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the number of experimental shots, post-selection criteria, and any error bars or statistical uncertainties.
  2. The abstract and introduction should cite the specific prior collision-model experiments (1-2 qubits, <12 steps) that are being surpassed, with quantitative comparison of scale.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, agreeing that additional quantitative details will strengthen the presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section] Results section (and associated figures/tables): the central claim of faithful Markovian simulation up to 7 qubits/40 steps requires quantitative validation that repeated ancilla coupling + reset + partial trace reproduces the target master equation. No process tomography, trace-distance bounds, or direct comparison to analytic Lindblad solutions with error bars are reported to bound deviations from residual entanglement or platform noise, leaving the weakest assumption untested.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation is essential to substantiate the claim of faithful reproduction of the target Lindblad evolution. While the experimental figures demonstrate qualitative agreement with expected Markovian behavior, we will revise the Results section to include direct comparisons to analytic solutions of the Lindblad master equation, with error bars obtained from repeated experimental runs. Trace-distance bounds will be added for smaller system sizes where full process tomography is feasible, and subsystem-based bounds will be provided for the seven-qubit case using noise characterization data. These additions will be made in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods/Implementation subsections] Methods/Implementation subsections on ancilla reset: the manuscript does not specify reset fidelity, residual system-ancilla correlation after reset, or any error-mitigation protocol used to suppress non-Markovian contributions; these quantities are load-bearing for the claim that the implemented channel matches the ideal collision model.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit details on ancilla reset are necessary. The revised Methods section will report the measured reset fidelities on both the trapped-ion and superconducting platforms, along with estimates of residual system-ancilla correlations derived from calibration experiments. We will also describe the error-mitigation protocols employed to minimize non-Markovian contributions, such as optimized reset sequences and any post-processing steps. These additions will directly support the connection between the implemented protocol and the ideal collision model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental demonstration with no derivation chain

full rationale

This is an experimental paper reporting hardware executions of collision-model simulations of Markovian dynamics on trapped-ion and superconducting devices. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions are claimed; the central results are direct measurements of system evolution under repeated ancilla collisions and resets. The abstract and reader's summary confirm the absence of any load-bearing theoretical steps that could reduce to self-definition or self-citation. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work applies the established quantum collision model framework to hardware; no new free parameters or invented entities appear in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Repeated system-ancilla interactions followed by tracing out the ancillas can approximate Markovian open-system dynamics.
    This is the core modeling assumption underlying all collision-model simulations described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5718 in / 1180 out tokens · 56328 ms · 2026-06-29T04:40:00.709451+00:00 · methodology

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

68 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, 16 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 gt 0 50 100 150 ...

    2019

  2. [2]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. Löschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with > 99.99% fidelity without ground-state cool- ing (2025), arXiv:2510.17286 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Helios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer

    A. Ransford, M. S. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. P. C. III, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall, A. A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, I. S. Madjarov, K. Mayer, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, R. Ancona, M. P. Andersen, P. Andres-Martinez, W. Angenent, L. Ar- gueta, B. Arkin, L. Ascarrunz, W. Bake...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    A fault-tolerant neutral-atom ar- chitecture for universal quantum computation,

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, A fault-tolerant neutral-atom ar- chitecture for universal quantum ...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09848-5 2025

  6. [6]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000- qubit system, Nature 646, 1075 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing the kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 645, 341 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Baragiola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick, I. Cha- rania, H. Chen, M. J. Collins, P. Contu, N. D’Arcy, G. Dauphinais, R. De Prins, D. Deschenes, I. Di Luch, S. Duque, P. Edke, S. E. Fayer, S. Ferracin, H. Fer- retti, J. Gefaell, S. Glancy, C. González-Arc...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buck- ley, D...

    2025

  11. [11]

    Tindall and M

    J. Tindall and M. Fishman, Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation, SciPost Phys. 15, 222 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Tindall, M

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s eagle kicked ising experiment, PRX Quantum 5, 010308 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Begušić, J

    T. Begušić, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Fast and con- verged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Science Ad- vances 10, eadk4321 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Schirber, A moving target for quantum advantage, Physics 17, 13 (2024)

    M. Schirber, A moving target for quantum advantage, Physics 17, 13 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    P. S. Mundada, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, Y. Wang, T. Merkh, T. Stace, F. Nielson, A. R. Carvalho, M. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Experimental bench- marking of an automated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024034 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hol- lenberg, and K. Modi, Demonstration of non-markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum pro- cessor, Nature Communications 11, 6301 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    White, F

    G. White, F. Pollock, L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. Hill, Non-markovian quantum process tomography, PRX Quantum 3, 020344 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    G. A. L. White, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, C. D. Hill, and K. Modi, What can unitary sequences tell us about multi-time physics?, Quantum 9, 1695 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  20. [20]

    Ezzell, B

    N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 064027 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Cai, Multi-exponential error extrapolation and com- bining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications, npj Quantum Information 7, 80 (2021)

    Z. Cai, Multi-exponential error extrapolation and com- bining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications, npj Quantum Information 7, 80 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitiga- tion, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 032001 (2021), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.90.032001

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.90.032001 2021

  23. [23]

    Vovrosh, K

    J. Vovrosh, K. E. Khosla, S. Greenaway, C. Self, M. S. Kim, and J. Knolle, Simple mitigation of global depolar- izing errors in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. E 104, 035309 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Q-CTRL, Fire Opal, https://q-ctrl.com/fire-opal (2025), 18 [Online]

    2025

  27. [27]

    Ippoliti, K

    M. Ippoliti, K. Kechedzhi, R. Moessner, S. Sondhi, and V. Khemani, Many-body physics in the nisq era: Quan- tum programming a discrete time crystal, PRX Quantum 2, 030346 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    X. Mi, M. Ippoliti, C. Quintana, A. Greene, Z. Chen, J. Gross, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, A. Bourassa, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- ley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, D. Debroy, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, A. Dunsworth, D. Eppens, C. Erickson, ...

    2022

  29. [29]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crystal on 57 qubits of a quantum com- puter, Science Advances 8, eabm7652 (2022) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abm7652

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm7652 2022

  30. [30]

    Shinjo, K

    K. Shinjo, K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, R.-Y. Sun, and S. Yunoki, Unveiling clean two-dimensional discrete time crystals on a digital quantum computer, npj Quantum Information 12, 41 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    H. Qian, M. Gong, J. Zhang, S. Guo, C. Zha, F. Chen, Y. Ye, Y. Wu, S. Cao, C. Ying, Q. Zhu, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhao, S. Li, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, Y. Li, K. Zhang, T.-H. Chung, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C. Guo, N. Li, K. Yan, F.-F. Su, G. Wu, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, C.-Y. Lu, F. Mei, S. Jia, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Programmable higher-or...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adp6802 2025

  32. [32]

    Granet, S.-H

    E. Granet, S.-H. Lin, K. Hémery, R. Hagshenas, P. Andres-Martinez, D. T. Stephen, A. Ransford, J. Arkinstall, M. S. Allman, P. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, A. Hall, A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, M. Mills, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, B. Neyenhuis, J. G....

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    X. Mi, M. Sonner, M. Y. Niu, K. W. Lee, B. Foxen, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengts- son, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, P. Conner, W. Courtney, A. L. Crook, D. M. Debroy, S...

    2022

  34. [34]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric su- percomputer, Science Advances 11, eadu9991 (2025) , https://www....

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 2025

  36. [36]

    Shirakawa, J

    T. Shirakawa, J. Robledo-Moreno, T. Itoko, V. Tripathi, K. Ueda, Y. Kawashima, L. Broers, W. Kirby, H. Pathak, H. Paik, M. Tsuji, Y. Kodama, M. Sato, C. Evangelinos, S. Seelam, R. Walkup, S. Yunoki, M. Motta, P. Jurce- vic, H. Horii, and A. Mezzacapo, Closed-loop calcula- tions of electronic structure on a quantum processor and a classical supercomputer a...

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    K. M. Merz, Jr., A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, Y. Otsuka, T. Shirakawa, L. Broers, H. Xu, M. Tsuji, M. Sato, S. Yunoki, R. Wakizaka, Y. Kawashima, J. Doi, T. Itoko, H. Horii, T. Pellegrini, J. Robledo Moreno, K. J. Sung, E. Fejer, R. Walkup, S. Seelam, and M. Motta, Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with het- erogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems , 1st ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, Quan- tum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum op- tics, quantum computing, and beyond, PRX Quantum 5, 020202 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    L. H. Delgado-Granados, T. J. Krogmeier, L. M. Sager-Smith, I. A vdic, Z. Hu, M. Sajjan, M. Abbasi, S. E. Smart, P. Narang, S. Kais, A. W. Schlimgen, 19 K. Head-Marsden, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum al- gorithms and applications for open quantum systems, Chemical Reviews 125, 1823 (2025) , pMID: 39903697, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00428

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00428 2025

  41. [41]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Kamakari, S.-N

    H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Digital quantum simulation of open quantum systems us- ing quantum imaginary–time evolution, PRX Quantum 3, 010320 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Informa- tion 5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    T. M. Watad and N. H. Lindner, Variational quantum algorithms for simulation of lindblad dynamics, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 025015 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, and C. H. Lee, Observa- tion of the non-hermitian skin effect and fermi skin on a digital quantum computer, Nature Communications 16, 1340 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    X. Mi, A. A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. C. Miao, P. V. Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. As- faw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bush- nell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adh9932 2024

  47. [47]

    Utility-scale quantum experiments using dynamic circuits to address collective dissipation in interacting qubits

    B. Tirado, J. Fraxanet, A. Juan-Delgado, J. Aizpurua, and R. Esteban, Utility-scale quantum experiments us- ing dynamic circuits to address collective dissipation in interacting qubits (2026), arXiv:2605.25830 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Ciccarello, and G. M. Palma, Compos- ite quantum collision models, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032107 (2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynam- ics from repeated interactions, Physics Reports 954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. Müller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470, 486 (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    Schindler, M

    P. Schindler, M. Müller, D. Nigg, J. T. Barreiro, E. A. Martinez, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Quantum simulation of dynamical maps with trapped ions, Nature Physics 9, 361 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    Cuevas, A

    Á. Cuevas, A. Geraldi, C. Liorni, L. D. Bonavena, A. De Pasquale, F. Sciarrino, V. Giovannetti, and P. Mataloni, All-optical implementation of collision- based evolutions of open quantum systems, Scientific Re- ports 9, 3205 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    H. Wang, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum algorithm for simulating the dynamics of an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062317 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    Cattaneo, G

    M. Cattaneo, G. De Chiara, S. Maniscalco, R. Zambrini, and G. L. Giorgi, Collision models can efficiently simulate any multipartite markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 130403 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    K. Garg, Z. Ahmed, S. Mitra, and S. Chakraborty, Sim- ulating quantum collision models with hamiltonian sim- ulations using early fault-tolerant quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 112, 022425 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Pocrnic, D

    M. Pocrnic, D. Segal, and N. Wiebe, Quantum simulation of lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions (2025), arXiv:2312.05371 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    García-Pérez, M

    G. García-Pérez, M. A. C. Rossi, and S. Maniscalco, Ibm q experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simu- lating open quantum systems, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Cattaneo, M

    M. Cattaneo, M. A. Rossi, G. García-Pérez, R. Zam- brini, and S. Maniscalco, Quantum simulation of dissipa- tive collective effects on noisy quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010324 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    X. Li, Y. Li, and Y. Yan, Signatures of environment- induced quantum synchronization transitions via two- body dissipator engineering, Chinese Physics Letters 43, 020302 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-photon interactions: basic processes and applica- tions (Wiley, New York, 1992)

    1992

  61. [61]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Robertson and F

    J. Robertson and F. H. L. Essler, Exact solution of a quantum asymmetric exclusion process with particle cre- ation and annihilation, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2021, 103102 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    de Leeuw, C

    M. de Leeuw, C. Paletta, and B. Pozsgay, Constructing 20 integrable lindblad superoperators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 240403 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    Ishiguro and J

    Y. Ishiguro and J. Sato, Exact steady states in the asym- metric simple exclusion process beyond one dimension, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033030 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Smith, M

    E. Smith, M. G. Davis, J. Larson, E. Younis, L. B. Of- telie, W. Lavrijsen, and C. Iancu, Leap: Scaling numer- ical optimization based synthesis using an incremental approach, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 4, 10.1145/3548693 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1145/3548693 2023

  66. [66]

    Quantinuum nexus (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    G. S. Hartnett, K. S. Najafi, A. Khindanov, H. Liao, M. Schutzman, M. R. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Fast, accurate, high-resolution simulation of large-scale fermi-hubbard models on a digital quantum processor (2026), arXiv:2605.04025 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in Python, Physics Reports 1153, 1 (2026)

    2026