Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 52 references

For a qubit monitored through a lossy detector, the paper establishes the exact optimized long-time impurity-moment spectrum: rates 8θ(1−θ)ηℓ² for orders below half, freezing at the record-distinguishability rate 2ηℓ² for every order at and

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

2026-08-02 07:40 UTC pith:XWXE2EEP

load-bearing objection An exact optimized qubit purification spectrum under detector loss, with a rare-record plateau at the Bhattacharyya rate, and the proof holds up on inspection.

arxiv 2607.09118 v2 pith:XWXE2EEP submitted 2026-07-10 quant-ph

Record Loss Sets a Rare-Trajectory Limit on Quantum Purification

Jiaxin Liu , Zuoxian Wang , Feng Li , Danyue Ma This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum purificationcontinuous measurementquantum feedbackdetector inefficiencyquantum nondemolitionBhattacharyya raterare trajectoriesimpurity moments
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.

Quantum purification — turning a mixed state into a pure one by continuous measurement — is limited by how much of the measurement record actually reaches the feedback controller. The paper asks what the fastest possible exponential purification is for a qubit when the detector keeps only a fraction η of the record and the controller may choose any causal sequence of measurement orientations. It answers with an exact spectrum: for impurity moments E[S^θ] with θ<1/2, the optimal long-time rate is 8θ(1−θ)ηℓ²; for every θ≥1/2 and η<1, the rate freezes at 2ηℓ², independent of θ. The freezing mechanism is the rare trajectory whose measurement evidence nearly cancels, leaving two plausible state assignments; its probability decays at the Bhattacharyya information rate between two quantum-nondemolition record laws, a rate that no basis-feedback policy can beat. If true, the result gives a parameter-free speed limit for lossy quantum monitoring and shows that the same ceiling persists in all dimensions, with aligned QND monitoring attaining it.

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (4): for every mixed initial qubit under fixed-spectrum Hermitian monitoring, the optimized long-time impurity-moment exponent exists and equals 8θ(1−θ)ηℓ² for 0<θ<1/2, 2ηℓ² for θ≥1/2 with 0<η<1, and 4θℓ² for θ≥1/2 with η=1. The half-moment order θ=1/2 is the transition: below it a moving large-deviation saddle selects steadily purifying records and the rate 8θ(1−θ)ηℓ²; at and above it, the selected records have O(1) net evidence, so the conditional state remains appreciably mixed for exponentially long times and every high order costs the same 2ηℓ². This plateau is exactly the decay of the Bhattacharyya coefficient between the two QND record laws conditioned on the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binary log-likelihood of the two measurement eigenstates, y=(1/2) ln(p_+/p_-), with impurity S=(1/2) sech² y. Under aligned QND monitoring y evolves as a diffusion with drift 4ηℓ² tanh y; rare records keep y at O(1), and the probability of such bounded-evidence records falls at rate 2ηℓ² per unit time. Conjugating the QND generator with cosh y turns it into free heat flow with a spectral shift 2ηℓ², making the half-order identity E[√S_t]/√S_0 = e^{-2ηℓ²t} exact and transferring it to all higher moments. A policy-uniform converse follows from two sharp spectral inequalities, |T3|≤ℓS and T2S+T3²≤ℓ²S², together with a horizon-indexed change of measure on a near-pu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the ideal beam-splitter loss model: the qubit feels the full measurement backaction while only the √η-scaled detected innovation is available, with no extra decoherence, hidden channels, feedback latency, or orientation-bandwidth restrictions; if real inefficiency adds any of these, the exact freeze at 2ηℓ² need not survive.

What would settle it

Run a continuous homodyne measurement on a qubit at known efficiency η<1 aligned with a fixed observable, calibrate the measurement contrast ℓ from the bare backaction, and estimate the long-time slopes of -ln E[√S_t] and of -ln E[S^θ_t] for θ=1 and 2. Equation (4) predicts all three slopes equal 2ηℓ². If the θ≥1/2 slopes differ from 2ηℓ², or if any adaptive policy is found whose limiting slope exceeds 2ηℓ², the plateau claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • No causal basis-feedback policy can make any impurity moment of order θ≥1/2 decay faster than e^{-2ηℓ²t} when η<1; repeatedly measuring one fixed observable attains this rate.
  • The half moment is an order-parameter transition: changing the moment order below 1/2 changes the rate, while at and above 1/2 the rate is frozen, so all Rényi entropies of order α≥1/2 share the same plateau.
  • Perfect detection is a singular limit: the plateau turns into the rising branch 4θℓ² driven by deterministic unbiased flow, with a logarithmically wide crossover window as η→1.
  • In any d-dimensional system the same 2ηℓ² high-order ceiling is attainable by an extremal rank-two QND mixture supported on the monitor's smallest and largest eigenstates; full-rank states obey stricter determinant-based bounds, yielding a boundary–interior separation for qutrits.
  • The predicted variance-to-mean ratio Var(S^θ)/E[S^θ]^2 ≍ t^{1/2}e^{2ηℓ²t} quantifies how rare the bottleneck records are and sets the sampling requirements for experimental verification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that detector efficiency enters purification only through the retained distinguishability of the record laws; a similar high-order plateau should appear for any lossy or coarse-grained measurement channel whose record pair has a computable Bhattacharyya rate, even if the prefactor sector differs.
  • Because the plateau makes all high moments asymptotically identical, long-time exponential rates cannot rank feedback strategies in the lossy regime; protocol comparisons should shift to finite-time prefactors, threshold first-passage times, or low-order moments, where the spectrum is order-dependent.
  • The qutrit boundary–interior gap suggests an operational precept for lossy state preparation: keep the conditional support on the two extremal eigenstates, since full-rank initial states are provably slower for intermediate moment orders; whether adaptive rotations can exploit this beyond the proved ceilings is a testable extension.
  • A direct experimental falsifier is feasible: calibrate ℓ and η, implement aligned QND monitoring, and compare the long-time slope of -ln E[√S_t] with 2ηℓ²; a mismatch beyond known backaction would indicate that the ideal-loss model omits additional decoherence or hidden measurement channels.

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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes continuous qubit purification under fixed-spectrum Hermitian monitoring with detection efficiency \eta. It defines the optimized long-time impurity-moment exponent V_\theta(t,\eta) over causal basis policies and claims an exact closed-form spectrum, Eq. (4): for \theta<1/2 the rate is 8\theta(1-\theta)\eta\ell^2, for \theta\ge 1/2 and 0<\eta<1 it freezes at 2\eta\ell^2, and at \eta=1 the ideal-detector branch 4\theta\ell^2 is restored. The plateau is identified with the Bhattacharyya information rate between the two QND record laws, via the exact half-moment identity Eq. (5). The converse of QND optimality is established by a policy-uniform change-of-measure argument in SM Sec. V, with a qubit-specific event certificate in SM Sec. VI. The paper then extends the mechanism to higher dimensions: rank-two QND embeddings attain the qubit ceiling for 0<\eta<1, while a determinant-root submartingale gives a stricter upper bound for full-rank qutrits over a finite moment interval, proving boundary\textendash{}interior separation.

Significance. If correct, the result closes a gap in the theory of feedback purification under detector loss: it gives the first exact, parameter-free moment spectrum optimized over adaptive basis control, and it identifies the rare-record Bhattacharyya rate as the physical resource controlling high-order purification. The derivation is internally consistent and unusually complete for a Letter: an exact QND kernel identity, a half-moment Bhattacharyya identity, sharp trace inequalities with equality conditions, a horizon-uniform change-of-measure converse, and a determinant-root submartingale all fit together. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions (QND threshold exponent, sampling complexity, qutrit slope separation). The main caveat is that the model assumes ideal loss (full backaction with only the \sqrt{\eta}-scaled innovation available) and unrestricted basis bandwidth; the paper states this model but does not critically examine how additional decoherence or hidden channels would modify the exact freeze. This is a scope condition, not an internal inconsistency.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (7)] The first inequality in Eq. (7), \Lambda^{(d)}_\star \le \Lambda^{(2)}_\star, is not a consequence of determinant contraction; it follows from the state-space-uniform ceiling of SM Eq. (S38). The determinant calculation yields the second inequality. Please reword so the attribution is correct.
  2. [Eq. (2) and SM Eq. (S1)] In Eq. (2) the exponent \Lambda^{(2)}_\star is written as an ordinary limit before existence is established; the SM defines it as a liminf. Define the object initially as a liminf/limsup and state that the limit is subsequently proven.
  3. [Fig. 3(c) caption] The notation “\rho=\mathrm{diag}(-,0,+)(0.50,0.30,0.20)” is ambiguous. If the state is \rho=\mathrm{diag}(0.50,0.30,0.20) in the eigenbasis of L, write that explicitly.
  4. [Rényi transfer discussion] The phrase “high-impurity records” in the Rényi discussion can be misread; clarify that it means highly mixed (large S) records, not records with high state purity.
  5. [Main text and SM typos] There are minor typographical issues: “wheredW^2_t=dt” in the introduction lacks a space, and a few equations have cramped subscripts. These do not affect the mathematics.
  6. [Model and control class] The ideal-loss model and unrestricted basis bandwidth are stated but not discussed as limitations. A sentence noting that additional decoherence, hidden measurement channels, or finite feedback bandwidth would modify the exact 2\eta\ell^2 freeze would help readers gauge the physical scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the optimized purification spectrum Eq. (4) is derived from an explicitly solved QND endpoint plus an independent policy-uniform converse, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (4) is not circular. The optimized exponent is defined independently in Eq. (2) as the long-time decay of the horizon-optimized impurity moment. The attainment side is provided by the exact QND propagator, which is derived in the Supplemental Material rather than assumed: Eq. (S9) gives the heat-kernel conjugate form, Eq. (S10) gives the half-moment identity, and Eq. (S11) gives the QND moment spectrum. The optimality side is independent: the finite-time envelope (S34) follows from the trace inequalities (S27)-(S31), and the high-order ceiling (S37) follows from the near-pure rigidity bound (S39), a change of measure, and the exponential-martingale inequality (S46); none of these steps uses the claimed rate as its input. No parameters are fitted from data and then called predictions. Prior results are used for the exact QND kernel and path-integral law, but their content is re-derived in the SM, and the policy-uniform bounds do not rest on them. No self-citation by the present authors is load-bearing. The higher-dimensional ceiling follows from the determinant submartingale (S60) and spectral comparison (S71)-(S74), not from the qubit result as an assumption. The ideal-loss control model is a stated scope condition, not a hidden circular input. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard diffusive quantum-filtering model, the ideal causal-control class, and standard stochastic calculus. No free parameters are fitted: ℓ and η are physical inputs, and setting channel strength to unity is a time-unit normalization. No new physical entities are introduced; 'rare ambiguous records' are trajectory subsets and the Bhattacharyya rate is a derived information measure.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Diffusive single-channel measurement model Eq. (1) with full backaction D[L] and √η-scaled innovation
    The entire theorem concerns this beam-splitter model of detector loss; different loss mechanisms could change the rate.
  • domain assumption Admissible control class Π_t^{(d)} includes arbitrary predictable fixed-spectrum basis rotations with unrestricted bandwidth; Hamiltonians are absorbed into orientation
    Optimality over all such policies is the claim; physical feedback bandwidth and latency are not modeled.
  • standard math Standard Itô calculus, Girsanov/Novikov change of measure, and large-deviation Laplace principle are valid for the controlled SDEs
    Used throughout SM Secs. I, V, and VIII for the moment bounds and rare-record analysis.
  • domain assumption Exact QND transition kernel in SM Eq. (S9), taken from Refs. [26,27,41] and matching the path-integral solution of Ref. [40]
    The QND attainment, threshold law, and half-moment identity rely on this kernel.
  • standard math Full-rank initial states remain full rank for finite time, enabling the determinant-root Itô calculation
    Proved in SM Sec. VII.B, but used as a regularity premise for the determinant-root submartingale.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24205 in / 16636 out tokens · 183383 ms · 2026-08-02T07:40:50.235872+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Continuous quantum feedback uses time-resolved measurement records to steer monitored systems toward pure states. Yet how the information available to a controller determines the ultimate purification speed remains unresolved. We establish this relation for a qubit under fixed-spectrum Hermitian monitoring with detector loss, obtaining the exact long-time impurity-moment spectrum optimized over causal basis controls at each horizon. Rare records with nearly canceled evidence then make all moments from half order upward decay at the Bhattacharyya information rate between two quantum nondemolition record laws. Aligned quantum nondemolition monitoring preserves that binary distinguishability and attains the limit, while complete detection restores an order-dependent branch. The mechanism extends to higher dimensions, where an attainable rank-two ceiling lies above the full-rank qutrit upper bound over a finite moment interval, establishing retained record distinguishability as a purification resource.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09118 by Danyue Ma, Feng Li, Jiaxin Liu, Zuoxian Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Exact attainment of the limits by plain QND measurement, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

52 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Quantum-mechanical model for continuous position measurements, Phys. Rev. A36, 5543 (1987)

    1987

  2. [2]

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

    1992

  3. [3]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, The quantum-state diffu- sion model applied to open systems, J. Phys. A25, 5677 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum theory of optical feedback via homodyne detection, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 548 (1993)

    1993

  5. [5]

    H. M. Wiseman, Quantum theory of continuous feedback, Phys. Rev. A49, 2133 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    A. C. Doherty and K. Jacobs, Feedback control of quan- tum systems using continuous state estimation, Phys. Rev. A60, 2700 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    H.-S. Goan, G. J. Milburn, H. M. Wiseman, and H. B. Sun, Continuous quantum measurement of two coupled quantum dots using a point contact: A quantum trajec- tory approach, Phys. Rev. B63, 125326 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    A. C. Doherty, K. Jacobs, and G. Jungman, Information, disturbance, and Hamiltonian quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. A63, 062306 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward intro- duction to continuous quantum measurement, Contemp. Phys.47, 279 (2006)

    2006

  10. [10]

    Bouten, R

    L. Bouten, R. van Handel, and M. R. James, An intro- duction to quantum filtering, SIAM J. Control Optim. 46, 2199 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    Barchielli and M

    A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti,Quantum Trajectories and Measurements in Continuous Time: The Diffusive Case, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 782 (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    Zhang, Y.-x

    J. Zhang, Y.-x. Liu, R.-B. Wu, K. Jacobs, and F. Nori, Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applica- tions, Phys. Rep.679, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    van Handel, J

    R. van Handel, J. K. Stockton, and H. Mabuchi, Feed- back control of quantum state reduction, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control50, 768 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Cardona, A

    G. Cardona, A. Sarlette, and P. Rouchon, Exponen- tial stabilization of quantum systems under continuous nondemolition measurements, Automatica112, 108719 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Vijay, C

    R. Vijay, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, S. J. Weber, K. W. Murch, R. Naik, A. N. Korotkov, and I. Siddiqi, Stabi- lizing Rabi oscillations in a superconducting qubit using quantum feedback, Nature (London)490, 77 (2012)

    2012

  17. [17]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconduct- ing quantum bit, Nature (London)502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Hatridgeet al., Quantum back-action of an individual variable-strength measurement, Science339, 178 (2013)

    M. Hatridgeet al., Quantum back-action of an individual variable-strength measurement, Science339, 178 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, E

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, N. Roch, D. Darson, P. Morfin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, Persistent control of a superconducting qubit by stroboscopic measurement feedback, Phys. Rev. X3, 021008 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    S. J. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states, Nature (London)511, 570 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, P

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Six, L. Bretheau, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing quan- tum state diffusion by heterodyne detection of fluores- cence, Phys. Rev. X6, 011002 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Eddins, J

    A. Eddins, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. M. Toyli, E. M. Levenson-Falk, A. Dove, W. P. Livingston, B. A. Lev- itan, L. C. G. Govia, A. A. Clerk, and I. Siddiqi, High- efficiency measurement of an artificial atom embedded in a parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. X9, 011004 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Jacobs, How to project qubits faster using quantum feedback, Phys

    K. Jacobs, How to project qubits faster using quantum feedback, Phys. Rev. A67, 030301(R) (2003)

    2003

  24. [24]

    H. M. Wiseman and J. F. Ralph, Reconsidering rapid qubit purification by feedback, New J. Phys.8, 90 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    H. M. Wiseman and L. Bouten, Optimality of feedback control strategies for qubit purification, Quantum Inf. Process.7, 71 (2008)

    2008

  26. [26]

    H. Li, A. Shabani, M. Sarovar, and K. B. Whaley, Opti- mality of qubit purification protocols in the presence of imperfections, Phys. Rev. A87, 032334 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Jiang, X

    Y. Jiang, X. Wang, L. Martin, and K. B. Whaley, Opti- mality of feedback control for qubit purification under in- efficient measurement, Phys. Rev. A102, 022612 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    C. Teo, J. Combes, and H. M. Wiseman, Global versus local optimality in feedback-controlled qubit purification: New insights from minimizing R´ enyi entropies, New J. Phys.16, 105010 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Combes and K

    J. Combes and K. Jacobs, Rapid state reduction of quan- tum systems using feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010504 (2006)

    2006

  30. [30]

    E. J. Griffith, C. D. Hill, J. F. Ralph, H. M. Wiseman, and K. Jacobs, Rapid-state purification protocols for a Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. B75, 014511 (2007)

    2007

  31. [31]

    Combes, H

    J. Combes, H. M. Wiseman, and K. Jacobs, Rapid mea- surement of quantum systems using feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 160503 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    Shabani and K

    A. Shabani and K. Jacobs, Locally optimal control of quantum systems with strong feedback, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 230403 (2008)

    2008

  33. [33]

    V. P. Belavkin, A. Negretti, and K. Mølmer, Dynamical programming of continuously observed quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A79, 022123 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    Combes, H

    J. Combes, H. M. Wiseman, K. Jacobs, and A. J. O’Connor, Rapid purification of quantum systems by measuring in a feedback-controlled unbiased basis, Phys. Rev. A82, 022307 (2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    Combes, H

    J. Combes, H. M. Wiseman, and A. J. Scott, Replacing quantum feedback with open-loop control and quantum filtering, Phys. Rev. A81, 020301(R) (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Combes and H

    J. Combes and H. M. Wiseman, Quantum feedback for rapid state preparation in the presence of control imper- fections, J. Phys. B44, 154008 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    Combes and H

    J. Combes and H. M. Wiseman, Maximum informa- tion gain in weak or continuous measurements of qudits: Complementarity is not enough, Phys. Rev. X1, 011012 (2011). 6

    2011

  38. [38]

    Ruskov, J

    R. Ruskov, J. Combes, K. Mølmer, and H. M. Wise- man, Qubit purification speed-up for three complemen- tary continuous measurements, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 5291 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    Bompais, N

    M. Bompais, N. H. Amini, J. P. Garrahan, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, The rate of purification of quantum trajectories, arXiv:2601.14023v2 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    M. M. R. Poltronieri Martins and H. S. Lima, Purifica- tion of a monitored qubit: Exact path-integral solution, arXiv:2605.12783 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for technical derivations, equality cases, and finite-time crossovers; it includes Refs. [42–51]

  42. [42]

    Maassen and B

    H. Maassen and B. K¨ ummerer, Purification of quantum trajectories, inDynamics & Stochastics, edited by D. Denteneer, F. den Hollander, and E. Verbitskiy, IMS Lec- ture Notes–Monograph Series Vol. 48 (Institute of Math- ematical Statistics, Beachwood, OH, 2006), pp. 252–261

    2006

  43. [43]

    Bauer and D

    M. Bauer and D. Bernard, Convergence of repeated quan- tum nondemolition measurements and wave-function col- lapse, Phys. Rev. A84, 044103 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    Bauer, T

    M. Bauer, T. Benoist, and D. Bernard, Repeated quan- tum nondemolition measurements: Convergence and continuous time limit, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e14, 639 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Benoist and C

    T. Benoist and C. Pellegrini, Large time behavior and convergence rate for quantum filters under standard non- demolition conditions, Commun. Math. Phys.331, 703 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    van Handel, The stability of quantum Markov filters, Infinite Dimens

    R. van Handel, The stability of quantum Markov filters, Infinite Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top.12, 153 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    Amini, C

    H. Amini, C. Pellegrini, and P. Rouchon, Stability of continuous-time quantum filters with measurement im- perfections, Russ. J. Math. Phys.21, 297 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Gour, Family of concurrence monotones and its ap- plications, Phys

    G. Gour, Family of concurrence monotones and its ap- plications, Phys. Rev. A71, 012318 (2005)

    2005

  49. [49]

    Konrad, F

    T. Konrad, F. de Melo, M. Tiersch, C. Kasztelan, A. Arag˜ ao, and A. Buchleitner, Evolution equation for quantum entanglement, Nat. Phys.4, 99 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    Tiersch, F

    M. Tiersch, F. de Melo, and A. Buchleitner, Entangle- ment evolution in finite dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170502 (2008)

    2008

  51. [51]

    Gour, Evolution and symmetry of multipartite entan- glement, Phys

    G. Gour, Evolution and symmetry of multipartite entan- glement, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 190504 (2010). 7 END MA TTER Model and control class.Throughout the Letter,tde- notes dimensionless time with the channel strength set to unity, anddW 2 t =dt. This convention fixes resource units. In Eq. (1),L t =U tL0U † t is Hermitian, and every Lt has the fixed measur...

    2010

  52. [52]

    Withh(x, S) =g(x, S)/S, Eq

    Qubit half-moment identity The qubit half-moment equality also follows directly. Withh(x, S) =g(x, S)/S, Eq. (S6) gives − A √ S√ S =h(x, S) + 2ηxβ, ∂ x[h+ 2ηxβ] = (1−η)(1−2S) S .(S35) The maximum is at the aligned endpoint, where [h+ 2ηxβ] x=ℓ2 = 4ηℓ2S+ 2ηℓ 2(1−2S) = 2ηℓ 2.(S36) ThusE √St ≥ √S0e−2ηℓ2t. For 0< η <1, pointwise equality away from the maximal...