Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Conditions for implementing projective measurements through continuous monitoring

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Continuous monitoring of a single jump operator asymptotically realizes an ideal projective measurement of $L^{\dagger}L$ if and only if the squared jump eigenvalues are pairwise distinct.

desk verdict Solid counting-statistics re-derivation with a genuinely new fixed-m first-passage theorem; the almost-sure convergence claim is stronger than the proof, and the factor-2 diffusive-rate discrepancy needs resolving. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09639 v1 pith:UMQ35UXI submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Therese Karmstrand , Franco Nori , Clemens Gneiting This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581S22 PACS 03.65.Ta42.50.Lc
keywords projectivemeasurementscontinuousmonitoringquantumtrajectoriesjumpsfullcountingstatisticsfirst-passagetimesnon-demolitionstrongsymmetries
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks when a weak, continuous measurement that records discrete detector clicks can stand in for an ideal projective measurement. It answers: for a finite-dimensional system with one diagonalisable jump operator $L$ commuting with the Hamiltonian, individual quantum-jump trajectories converge to a single eigenstate of $L^{\dagger}L$ in the long-time limit exactly when the squared amplitudes $|l_i|^2$ of the jump operator are all distinct. When some squared amplitudes coincide, trajectories converge only to the corresponding degenerate eigenspace, so a full projective measurement is impossible. If correct, this gives experimentalists a transparent criterion for when a monitored record can be trusted to have collapsed the state, with explicit rates and confidence times.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the full counting statistics of a single jump operator: $P_t(m)=\sum_i p_i\,\mathrm{Pois}(\gamma t|l_i|^2;m)$. Because $[H,L]=0$, the conditional state depends only on the total number of clicks $m$, not their times, so the unnormalised trajectory factorises as $S(t)J^m\rho(0)$. The proof then studies the conditional distribution $P_t(i|m)$, writes it as $1/(1+\sum_{j\neq i}\exp[x_{ij}])$ with $x_{ij}=\gamma t(|l_i|^2-|l_j|^2)-m\ln(|l_i|^2/|l_j|^2)-\ln(p_i/p_j)$, and shows via exponential tail-probability bounds that the windows of $m$ where these probabilities cross have vanishing cumulative probability as $t\to\infty$. The first-passage-time distribution, a mixture of Erlang distributions, carries the analogous argument for the fixed-$m$ protocol.

What would settle it

Take a three-level system with $[H,L]=0$ and $|l_2|^2=|l_3|^2$, start in a superposition of $|2\rangle$ and $|3\rangle$, and track single trajectories after long monitoring: the paper predicts the conditional state remains a mixture over $\{|2\rangle,|3\rangle\}$ with probabilities fixed by the initial state, never collapsing to one of them; seeing collapse to a definite $|2\rangle$ or $|3\rangle$ would falsify the non-degeneracy condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the counting statistics of the detected jumps are sufficient to implement an ideal projective measurement. Under the assumptions $[H,L]=0$ and $L$ diagonalisable with eigenstates $|i\rangle$, the probability of $m$ clicks after time $t$ is a mixture of Poisson distributions, $P_t(m)=\sum_i p_i\,\mathrm{Pois}(\gamma t|l_i|^2;m)$, one mode per eigenvalue of $L^{\dagger}L$. The conditional probability that the state is $|i\rangle$ given $m$ clicks has a logistic form, and the paper proves that in the long-time limit the jump count $m$ falls, with probability one, into a window where this conditional probability exceeds $1-\varepsilon$ for a single eigenvalue. Hence each trajectory collapses to a single eigenstate selected with the Born probability $p_i$, and the post-measurement state follows L\"uders' rule; if eigenvalues coincide, the collapse is only to the degenerate eigenspace. The same conclusion holds when conditioning on a fixed jump count $m$, using first-passage-time statistics, and the diffusive (homodyne) limit emerges from shifting $L$ by a large amplitude $\alpha$, which lifts degeneracies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the idealisation that the click record is complete: every jump of the single monitored channel is detected and there are no unmonitored loss channels, so the conditional state can be written as $S(t)J^m\rho(0)$ and the click count is a pure Poisson mixture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a qubit measured via quantum jumps with $L=\sigma_z$, no projective measurement is possible in the jump picture because $L^{\dagger}L=I$ is fully degenerate; adding a local-oscillator shift $\alpha$ makes the eigenvalues $|\alpha\pm1|^2$ distinct and restores convergence, so homodyne detection of $\sigma_z$ implements the projection while photon counting alone does not.
  • If some squared eigenvalues coincide, the non-degeneracy condition fails and individual trajectories converge only to the eigenspace of $L^{\dagger}L$ belonging to that eigenvalue; the conditional probability of any single state inside the degenerate manifold stays strictly below one.
  • The convergence rate for state $|i\rangle$ is set by the two neighbouring eigenvalues of $L^{\dagger}L$, not by the full spectrum, and explicit formulas give the measurement time needed for a chosen error $\varepsilon$ and confidence in standard deviations.
  • Dark states (eigenvalues $|l_i|^2=0$) act as switches: a single click excludes the dark state forever, while a long click-free record projects the state into it with the initial dark-state probability.
  • Conditioning on a fixed jump count $m$ instead of a fixed time $t$ yields the same convergence, with the rate given by an analogous formula in terms of Erlang distributions, so experiments can choose the protocol that reaches a given accuracy faster.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the same reasoning extends to several mutually commuting diagonalisable jump operators each satisfying the non-degeneracy condition, the converged eigenstate would be selected by the joint counting statistics; this is a natural next step the authors flag but do not carry out.
  • Beyond the paper: the Poisson-mode picture predicts a direct experimental test in a qutrit with two near-degenerate $|l_i|^2$ values: the convergence time diverges as the gap shrinks, so monitoring for a fixed duration should show a sharp drop in assignment fidelity as degeneracy is approached.
  • Beyond the paper: real detectors have finite efficiency, which thins the click record; the paper's rate formulas would acquire an efficiency-dependent rescaling of $\gamma t$, and the proof's factorisation $S(t)J^m$ would need modification, so robustness under imperfect detection is a concrete open extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies continuous monitoring described by a single jump operator L on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, with [H,L]=0. It shows that the conditional quantum-jump state after time t and m detected clicks depends only on the total count m, and that the distribution of m is a weighted sum of Poisson modes with means γt|l_i|^2. The authors identify a non-degeneracy condition on the eigenvalues |l_i|^2 of L†L, prove through Chernoff tail bounds that the probability of obtaining a jump count in the "crossing" intervals vanishes as t→∞, and conclude that individual trajectories converge to eigenstates of L†L, thereby asymptotically implementing a projective measurement. They derive convergence rates and finite-time error relations, extend the analysis to degenerate eigenvalues, dark states, and the fixed-m first-passage-time protocol, and discuss the diffusive limit through a displacement of the jump operator. The paper also connects the non-degeneracy condition to the absence of similar symmetry subspaces of the strong symmetry L†L.

Significance. If fully established, the central result is significant and practically useful: it gives a simple, falsifiable criterion for when continuous monitoring can be trusted to implement a projective measurement, together with explicit convergence times and confidence estimates. The derivation is largely self-contained, starting from the measurement operators rather than assuming the Poisson-mixture structure, and the Chernoff-bound analysis is detailed and reproducible. The treatment of degeneracy, dark states, and the fixed-m protocol adds genuine breadth. The connection to strong symmetries and dissipative freezing is insightful. The main caveats are that the proof as written establishes convergence in probability rather than the claimed almost-sure convergence of individual trajectories, and that an unexplained factor-2 discrepancy with the diffusive rate of Ref. [42] remains unresolved in Section IV D.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (32)] The central convergence claim is stated as almost-sure behavior of individual trajectories, but the proof establishes only convergence in probability at each fixed time. Equation (32) controls P_t(m outside the good intervals) for each t via lim_{ε→0} lim_{t→∞} Σ_i P_t(˜m^+_i ≤ m ≤ ˜m^-_{i+1}) = 0. This does not imply P(eventually all sufficiently large times have m in a good interval) = 1; a Borel-Cantelli or law-of-large-numbers argument is needed. Such an argument is available because N_t is a finite mixture of Poisson processes (N_t/t → γ|l_i|^2 almost surely for the realized mode), but it is not present in the manuscript. The abstract, Section III B, and the conclusion should either include this step or be weakened to convergence in probability.
  2. [Section IV D, Eq. (50)] The paper states that its diffusive convergence rate is 2 times larger than the rate found in Ref. [42], but leaves the discrepancy unexplained. If the two rates are defined in the same way, one of the calculations must be wrong; if they are defined differently, the relation between the definitions must be spelled out. Because the paper claims to recover and unify the diffusive non-degeneracy condition and convergence rates, this unresolved factor undermines the diffusive extension. The authors should either derive the diffusive rate directly, compare with Ref. [42] under an explicitly matched convention, or correct the calculation in Appendix C.
  3. [Section IV D and Appendix C] The diffusive limit is obtained by first computing convergence rates for finite α and then taking |α|→∞. A true diffusive unravelling is a different stochastic process, and the interchange of the limits t→∞ and α→∞ is not automatic. The factor-2 discrepancy with Ref. [42] may be a symptom of this non-commutation. Please justify the order of limits, or derive the diffusive rates directly from the diffusive stochastic master equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV A, Eq. (40b)] Equation (40b) appears to have a typographical error: the left-hand side is written as P_t(1|m>0), but the surrounding text and the meaning of the equation indicate it should be P_t(i|m>0) for i≠1, namely that after at least one jump the dark state is inaccessible.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B6)] The expression for t_i(ε) in Eq. (B6) is missing a factor of γ. The derivation from Eq. (B2) yields γ t_i(ε) ≥ max{...}, matching Eq. (33) in the main text; as written, the dimensions in Eq. (B6) are inconsistent.
  3. [Equation (50)] The quantity |K^α_{ij,i}| in Eq. (50) is not defined in the text. From the context and Appendix C it should be |R^α_{i,i±1}|; please introduce it explicitly or replace it with the rate notation used elsewhere.
  4. [Section III B] The proof assumes p_i∈(0,1) for all i, but this restriction is not stated in the non-degeneracy condition in Section III A 1. Please state this assumption where the condition is formulated, or discuss how the argument changes if some p_i vanish.
  5. [Figure 1] In Fig. 1(d), the lower panel is referenced in terms of ˜m^±_i/γt, but the horizontal axis is not labelled. Adding an explicit label would help readers connect the figure to Eqs. (27)-(29).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Poisson-mixture statistics are derived from the assumed measurement operators, and the convergence theorem follows from Chernoff bounds without fitting or importing the target result.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Section III.A starts from the measurement operators in Eq. (1) and the conditional trajectory in Eq. (4), and under [H,L]=0 reduces the unnormalised trajectory to rho_c(t)=S(t)J^m rho(0) (Eq. (13)). Integrating the exclusive probability density yields the Poisson-mixture distribution P_t(m)=sum_i p_i Pois(gamma t |l_i|^2; m) (Eq. (15)), from which the conditional probabilities P_t(i|m) (Eq. (18)) and the non-degeneracy condition (21) are obtained; the condition is a consequence of the statistics, not an input. Section III.B then proves via Chernoff bounds (Eqs. (30)-(32)) that the jump count falls with high probability in intervals where P_t(i|m)>=1-epsilon, which is exactly the convergence condition (22). No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is secretly the input: the asymptotic Born/Lueders behaviour is derived from the same counting statistics that define the monitoring process. The self-citations (Refs. [37,47,48]) introduce the full-counting-statistics and fixed-m vocabulary, but the needed distributions are re-derived in the paper and the first-passage identity is elementary, so these citations are not load-bearing. The proof-technical point that Eq. (32) establishes convergence in probability rather than an explicit almost-sure statement, and the acknowledged ideal-detection assumptions in Section VI, are correctness or scope caveats, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no fitted free parameters and no new entities. The quantities gamma, l_i, p_i, and alpha are inputs of the measurement model, not parameters chosen to make the result come out. The observable L†L and the strong-symmetry interpretation are re-descriptions of the existing jump operator. The main burden is carried by the four domain assumptions above, especially the single-channel, perfect-detection, commuting-diagonalizable model.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Finite-dimensional Hilbert space with d<∞.
    The proof uses finite sums over a discrete basis throughout Section III A and the appendices. Infinite-dimensional continuous spectra are explicitly outside the scope, as noted in Section VI.
  • domain assumption Measurement is described by the single-jump-operator Kraus pair in Eq. (1).
    All subsequent statistics, the Poisson mixture and the first-passage times, are derived from this measurement model. Multiple simultaneously monitored jump operators are not treated.
  • domain assumption The jump operator L is diagonalisable and [H,L]=0.
    Invoked before Eq. (12). It makes the superoperators J and S commute, so the conditional state depends only on the total jump count m, as used in Eq. (13).
  • domain assumption Perfect detection of all jumps and no unmonitored channels.
    Implicit in Eq. (1), where M0 and M1 are the only measurement outcomes. It is load-bearing for Eq. (15), and imperfect detection is deferred to future work in Section VI.
  • standard math Standard probability inequalities and asymptotic analysis.
    Chernoff bounds for Poisson and Erlang tails in Appendices B and D, plus the large-|alpha| expansions in Appendix C, are used to establish the vanishing of crossing-interval probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditions for implementing projective measurements through continuous monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UMQ35UXI

@misc{pith2026260809639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditions for implementing projective measurements through continuous monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UMQ35UXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09639}
}
read the original abstract

Projective measurements are foundational for quantum physics in general and quantum information tasks in particular. However, their direct implementation is often not warranted. Here, we investigate under what conditions continuous monitoring that manifests in quantum jump trajectories realises projective measurements over time. Considering finite-dimensional quantum systems and single, diagonalisable jump operators, we show if and how the detected quantum jump statistics force, and allow inferring, the convergence of individual quantum trajectories towards eigenstates of an observable in the long-time limit. We identify a necessary non-degeneracy condition that is related to the presence of a strong symmetry with non-degenerate symmetry sectors. We derive analytical expressions for the rate of convergence and the time-error relationship in finite-time measurements. Our results provide a transparent framework for understanding the emergence of projective measurements from continuous monitoring, with direct implications for the optimisation of quantum measurement protocols in experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [(a),(b),(c)] Sample probability distributions for a 3-level system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the condition for the minimum mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the first-passage-time distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample quantum trajectories demonstrating the conditional state dynamics during a continuous measurement of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the relationships found in Eqs. ( ± [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    G. S. Agarwal,Quantum Optics, 1st ed. (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    Non-degeneracy condition Let{|i⟩}be a finite set of orthonormal eigenstates of ˆL, ˆL|i⟩=l i|i⟩, and assume [ˆH, ˆL ] = 0. If the initial state is not already in an eigenstate of ˆL, a quantum jump trajectory realised by the measurement (1) may converge to the eigenstate|i⟩iff the initial overlap with this state is non-zero,p i >0, and the eigenvalues of ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    (23) Here|ψ⟩ t denotes the pure conditional state given the measurement countmand measurement timet

    Convergence condition A single trajectory can be said to converge to a single eigenstate if lim t→∞ 1 d−1 d−1∑ i=1 d∑ j=i+1 |Pt(i|m)−P t(j|m)|= 1,(22) as the pairwise difference takes on the values |Pt(i|m)−P t(j|m)|=    1 if|ψ⟩ t =|iorj⟩, 0 if|ψ⟩ t =|k̸=i,j⟩, ∈(0,1) otherwise. (23) Here|ψ⟩ t denotes the pure conditional state given the measurement c...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Convergence rate for diffusive quantum trajectories It is also interesting to see how the offset byαaffects the convergence rate. As for quantum-jump trajectories, we identify the convergence rate as Rα i = min { |li±1 +α| 2−|li +α| 2 +|li +α| 2 ln |li +α| 2 |li±1 +α| 2 } ,(48a) given by making the replacementsli→l i +αin Eq. (34). The effect of addingαis...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Convergence rate and finite-m-error relationship As in the fixed-tcase, we may also inquire what the minimum jump count is to ascribe the state|i⟩to the conditional state with a small but finite errorε. By re- quiring that P m(i|t)≥1−ε, we derive the threshold times γ˜t± i = mln |li|2 |li±1|2 + ˜xε + ln pi pi±1 |li|2−|li±1|2 (53) bounding the interval ˜t+...

    work page

  6. [5]

    (29) for ˜m+ i and ˜m− i+1 to evaluate the inequalities

    Characterising theλ k Beginning with the second task, we recall thatλ k = γt|lk|2 and use Eq. (29) for ˜m+ i and ˜m− i+1 to evaluate the inequalities. By defining the parametersc= |li|2 |lk|2 , and u= |li+1|2 |li|2 , the first inequality can be rewritten as λk <˜m+ i ,(B2a) ln 1 u <c(1−u) + |˜xε|−ln pi pi+1 γt|lk|2 .(B2b) Since|˜xε|is finite, albeit arbit...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Vanishing tail probabilities The results in the previous section show that all modes in Pt(m) satisfy one of the conditions for the bounds in Eq. (B1). We now want to show that these bounds vanish in the long-time limit. To simplify our notation, we write the bounding jump counts ˜m± i [Eq. (29)] as ˜m± i =γtκ i,i±1−βi,i±1 (B7) whereκ ij is defined as in ...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Neumann,Mathematische Grundlagen der Quanten- mechanik, Zweite Auflage ed

    J. Neumann,Mathematische Grundlagen der Quanten- mechanik, Zweite Auflage ed. (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quan- tenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quan- tenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    1935

  2. [9]

    Gleason, Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space, Indiana University Mathematics Journal 6, 885 (1957)

    A. Gleason, Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space, Indiana University Mathematics Journal 6, 885 (1957)

    1957

  3. [10]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK ; New York, 2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and its Appli- cations(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    K. Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and its Appli- cations(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis, An operational approach to quantum probability, Communications in Mathematical Physics17, 239 (1970)

    1970

  6. [13]

    Srinivas and E

    M. Srinivas and E. Davies, Photon Counting Probabili- ties in Quantum Optics, Optica Acta: International Jour- nal of Optics28, 981 (1981)

    1981

  7. [14]

    Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continu- ous observables, Journal of Mathematical Physics25, 79 (1984)

    M. Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continu- ous observables, Journal of Mathematical Physics25, 79 (1984)

    1984

  8. [15]

    Ozawa, Uncertainty relations for noise and distur- bance in generalized quantum measurements, Annals of Physics311, 350 (2004)

    M. Ozawa, Uncertainty relations for noise and distur- bance in generalized quantum measurements, Annals of Physics311, 350 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Weak and strong measurement of a qubit using a switching-based detector, Physical Review A79, 032317 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, The information about the state of a qubit gained by a weakly coupled detector, New Journal of Physics11, 083017 (2009)

    2009

  11. [18]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Information about the state of a charge qubit gained by a weakly coupled quantum point contact, Physica ScriptaT137, 014005 (2009)

    2009

  12. [19]

    Dressel and F

    J. Dressel and F. Nori, Certainty in Heisenberg’s un- certainty principle: Revisiting definitions for estimation errors and disturbance, Physical Review A89, 022106 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Steffen, Y

    L. Steffen, Y. Salathe, M. Oppliger, P. Kurpiers, M. Baur, C. Lang, C. Eichler, G. Puebla-Hellmann, A. Fedorov, and A. Wallraff, Deterministic quantum teleportation with feed-forward in a solid state system, Nature500, 319 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    Steffinlongo and A

    A. Steffinlongo and A. Tavakoli, Projective Measure- ments Are Sufficient for Recycling Nonlocality, Physical Review Letters129, 230402 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Khandelwal and A

    S. Khandelwal and A. Tavakoli, Simulating Quantum In- struments with Projective Measurements and Quantum Postprocessing, Physical Review Letters135, 040202 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Yamamoto and R

    K. Yamamoto and R. Hamazaki, Measurement-Induced 21 Crossover of Quantum Jump Statistics in Postselection- Free Many-Body Dynamics, Physical Review Letters 137, 040402 (2026)

    2026

  17. [24]

    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, Nature490, 77 (2012)

    2012

  18. [25]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconduct- ing quantum bit, Nature502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    S. J. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states, Nature511, 570 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    D. Tan, S. Weber, I. Siddiqi, K. Mølmer, and K. Murch, Prediction and Retrodiction for a Continuously Moni- tored Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 114, 090403 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    Minev, S

    Z. Minev, S. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Guti´ errez-J´ auregui, R. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. Carmichael, and M. Devoret, To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, Nature570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Chen, H.-X

    L. Chen, H.-X. Li, Y. Lu, C. W. Warren, C. J. Kriˇ zan, S. Kosen, M. Rommel, S. Ahmed, A. Osman, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Fadavi Roudsari, B. Lienhard, M. Ca- puto, K. Grigoras, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Govenius, A. F. Kockum, P. Delsing, J. Bylander, and G. Tancredi, Transmon qubit read...

    2023

  23. [30]

    A. H. Myerson, D. J. Szwer, S. C. Webster, D. T. C. Allcock, M. J. Curtis, G. Imreh, J. A. Sherman, D. N. Stacey, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Readout of Trapped-Ion Qubits, Physical Review Letters 100, 200502 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Guerlin, J

    C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, S. Del´ eglise, C. Sayrin, S. Gleyzes, S. Kuhr, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Pro- gressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting, Nature448, 889 (2007)

    2007

  25. [32]

    Filipp, P

    S. Filipp, P. Maurer, P. J. Leek, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. G¨ oppl, L. Steffen, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Two-Qubit State Tomography Using a Joint Dispersive Readout, Physical Review Let- ters102, 200402 (2009)

    2009

  26. [33]

    Krantz, A

    P. Krantz, A. Bengtsson, M. Simoen, S. Gustavsson, V. Shumeiko, W. D. Oliver, C. M. Wilson, P. Delsing, and J. Bylander, Single-shot read-out of a superconduct- ing qubit using a Josephson parametric oscillator, Nature Communications7, 11417 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mon- dal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid High-Fidelity Single-Shot Dispersive Readout of Super- conducting Qubits, Physical Review Applied7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Ideal Quantum Nondemolition Readout of a Flux Qubit without Purcell Limitations, Physical Review Applied12, 064037 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    P. A. Spring, L. Milanovic, Y. Sunada, S. Wang, A. F. van Loo, S. Tamate, and Y. Nakamura, Fast multiplexed superconducting-qubit readout with intrinsic Purcell fil- tering using a multiconductor transmission line, PRX Quantum6, 020345 (2025)

    2025

  31. [38]

    Tian and H

    L. Tian and H. J. Carmichael, Quantum trajectory sim- ulations of two-state behavior in an optical cavity con- taining one atom, Physical Review A46, R6801 (1992)

    1992

  32. [39]

    H. Carmichael,An open systems approach to quantum op- tics: lectures presented at the Universit´ e Libre de Brux- elles, October 28 to November 4, 1991, Lecture notes in physics New series M, monographs No. 18 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1993)

    1991

  33. [40]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum optics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, 1997)

    1997

  34. [41]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations, 1st ed., Theoretical and Mathematical Physics Ser (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Menczel, C

    P. Menczel, C. Flindt, F. Brange, F. Nori, and C. Gneit- ing, Full Counting Statistics and First-Passage Times in Quantum Markovian Processes: Ensemble Relations, Metastability, and Fluctuation Theorems, PRX Quan- tum7, 010304 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements, Physical Review A47, 642 (1993)

    1993

  37. [45]

    Bauer, D

    M. Bauer, D. Bernard, and T. Jin, Monitoring continu- ous spectrum observables: the strong measurement limit, SciPost Physics5, 037 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Bauer and D

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

    2011

  39. [47]

    Bauer, T

    M. Bauer, T. Benoist, and D. Bernard, Repeated Quan- tum Non-Demolition Measurements: Convergence and Continuous Time Limit, Annales Henri Poincar´ e14, 639 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Benoist and C

    T. Benoist and C. Pellegrini, Large Time Behavior and Convergence Rate for Quantum Filters Under Standard Non Demolition Conditions, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics331, 703 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    K¨ ummerer and H

    B. K¨ ummerer and H. Maassen, A pathwise ergodic the- orem for quantum trajectories, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37, 11889 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, B

    C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, B. Buˇ ca, J. Tindall, A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, D. Jaksch, and D. Porras, Symmetries and con- servation laws in quantum trajectories: Dissipative freez- ing, Physical Review A100, 042113 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Tindall, D

    J. Tindall, D. Jaksch, and C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, On the generality of symmetry breaking and dissipative freez- ing in quantum trajectories, SciPost Physics Core6, 004 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a hand- book of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochas- tic methods with applications to quantum optics, 3rd ed., Springer series in synergetics (Springer, Berlin Heidel- berg, 2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Gneiting, A

    C. Gneiting, A. V. Rozhkov, and F. Nori, Jump-time unraveling of Markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A104, 062212 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Gneiting, A

    C. Gneiting, A. Koottandavida, A. V. Rozhkov, and F. Nori, Unraveling the topology of dissipative quantum systems, Physical Review Research4, 023036 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Mitzenmacher and E

    M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal,Probability and com- puting: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis 22 (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2005) p. 97

    2005

  48. [56]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations, Physical Review A89, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Mitzenmacher and E

    M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal,Probability and com- puting: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analy- sis(Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2005) Chap. 2.2

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.