Detection and Inhibition of Decoherence Through Collisions: A dynamical approach

Dariusz Chru\'sci\'nski; Federico Amato; Gniewomir Sarbicki; Rosario Lo Franco; Sagnik Chakraborty; Srijon Ghosh

REVIEW

Detection and Inhibition of Decoherence Through Collisions: A dynamical approach

Sagnik Chakraborty, Srijon Ghosh, Federico Amato, Gniewomir Sarbicki, Dariusz Chruściński, Rosario Lo Franco

Quantum Physics · Submitted 29 Oct 2026 · 27 references

Pith's verdict: A clean, working collisional detection-plus-Petz-recovery loop for a known two-channel set, with claims in the abstract and Sec. III that run well past what the figures show.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 30, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 5 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.39657 (version 1)

Pith IDQ5RKK536, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationDariusz Chru\'sci\'nski, Federico Amato, Gniewomir Sarbicki, Rosario Lo Franco, Sagnik Chakraborty, Srijon Ghosh. "Detection and Inhibition of Decoherence Through Collisions: A dynamical approach." arXiv:2610.39657 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5RKK536

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The idea here is worth your time: alternate collisional ancillas, one to sniff out which of two candidate channels is acting and one to apply the matching Petz recovery, with the choice of recovery driven by minimum-error discrimination on the ancilla. That specific adaptive loop is not in the papers they cite, and the single-qubit numerics in Fig. 2 back it up — infidelity drops to 10^-9 over thirty noise actions while free evolution plateaus near 10^-1. Credit where due: the construction is explicit, the Stinespring implementation of the recovery collision in Appendix C is spelled out, and the authors are upfront about the probabilistic bump when the wrong recovery gets applied (b77, b78).

What I'd push back on is the framing. "Arbitrary number of qubits with fidelity unity even against any pair of O" (b92) is supported by N=2, 3, 4 for a handful of channel pairs. "General noise" is one fixed set of Kraus matrices in Appendix B, used twice. And "arbitrarily long durations" (b80) rests on thirty steps. These are demos, not theorems, and the abstract reads as if they were theorems. A referee should ask them to either prove the scaling or cut the sentence.

The logical-subspace section is where it actually gets weak, and the stress-test note is right about why. Bob builds the Petz map from the thermal reference state σ that Charlie misreports, and Petz only guarantees Λ∘N(σ)=σ. Nothing in the text argues the same map is close to identity on the rest of C. What's on offer is 100 Haar samples for one cycle (Fig. 4) and Fig. 6, where the average fidelity plateaus around 65% after a few cycles (b121). That is a real number, reported honestly, but it does not support "states from the logical subspace are protected with considerably high fidelity" (b97) in the sense a reader will take it.

Small stuff: the decision rule as printed in Appendix A — "if c1 > c2 or 10(c1-c2) == count-2" — cannot be what the code does; that needs fixing or the actual rule stated. Eq. (2) has an index typo. No code or parameters released, and with six free parameters that matters.

Who should read it: people working on collisional models or on recovery-map-based error mitigation, and anyone interested in channel discrimination feeding back into control. It's a decent protocol paper with an overreaching abstract.

Recommendation: send it out. The core is sound, the flaws are scoping and a genuine gap in the subspace argument, and both are fixable in revision. Don't let the authors keep the abstract as written.

Referee report

Significance

The construction is a genuine contribution at the level of mechanism: the paper shows explicitly how to realize a data-dependent (outcome-selected) Petz recovery map as a sequence of system–ancilla collisions, including a Stinespring dilation of a four-Kraus qubit channel (Eq. (6) and Appendix C) and a constructive channel-completion step (Appendix A). The protocol is non-selective — the measurement is followed by a conditional correction on the same system rather than by post-selection — which is the right design for a protection scheme, and the authors are candid about the probabilistic branch that produces the infidelity bump (b78) and about the 0.65 multi-cycle plateau (b121). What is not yet established is the scale of the claims relative to the evidence, particularly for the code-space protocol, which carries the abstract's headline promise. If the code-space protection can be given an argument rather than a 100-state average, the result would be of real interest to the collisional-model and recovery-map communities.

Major objections (5)

[§II, Eqs. (4)–(5)] Because N′†[I] = I for any trace-preserving map, the Petz map as defined in §II satisfies Λ_Petz[N′[ρ_ini]] = ρ_ini identically, for any channel N′. In the simulation the recovery is by construction the inverse of the very composite map N′ that the model builds from ρ_ini, and the algorithm applies it to the model post-measurement state, so exact recovery follows whenever the discrimination guess is right. The reported infidelity of order 10^{-9} for a fixed, fully known ρ_ini is therefore a consistency check on the code rather than evidence that a state is protected against an unknown channel. The load-bearing physical quantity is the discrimination error probability and its propagation over n cycles, and this is not reported anywhere. Please (i) present p_err as a function of Δt, g, q and n for the configurations of Fig. 2, and show explicitly how it maps onto the observed infidelity; (ii) note that an infidelity of 10^{-9} implies near-orthogonal ancilla states η1_d, η2_d, and quantify their overlap, since a detection problem that is trivial by construction weakens the 'detection' part of the claim; and (iii) explain quantitatively the bump noted in §III (b78) as the signature of the wrong-recovery branch.
[§III, sentence b92 and Fig. 3] The sentence 'the protocol can protect the mixed entangled state of an arbitrary number of qubits with fidelity unity even against any pair of O' is substantially stronger than Fig. 3 supports. The figure covers four specific channel pairs at a single γ = 10.0 for N = 2, 3, 4, with the Werner mixing parameter ζ reported neither in the caption nor in the text, and it is plotted on a linear axis spanning 0.6 to 1.0, which cannot distinguish 1−F = 10^{-2} from unity. 'Any pair of O' is tested with two pairs in panels (b), (d), (f) and two in (a), (c), (e). Please either restate the claim at the level the figure supports, or supply ζ, replot 1−F on a logarithmic axis, and add the cases in which the two candidate channels are close, since that is where the discrimination and hence the whole protocol is stressed.
[§III, 'Protecting a logical subspace', sentences b96–b97, Figs. 4 and 6, abstract and conclusion (b136)] The premise that a single map Λ_Petz(N′, σ), built for the thermal state σ that Bob is told is the input, approximately recovers every pure state of C is asserted rather than derived. The Petz map is exact only on its reference state, and C is not a decoherence-free subspace for the bit-flip noise of Eq. (9): a single flip on |0…0⟩ leaves C. The supporting evidence is a 100-state Haar average over a two-dimensional code space, which cannot bound the worst case over C, plus a multi-cycle run that settles at an average fidelity near 0.65 (b121). At that plateau the encoding is not 'preserved with high fidelity' as stated in the conclusion and in the abstract, and the only comparison offered is free evolution. Please give either an argument — for example a covariance property of N′ under the symmetry leaving C invariant, or an approximate-recovery bound applied to the pair (N′, σ) — or a min-over-C rather than mean-over-C fidelity, and qualify the abstract and conclusion to match the plateau that Fig. 6 actually shows.
[§III, scenario (i), Fig. 4 and Fig. 6] In scenario (i) the two candidate channels are identical (γ1x = γ2x = 1.0), so the discrimination stage is vacuous and the reported single-cycle average infidelity of 10^{-2} for N = 5 (b113) measures only a fixed Petz recovery for σ, with no adaptive content; the prior P over two identical channels carries no information. Likewise, Figs. 4–6 compare only against free evolution, so the reader cannot see what the detection and the outcome-dependent selection actually buy. A baseline that isolates the adaptive contribution is needed: recovery with the map of the wrong candidate, recovery with the prior fixed at q = 0 or q = 1, or recovery with the simple Pin-map completion Λ_cmplt[X] = (Tr X)β that is introduced after Eq. (5) and discarded in the algorithm. Please relabel scenario (i) accordingly and add at least one such baseline.
[Abstract, §III, Appendix B] The phrases 'arbitrary single-qubit and entangled states against general noise processes' (abstract) and 'noise-agnostic' describe a model in which Bob knows the full operator description of both Ω1 and Ω2, the prior P, and the exact composite map N′ including the measurement backaction. Two gaps follow. First, 'general noise' is exercised with a single fixed four-Kraus instance (Eqs. (B9)–(B12)), the same instance throughout, so the 'general' claim rests on one sample. Second, no test perturbs the assumed channel while leaving the true channel unchanged, so the sensitivity of the reported 10^{-9} recovery to model error is unknown; this is precisely the regime in which a noise-agnostic protocol would be used. A mismatch sweep over a fractional error ε in the candidate channel parameters, for both Fig. 2 and Fig. 6, is the single most informative addition the authors could make.

Minor objections (8)

[§III, sentence b74] 'Infidelity, (1−F) becomes 0.1' should presumably read 10^{-1} to match the plotted free-evolution curve, and the justification 'This is obvious' is not an argument; one sentence explaining the steady state reached by the free evolution would suffice. In addition, the noise-strength parameter γ used throughout (γ = 1.0, 3.0, 10.0 for amplitude damping, bit flip, phase damping and general noise) is never defined; please give the channel parametrization explicitly, e.g. Ω = exp(γ ℒ).
[Eq. (2) versus Appendix A] Eq. (2) presents N^{d−1}_{1/2} as a fixed map for the two hypotheses, whereas the algorithm updates both N1 and N2 with the realized Λ_Petz after every cycle, so the discriminating ensembles are dressed by the realized recovery history. Please state this explicitly and confirm that the Helstrom POVM remains minimum-error for that dressed pair. Also, Eq. (2) writes U_{SA1} with a fixed subscript '1' where Eq. (1) has U_{SA_d}.
[Appendix A, algorithm block] The branch conditions 'if c1 > c2 or 10(c1−c2) == count−2' and the companion line are not readable as pseudocode and cannot be reproduced as printed, and the statement 'USA = SWAP' at the end of the loop body is never explained. Since all numerical results depend on this listing, please provide an unambiguous version, ideally alongside the simulation code.
[Figs. 4 and 5] The Fig. 4 caption refers to '100 Haar-uniformly generated 4-qubit code space states', while panel (a) varies N over 3, 4, 5. Please clarify which N the 100-state sample refers to in each panel, and specify the measure used on C, since the state of Eq. (8) has two real parameters α0, α1 and a phase φ.
[Eq. (9) and the accompanying text] The reference state σ = e^{−βH}/Z with H = −Σ_{j>i} σ_z^{(i)}σ_z^{(j)} is chosen without justification, yet the code-space argument turns on it: both code words are eigenstates of H with equal energy, so σ restricted to C is proportional to the identity there. Please state this observation explicitly, since it is the only reason the construction is not obviously circular, and cite a source for the separability threshold of Eq. (7).
[§III, multi-qubit detection interaction] The detection interaction is written with Q± = (Sx ± iSy)/2, with Sx, Sy described only as 'higher-dimensional Pauli operators'. Please give the explicit N-qubit form and confirm that the ancilla states η1_d, η2_d remain distinguishable as N grows; if their overlap increases with N, the discrimination step degrades and the 'arbitrary number of qubits' claim needs qualification.
[Appendix A, map-completion] The main text presents the Pin map Λ_cmplt[X] = (Tr X)β as the 'very simple construction', but the algorithm uses map-complete(α, β), which acts very differently. Please state which construction underlies each figure and whether the Petz guarantee of Eq. (4) survives when the actual post-measurement state differs from the model state used to build Λ_cmplt.
[Presentation] §I contains a missing space ('In this paper,we pro-'); Appendix A contains 'higer-dimensional' and 'aniclla'; §III contains 'the final state after the recovery becomes ρ_recod' with a broken subscript; Ref. [11] lacks author names and a title.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A collision-based feedback loop identifies which of two candidate noise channels acted, applies the matching recovery map, and restores single-qubit and entangled states to near-unit fidelity without prior knowledge of the noise.

The reading

The paper sets up a quantum game in which a noise channel is drawn from a known pair $\{\Omega_1, \Omega_2\}$, and asks whether a system that does not know which one acted can still undo its effect. It argues yes: a sequence of small ancillas colliding with the system alternately measures to tell the two channels apart and then implements the exact reversal of the detected one, the Petz recovery map. The reported fidelities are near-perfect recovery of arbitrary single-qubit states over many noise actions, fidelity near unity for $N$-qubit entangled Werner states for any pair of candidate channels, and protection of a whole logical subspace using one recovery map prepared for a misreported reference state. If these results hold, a quantum memory would need only a short list of candidate noise models, and not a full characterization of its environment, to keep its encoded states alive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Petz recovery map, defined as $\Lambda_{\rm Petz}[\,\bullet\,] = \sqrt{\rho_{\rm ini}} N^{\dagger}[N[\rho_{\rm ini}]^{-1/2} \bullet N[\rho_{\rm ini}]^{-1/2}]\sqrt{\rho_{\rm ini}}$, the exact inverse of a completely positive map $N$ with respect to a reference state $\rho_{\rm ini}$. The paper's move is to make this map implementable without knowing $N$: a measurement on the first ancilla, chosen by minimum-error state discrimination, identifies which candidate channel acted, and the outcome selects a collision unitary whose block structure, the channel's Kraus operators stacked as its first column and completed by orthonormal columns, realizes the Petz map for that candidate when the second ancilla is traced out. This Stinespring-style construction is what turns the abstract recovery formula into a concrete sequence of collisions, and it is the mechanism that makes the protocol noise-agnostic: detection and correction are two faces of a single collisional model.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the decohering action of a partially unknown environment can be detected and cancelled by an adaptive collisional protocol whose ancillas have two alternating jobs. In each cycle, a detection ancilla is coupled weakly to the system, the system is hit again by the noise, and the ancilla is measured with a minimum-error POVM that votes for $\Omega_1$ or $\Omega_2$; Bob then counts the votes across cycles and, on the majority outcome, chooses a recovery ancilla and collision unitary such that tracing out the ancilla implements the Petz recovery map $\Lambda_{\rm Petz}[\,\bullet\,] = \sqrt{\rho_{\rm ini}} N^{\dagger}[N[\rho_{\rm ini}]^{-1/2} \bullet N[\rho_{\rm ini}]^{-1/2}]\sqrt{\rho_{\rm ini}}$ for the suspected channel. Because the map is exact in the ideal case, the state returns to $\rho_{\rm ini}$ after every noise action: the authors report infidelity falling to $10^{-9}$ for single qubits, fidelity unity for mixed entangled states of an arbitrary number of qubits, and, in the logical-subspace variant with weak measurements and short collision times, Haar-averaged one-cycle infidelity of $10^{-2}$ for $N=5$ even though the recovery map was built for a reference state different from the true input. The protocol therefore claims to replace full noise characterization by prior knowledge of a candidate pair plus the ability to engineer weak system-ancilla collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes the true noise is exactly one of the two channels in the known candidate pair $\{\Omega_1, \Omega_2\}$ and that the recovery collision implements the corresponding Petz map exactly, and the logical-subspace variant assumes in addition that one recovery map built for a single reference state protects every state of the code space, a premise the paper supports by Haar-random numerics rather than proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the recovery is exact, a single qubit can be held at infidelity near $10^{-9}$ for arbitrarily many noise actions, whereas unprotected evolution settles at a noise-induced steady state with infidelity around $0.1$.
For generalized Werner states the same feedback holds fidelity near one for $N=2,3,4$ qubits against any pair of channels in the candidate set, so entangled resources survive repeated noise without knowing which channel acted.
A logical qubit encoded in $C = \mathrm{span}\{|0\rangle^{\otimes N}, |1\rangle^{\otimes N}\}$ keeps Haar-average fidelity above 80% during the first cycles and above 65% in the long run, with weaker collisions and shorter $\Delta t$ improving the recovery.
Because the protocol needs only the candidate pair and the prior probabilities, the same machinery covers a known channel with unknown strength, such as bit-flip noise with $\gamma_1^x \neq \gamma_2^x$.
The protocol's demands on the experimenter are shifted rather than removed: complete noise characterization is traded for a candidate list, a prior, and the ability to prepare weak system-ancilla collisions, which are all operations within reach of current collisional-model platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

The binary discrimination step is the natural place to generalize: replacing the two-outcome POVM by an $M$-ary minimum-error measurement would let one recovery map per outcome protect against a whole catalogue of channels, at the price of a longer vote-counting rule.
The fidelity-unity figures assume ideal collisions; a sensitivity study of infidelity versus $\Delta t$, ancilla purity, and unitary control errors would show how much of the $10^{-9}$ and unity claims survives in a real device, especially since the paper itself shows larger $\Delta t$ degrading the logical-subspace recovery.
The logical-subspace result implies that a fixed reference-based recovery map might serve as a code-wide decoder; testing it on adversarial code states chosen to be nearly orthogonal to the reference $\sigma$, rather than Haar-random ones, would check whether that property is guaranteed or merely average.

Original abstract

Quantum systems are intrinsically fragile and highly vulnerable to environmental noise, making the preservation of quantum states one of the fundamental challenges in realizing practical quantum technologies. We propose two noise-agnostic quantum state protection protocols based on a collisional model. The first protocol preserves quantum states of qubits without requiring complete prior knowledge of the underlying noise dynamics, and the second even protects a logical qubit under similar circumstances. These protocols provide robust protection for arbitrary single-qubit and entangled states against general noise processes. Furthermore, their capability to safeguard quantum states with an arbitrary number of qubits enhances the reliability, robustness, and scalability of emerging quantum architectures. These results establish the proposed framework as a promising approach for practical quantum information processing.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-30: 1 request, 4,838 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.06 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Quantum systems are intrinsically fragile and highly vulnerable to environmental noise, making the preservation of quantum states one of the fundamental challenges in realizing practical quantum technologies. We propose two noise-agnostic quantum state protection protocols based on a collisional model. The first protocol preserves quantum states of qubits without requiring complete prior knowledge of the underlying noise dynamics, and the second even protects a logical qubit under similar circumstances. These protocols provide robust protection for arbitrary single-qubit and entangled states against general noise processes. Furthermore, their capability to safeguard quantum states with an arbitrary number of qubits enhances the reliability, robustness, and scalability of emerging quantum architectures. These results establish the proposed framework as a promising approach for practical quantum information processing.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Quantum systems are intrinsically fragile and highly vulnerable to environmental noise, making the preservation of quantum states one of the fundamental challenges in realizing practical quantum technologies.	background 1.00	0.04	0.02	asserted 1.00
s1	We propose two noise-agnostic quantum state protection protocols based on a collisional model.	contribution 0.99	0.89	0.09	asserted 0.92
s2	The first protocol preserves quantum states of qubits without requiring complete prior knowledge of the underlying noise dynamics, and the second even protects a logical qubit under similar circumstances.	contribution 0.84	0.80	0.13	asserted 0.99
s3	These protocols provide robust protection for arbitrary single-qubit and entangled states against general noise processes.	result 0.91	0.79	0.22	asserted 1.00
s4	Furthermore, their capability to safeguard quantum states with an arbitrary number of qubits enhances the reliability, robustness, and scalability of emerging quantum architectures.	interpretation 0.80	0.56	0.12	asserted 0.92
s5	These results establish the proposed framework as a promising approach for practical quantum information processing.	interpretation 1.00	0.56	0.82	asserted 0.72

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.99 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.66.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the proposed protocol. (A) is

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Comparison in terms of infidelity between the actual free

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Average infidelity

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Trends of infidelity with

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.39657 by the authors.

References

Works cited (27)

[1]

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

View on Pith 2002
[2]

Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 120501 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[3]

J. Jing and L.-A. Wu, Overview of quantum memory protec- tion and adiabaticity induction by fast-signal control (2014), arXiv:1412.1783 [quant-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[4]

D. Chru ´sci´nski, A. Kossakowski, and S. Pascazio, Long-time memory in non-markovian evolutions, Phys. Rev. A81, 032101 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[5]

R. L. FRANCO, B. BELLOMO, S. MANISCALCO, and G. COMPAGNO, Dynamics of quantum correlations in two- qubit systems within non-markovian environments, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B27, 1345053 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979213450537

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0217979213450537 2013
[6]

N. Megier, D. Chru ´sci´nski, J. Piilo, and W. T. Strunz, Eternal non-markovianity: from random unitary to markov chain reali- sations, Scientific reports7, 6379 (2017). 6

View on Pith 2017
[7]

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, Overview on the phenomenon of two-qubit entanglement revivals in classical environments, inLectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Appli- cations, edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. d. O. Soares Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 367–391

View on Pith 2017
[8]

L. Aolita, F. de Melo, and L. Davidovich, Open-system dynam- ics of entanglement:a key issues review, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 042001 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[9]

D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[10]

D. A. Lidar and K. Birgitta Whaley, Decoherence-free sub- spaces and subsystems, inIrreversible Quantum Dynamics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003) p. 83–120. [11]Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry(Wiley, 2014)

View on Pith 2003
[12]

L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[13]

R. Lo Franco, A. D’Arrigo, G. Falci, G. Compagno, and E. Pal- adino, Preserving entanglement and nonlocality in solid-state qubits by dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. B90, 054304 (2014)

View on Pith 2014
[14]

X. Yuan, Y . Li, M. Zhang, C. Liu, M. Zhu, X. Qin, N. V . Vi- tanov, Y . Lin, and J. Du, Preserving multilevel quantum co- herence by dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. A106, 022412 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[15]

W. Morong, K. Collins, A. De, E. Stavropoulos, T. You, and C. Monroe, Engineering dynamically decoupled quantum sim- ulations with trapped ions, PRX Quantum4, 010334 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[16]

B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[17]

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

View on Pith 2023
[18]

Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simu- lator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[19]

J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Con- temporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[20]

S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li, Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications, Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[21]

A. N. Korotkov and K. Keane, Decoherence suppression by quantum measurement reversal, Phys. Rev. A81, 040103(R) (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[22]

Y .-S. Kim, J.-C. Lee, O. Kwon, and Y .-H. Kim, Protecting entanglement from decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal, Nature Physics8, 117 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[23]

S.-C. Wang, Z.-W. Yu, W.-J. Zou, and X.-B. Wang, Protecting quantum states from decoherence of finite temperature using weak measurement, Phys. Rev. A89, 022318 (2014)

View on Pith 2014
[24]

that protects a quantum state against environmental de- coherence through an adaptive strategy, even when the ex- act nature of the underlying noise is unknown.Suppose a quantum system is decohering under the action of an arbitrary noise model, about which we do not have complete knowl- edge. Specifically, only limited information regarding the pos- sible...

View on Pith
[25]

F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V . Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from re- peated interactions, Phys. Rep.954, 1 (2022), quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions

View on Pith 2022
[26]

D. Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[27]

J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Quantum state discrimination and its applications, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical48, 083001 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[28]

H. Kwon, R. Mukherjee, and M. S. Kim, Reversing lindblad dynamics via continuous petz recovery map, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 020403 (2022). Appendix A: Recovery Protocol Algorithm Algorithm:Let{q 1, q2}be the two probabilities with which two noise modelsΩ 1,Ω 2 for timeτare sampled. Let us begin by writing the following functions: •(Π 1,Π 2) =discrim(ρ test,...

View on Pith 2022

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

View on Pith 2002

[2] [2]

Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 120501 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[3] [3]

J. Jing and L.-A. Wu, Overview of quantum memory protec- tion and adiabaticity induction by fast-signal control (2014), arXiv:1412.1783 [quant-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

D. Chru ´sci´nski, A. Kossakowski, and S. Pascazio, Long-time memory in non-markovian evolutions, Phys. Rev. A81, 032101 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[5] [5]

R. L. FRANCO, B. BELLOMO, S. MANISCALCO, and G. COMPAGNO, Dynamics of quantum correlations in two- qubit systems within non-markovian environments, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B27, 1345053 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979213450537

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0217979213450537 2013

[6] [6]

N. Megier, D. Chru ´sci´nski, J. Piilo, and W. T. Strunz, Eternal non-markovianity: from random unitary to markov chain reali- sations, Scientific reports7, 6379 (2017). 6

View on Pith 2017

[7] [7]

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, Overview on the phenomenon of two-qubit entanglement revivals in classical environments, inLectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Appli- cations, edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. d. O. Soares Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 367–391

View on Pith 2017

[8] [8]

L. Aolita, F. de Melo, and L. Davidovich, Open-system dynam- ics of entanglement:a key issues review, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 042001 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[9] [9]

D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[10] [10]

D. A. Lidar and K. Birgitta Whaley, Decoherence-free sub- spaces and subsystems, inIrreversible Quantum Dynamics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003) p. 83–120. [11]Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry(Wiley, 2014)

View on Pith 2003

[11] [12]

L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[12] [13]

R. Lo Franco, A. D’Arrigo, G. Falci, G. Compagno, and E. Pal- adino, Preserving entanglement and nonlocality in solid-state qubits by dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. B90, 054304 (2014)

View on Pith 2014

[13] [14]

X. Yuan, Y . Li, M. Zhang, C. Liu, M. Zhu, X. Qin, N. V . Vi- tanov, Y . Lin, and J. Du, Preserving multilevel quantum co- herence by dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. A106, 022412 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[14] [15]

W. Morong, K. Collins, A. De, E. Stavropoulos, T. You, and C. Monroe, Engineering dynamically decoupled quantum sim- ulations with trapped ions, PRX Quantum4, 010334 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[15] [16]

B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[16] [17]

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

View on Pith 2023

[17] [18]

Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simu- lator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[18] [19]

J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Con- temporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[19] [20]

S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li, Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications, Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[20] [21]

A. N. Korotkov and K. Keane, Decoherence suppression by quantum measurement reversal, Phys. Rev. A81, 040103(R) (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[21] [22]

Y .-S. Kim, J.-C. Lee, O. Kwon, and Y .-H. Kim, Protecting entanglement from decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal, Nature Physics8, 117 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[22] [23]

S.-C. Wang, Z.-W. Yu, W.-J. Zou, and X.-B. Wang, Protecting quantum states from decoherence of finite temperature using weak measurement, Phys. Rev. A89, 022318 (2014)

View on Pith 2014

[23] [24]

that protects a quantum state against environmental de- coherence through an adaptive strategy, even when the ex- act nature of the underlying noise is unknown.Suppose a quantum system is decohering under the action of an arbitrary noise model, about which we do not have complete knowl- edge. Specifically, only limited information regarding the pos- sible...

View on Pith

[24] [25]

F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V . Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from re- peated interactions, Phys. Rep.954, 1 (2022), quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions

View on Pith 2022

[25] [26]

D. Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[26] [27]

J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Quantum state discrimination and its applications, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical48, 083001 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[27] [28]

H. Kwon, R. Mukherjee, and M. S. Kim, Reversing lindblad dynamics via continuous petz recovery map, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 020403 (2022). Appendix A: Recovery Protocol Algorithm Algorithm:Let{q 1, q2}be the two probabilities with which two noise modelsΩ 1,Ω 2 for timeτare sampled. Let us begin by writing the following functions: •(Π 1,Π 2) =discrim(ρ test,...

View on Pith 2022