Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Quantum-classical crossover in noisy monitored oscillators

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repeated energy-threshold measurements give a noisy oscillator an exactly solvable escape-time distribution — Laguerre exponentials — that deviates from classical at low thresholds and merges back as the threshold rises.

desk verdict Solid new analytic FPTD result for monitored oscillators, but the passivity-preservation lemma in Appendix C is algebraically wrong and needs fixing before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08267 v1 pith:3UKX3VDW submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Joseph M. Ryan , Simon Gorbaty , Stephen W. Teitsworth , Crystal Noel This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz05.40.-a
keywords quantumfirst-passagetimeenergy-barriermeasurementmonitoredharmonicoscillatorLaguerrepolynomialquantum-classicalcrossoverWignernegativityprojectivetrapped-ion
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

This paper asks whether the timing of a random event — the first time a noisy oscillator crosses an energy threshold — carries quantum information. For a harmonic oscillator driven by classical white noise and probed by repeated projective energy-barrier measurements, it derives an exact first-passage-time distribution in the continuous-measurement limit: a finite sum of exponentials whose rates are the roots of a Laguerre polynomial. The central finding is that at low thresholds these quantum timing statistics differ measurably from the classical prediction, while at high thresholds the difference gradually vanishes. This matters because the timing statistics become effectively classical even while the conditioned quantum states stay nonclassical, making a monitored oscillator a clean testbed for the quantum-classical crossover and for measurement-induced generation of nonclassical states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the truncated generator $M^{(N_B)}=P_S M P_S$, the master-equation superoperator restricted to the surviving Fock subspace; in the continuous-measurement limit it acts on occupations as the birth-death chain $\partial_t P_n=(n+1)P_{n+1}-(2n+1)P_n+nP_{n-1}$ with an absorbing boundary $P_{N_B}=0$. Because this generator's eigenvalue equation obeys the same three-term recursion as the Laguerre polynomials, the Laplace transform of the escape probability is the rational function $L_{N_0}(-s)/L_{N_B}(-s)$, and the Heaviside expansion theorem converts it into the finite exponential sum that is the paper's main formula. The long-time surviving state is the kernel of the associated Jacobi matrix, with Fock occupations $P_n^{\mathrm{qs}}\propto L_n(\lambda_1^{N_B})$, a superexponential nonthermal envelope that serves as the reference state for the nonclassicality analysis. On the classical side, the same role is played by the stochastically averaged Fokker-Planck operator $dE=dt+\sqrt{2E}\,dW$, whose eigenfunctions are Bessel functions with eigenvalues $(j_0^{(i)})^2/4E_B$. In the trajectory picture, the machinery is the random displacement operator $D(\alpha)$ with $\alpha\sim\mathcal{N}_\mathbb{C}(0,\theta)$ interleaved with the threshold projection, and the projective truncation of Fock support is what produces Wigner negativity in individual surviving trajectories.

What would settle it

A direct table-top test: initialize a trapped-ion or cavity oscillator in the ground state, apply the energy-barrier measurement at $N_B=1$ and $N_B=2$ quanta, and record escape times for a sweep of measurement intervals $\theta$. The quantum prediction is parameter-free: at $N_B=1$ the distribution is geometric with $p=\theta/(\theta+1)$ and hence a pure exponential of rate 1 in the continuous limit; at $N_B=2$ with $N_0=0$ it is $(1/\sqrt{2})(e^{-(2-\sqrt{2})t}-e^{-(2+\sqrt{2})t})$. If the observed shape, the two rate constants, or the $\theta$-scaling disagree with these forms, Eq. (11) is wrong; agreement while the classical Bessel-mode prediction at the same barrier visibly deviates would confirm the low-threshold quantum-classical split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the Langevin equation $\ddot{x}+\omega_0^2 x=\xi(t)$ and its quantum counterpart, the infinite-temperature amplitude-reservoir master equation, the paper analyzes a stroboscopic protocol: evolve for an interval $\theta$, then projectively measure whether the oscillator occupies a Fock level below the threshold $N_B$, repeating until the first absorbing outcome. Its central claim is that in the limit of infinitely frequent measurements the first-passage-time density for an initial Fock state $|N_0\rangle$ is exactly $P_{\mathrm{FPT}}^0(t|N_0,N_B)=\sum_i [L_{N_0}(\lambda_i)/L_{N_B-1}^{(1)}(\lambda_i)] e^{-\lambda_i t}$, where $\lambda_i$ are the roots of the Laguerre polynomial $L_{N_B}$. Equivalently, the escape statistics are exactly the spectral content of a truncated birth-death chain with an absorbing boundary at $n=N_B$. The classical counterpart, obtained from the stochastically averaged energy diffusion $dE=dt+\sqrt{2E}\,dW$, is an infinite Bessel-mode expansion with eigenvalues $(j_0^{(i)})^2/4E_B$, and the Mehler–Heine formula connects the two, so the quantum-classical crossover is governed by the Laguerre-to-Bessel correspondence. The paper further establishes that the ensemble density-matrix description and the trajectory-resolved Monte Carlo description give indistinguishable timing statistics, that the quantum and classical mean first-passage times coincide ($N_B-N_0$), and that all quantum-classical deviation lives in the shape of the distribution, concentrated at short and intermediate times when the threshold is within a few quanta of the initial state.

Load-bearing premise

The classical first-passage-time distribution used for the comparison is not computed from the full two-dimensional Langevin equation but from the stochastically averaged one-dimensional energy diffusion $dE=dt+\sqrt{2E}\,dW$, which assumes the oscillator's energy is nearly constant over one oscillation period; if that averaging fails in the low-threshold regime, the quantitative KL-divergence values and the precise location of the crossover would shift, even though the quantum formula itself would remain exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $N_B=1$ the continuous-limit first-passage density is a pure exponential with rate 1, and for finite $\theta$ it is exactly geometric with $p=\theta/(\theta+1)$, because every survival measurement projects the oscillator back into the ground state — a signature no classical diffusion model reproduces at such a low barrier.
  • The mean first-passage time is identical in the quantum and classical treatments ($N_B-N_0$ in the paper's dimensionless units), so the quantum-classical difference lives entirely in the distribution's shape and higher moments, and it is largest when the threshold is only a few quanta above the initial state.
  • Ensemble density-matrix evolution and trajectory-resolved Monte Carlo wavefunction simulation yield indistinguishable first-passage-time statistics (verified numerically over a range of $N_0$, $N_B$, and $\theta$), so the trajectory picture is a faithful microscope on the same process.
  • Survival conditioning alone creates nonclassical states despite purely classical driving noise: sub-Poissonian number statistics, nonpositivity of the $P$-representation, and Wigner negativity along individual trajectories that persists in the quasi-stationary regime; an observer retaining only survival outcomes sees a nonnegative-Wigner ensemble while an observer with the full noise record sees n
  • The protocol therefore doubles as a heralded preparation scheme for non-Gaussian continuous-variable resource states, realizable in trapped-ion oscillators and by photonic state truncation, and it demonstrates that operational observables can appear classical before the underlying conditioned state dynamics do.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Eq. (11) has no fitting parameters, the escape-time spectrum at tiny thresholds is a set of universal numbers — for $N_B=2$ and $N_0=0$, rates $2\mp\sqrt{2}$ with weights $\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$ — so a coarse histogram of escape times from a ground-state oscillator tests the entire derivation quantitatively, not merely its qualitative crossover.
  • The only approximate leg of the comparison is classical: a numerical first-passage-time distribution from the exact two-dimensional Langevin equation (1) would replace the stochastic-averaging result and could shift the KL-divergence crossover line, while leaving the quantum formula untouched; the exact classical FPTD is therefore the natural next computation.
  • The mechanism looks like a template rather than a one-off calculation: replacing the Fock-space threshold projector with a different measurement would replace the Laguerre recursion with the corresponding orthogonal-polynomial recursion, so 'escape-time statistics equal the spectrum of a truncated birth-death chain' should hold for other monitored bosonic modes and boundary conditions.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Ryan et al. study the first-passage-time statistics of a harmonic oscillator driven by classical Gaussian white noise and subject to repeated projective measurements of an energy threshold E_B = N_B + 1/2. The paper defines a stroboscopic protocol, shows numerically that finite-interval results converge as θ → 0, and derives in that limit an exact first-passage-time distribution for initial Fock states: P_0^FPT(t|N0,NB) = Σ_i [L_{N0}(λ_i)/L_{NB-1}^{(1)}(λ_i)] e^{-λ_i t}, where λ_i are the roots of L_{NB}(x). This quantum result is compared with the first-passage distribution of a classically stochastically averaged energy diffusion, and the difference is quantified with a Kullback-Leibler divergence, yielding the claimed quantum-classical crossover. The paper further analyzes conditioned surviving states, including sub-Poissonian statistics, quasi-stationary Wigner functions, and trajectory-resolved Wigner negativity, and verifies that density-matrix and Monte Carlo trajectory descriptions agree.

Significance. If the central result stands, this is a rare exactly solvable quantum first-passage problem with a closed-form distribution, connecting monitored quantum dynamics to the spectral theory of a truncated birth-death chain and to the classical Bessel limit via the Laguerre-to-Bessel correspondence. The paper provides concrete, experimentally testable predictions for trapped-ion platforms and identifies monitored first passage as a route to heralded non-Gaussian resource states. Strengths include the absence of fitted parameters in the central formula, the analytic treatment of the θ → 0 limit, the detailed appendices, and the cross-validation of master-equation and Monte Carlo results in Fig. 12. The main caveats are the approximate classical benchmark used for the crossover claim and a proof in Appendix C that needs correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B and Fig. 4] The classical benchmark P_C^FPT is obtained from the stochastically averaged energy diffusion of Eq. (B1), not from the original two-dimensional Langevin equation (1). The text states this approximation, but no quantitative validation is provided for the parameter regimes used in Figs. 4 and 6. Because the KL divergences in Fig. 4b and the quantitative location of the quantum-classical crossover are computed relative to this approximate benchmark, the authors should validate the approximation against direct numerical simulation of Eq. (1), or otherwise bound its error. This does not affect the exact quantum formula (11), but it is load-bearing for the quantitative crossover claim.
  2. [Appendix C and Sec. III B 2] The derivation of the passivity-preservation lemma is not written correctly. The gap variable D_n = P_n - P_{n+1} satisfies ∂_t D_n = n D_{n-1} - 2(n+1)D_n + (n+2)D_{n+1}; the expression in Appendix C omits the diagonal term -2(n+1)D_n. The argument only needs to evaluate this at the boundary D_n = 0, where the omitted term vanishes, so the conclusion may be salvageable (for example, by noting that the gap generator is Metzler and hence preserves the nonnegative cone), but the printed identity and the inequality following it are not a valid proof as they stand. This matters because the passivity lemma underpins the claim that the ensemble Wigner function remains nonnegative for all passive initial states and the statement that ⟨N(t)⟩_ρ = 0 in Fig. 8.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] The residue expansion should state explicitly that L_{NB-1}^{(1)} is the associated Laguerre polynomial and that the calculation uses L_{NB}'(λ_i) = -L_{NB-1}^{(1)}(λ_i); as written, the sign convention is easy to misread.
  2. [Sec. III and Appendix E] The numerical master-equation calculations should state the Fock-space truncation used, since the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space must be truncated to evaluate e^{θM} and the quasi-stationary states.
  3. [Appendix B] The validity condition for stochastic averaging, described in the text as 'the heating per oscillation is small', should be quantified in terms of ω0 and D; currently no explicit parameter relation is given, which makes it hard to assess the accuracy of the classical benchmark in the plotted regimes.
  4. [Fig. 4b] The text notes that points with N_B - N_0 = 1 are omitted because of a logarithmic divergence in the KL integrand; a brief comment on how sensitive the displayed KL values are to the short-time behavior would help the reader interpret the crossover quantitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (11) is a derived spectral result, not a fitted or self-cited input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the continuous-measurement FPTD (11), is obtained in Appendix A by taking the theta->0 limit of the stroboscopic protocol, restricting the Lindblad generator (2) to the surviving subspace to obtain the finite birth-death generator (10), and solving the resulting recurrence by Laplace transform. The Laguerre roots and coefficients are fixed by the generator and the absorbing boundary, not by matching the target distribution. The classical comparison distribution (B4) is derived from the independently stated stochastic-averaged Fokker-Planck equation (B2), and the KL divergence (12) is a diagnostic, not a fit target. No parameter is fitted to the FPTDs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The self-citation [31] is used only as experimental motivation and as a testability statement ('predictions can be tested directly'); it does not enter the derivation. The Appendix C passivity-preservation claim is mathematically suspect (the displayed gap equation drops the diagonal term), but that is a correctness issue, not circularity: if the lemma were false, Eq. (11) and the quantum FPTDs would stand or fall on their own derivation. Accordingly, no circular steps are identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivations rest on standard open-quantum-system modeling and classical stochastic calculus; no free parameters are fitted to data. The protocol parameters NB, N0, and theta are physical controls chosen by the user, not inferred from measurements. The only 'chosen' constant is the noise normalization D=1, a unit choice. The most fragile axiom is the stochastic-averaging reduction of the classical FPT problem (Appendix B), which is stated and defended by the authors but is an approximation. No entities are invented; all quantities (quasi-stationary states, negativity, non-Gaussianity) are derived from standard quantum mechanics.

free parameters (4)
  • noise strength D = 1 (dimensionless)
    Set to unity by rescaling time so the heating rate is 1; a unit choice, not a fit to data.
  • threshold parameter NB = integer, varied (1 to 500 in figures)
    Sets the energy barrier EB = NB + 1/2; a physical protocol control, not inferred from data.
  • initial Fock level N0 = integer, varied (0, 1, 3 in figures)
    Initial occupation; a physical protocol control, not inferred from data.
  • measurement interval theta = varied; theta -> 0 limit
    Stroboscopic interval; the analytic results are for theta -> 0, with finite-theta convergence checked numerically.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The infinite-temperature Lindblad master equation (2) is the quantum analogue of the classical Langevin equation (1)
    Section III, Eq. (2). Standard for trapped-ion heating at weak coupling; validity requires heating per oscillation to be small (stated before Eq. (2)).
  • domain assumption Stochastic averaging reduces the 2D oscillator FPT problem to the 1D energy diffusion (B1)
    Appendix B, Eq. (B1). Assumes energy is constant over one oscillation period; the paper states this is analogous to the weak-coupling assumption. This is the most fragile premise.
  • domain assumption The theta -> 0 limit of stroboscopic projective measurements is a well-defined continuous-measurement limit
    Section III A, Eqs. (7)-(9). Requires keeping only first order in theta; numerical convergence shown in Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption Projective energy-barrier measurement (P_S, P_A) is the operational definition of quantum first passage
    Section II. Implemented experimentally in Ref. [31] via quantum signal processing.
  • standard math Laguerre polynomial spectral theory, Laplace transforms, Heaviside expansion, Bessel eigenfunctions, Mehler-Heine asymptotics
    Appendices A and B; used to invert Laplace transforms and connect quantum/classical eigenvalue problems.
  • standard math Passive states have nonnegative Wigner functions (Ref. [47]); Hudson's theorem for pure-state negativity
    Section III B 2 and Appendix C; used to argue ensemble Wigner functions are nonnegative for passive initial states while trajectory pure states are Wigner-negative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-classical crossover in noisy monitored oscillators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UKX3VDW

@misc{pith2026260808267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-classical crossover in noisy monitored oscillators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UKX3VDW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08267}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum first-passage problem involves stochastic trajectories conditioned on measurement outcomes. The timing statistics of such trajectories remain largely unexplored in open quantum systems. Here, we investigate the first-passage time to an energy threshold for a ubiquitous model: a harmonic oscillator driven by classical additive noise. We find that projective measurements and energy quantization lead to substantial differences between the quantum and classical first-passage-time distributions at low thresholds, while these differences gradually diminish as the threshold energy increases. We treat the problem using both ensemble-averaged conditioned density-matrix dynamics and trajectory-resolved stochastic pure-state dynamics. The two descriptions yield indistinguishable timing statistics. Quantization effects appear in the ensemble-level phase-space distributions of the surviving states and vanish at larger threshold energies. Individual trajectories reveal emergent quantum signatures from the repeated measurements, such as persistent Wigner negativity. Our results provide a framework for using first-passage processes to create measurement-induced nonclassical resource states and to study the quantum-classical crossover of monitored systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of a single trajectory of the first-passage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) First-passage-time distributions and (b) cumula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the repeated measurement protocol in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Continuous-time quantum (solid lines) and clas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The radial profiles of the rotationally symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Time evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time evolution of the Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The trajectory-resolved first-passage process proceeds as follows. Each trial starts with the system initialized in the state |ψ0⟩. The state then evolves under the influence of noise ξ(t) which causes an initial wavefunction |ψ(t)⟩ to evolve stochastically in the rota…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. FPTD in the continuous measurement case ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Quasi-stationary state oscillator occupation probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Interestingly, for large NB, δ[ρNB (t → ∞)] approaches a limiting value indicating that the shape differences causing the non-Gaussianity saturates. This corresponds to the classical non-Gaussianity. Furthermore, the non￾Gaussianity is initially zero, and remains ther…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison between the FPTDs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Iadecola, S

    T. Iadecola, S. Ganeshan, J. H. Pixley, and J. H. Wilson, Measurement and feedback driven entanglement transi- tion in the probabilistic control of chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060403 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    We note that this smallest root scales inversely with the threshold energyE B and is approximatelyλ NB 1 ≈2.404 2/(4EB)∝1/E B (see Ap- pendix B for details)

    Long-time quasi-stationary surviving states At long times, the infinitely frequent measurement limit quantum first-passage density decays exponentially as∼e −λ NB 1 t whereλ NB 1 is the smallest root of the La- guerre polynomialL NB . We note that this smallest root scales inversely with the threshold energyE B and is approximatelyλ NB 1 ≈2.404 2/(4EB)∝1/...

    work page

  3. [2]

    MandelQ-parameter As an experimentally accessible witness of this non- classicality, we consider the MandelQ-parameter [44] Q= ⟨ˆn2⟩ − ⟨ˆn⟩2 ⟨ˆn⟩ −1,(15) where ˆn= ˆa†ˆais the usual number operator. Nega- tive values ofQcorrespond to sub-Poissonian phonon 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 t 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4Q a) 0.01 0.1 1.0 NB 2 3 4 5 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 2 4 6 8 10 12 ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Wigner function A complementary characterization of the measurement-conditioned surviving ensemble is provided by its Wigner function. For the dynamics considered here, the measurement-conditioned surviving states are mixed states that are diagonal in the Fock basis (provided that their initial statesρ i were diagonal too), so their Wigner functions are r...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Wigner function negativity Beyond reproducing the ensemble-level first-passage- time statistics, a particularly useful application of the trajectory description is to follow the Wigner func- tion along individual realizations, revealing nonclassical phase-space structure that is not obtainable by ensemble averaging. For a pure state|ϕ⟩, the Wigner functio...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Redner,A Guide to First-Passage Processes(Cam- bridge University Press, 2001)

    S. Redner,A Guide to First-Passage Processes(Cam- bridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  7. [6]

    H¨ anggi, P

    P. H¨ anggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after kramers, Rev. Mod. Phys.62, 251 (1990)

    1990

  8. [7]

    Bomze, R

    Y. Bomze, R. Hey, H. T. Grahn, and S. W. Teitsworth, Noise-induced current switching in semiconductor su- perlattices: Observation of nonexponential kinetics in a high-dimensional system, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 026801 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    S. W. Teitsworth, M. E. Olson, and Y. Bomze, Scaling properties of noise-induced switching in a bistable tunnel diode circuit, Eur. Phys. J. B92, 74 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Schr¨ odinger, Zur theorie der fall-und steigversuche an teilchen mit brownscher bewegung, Physikalische Zeitschrift16, 289 (1915)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Zur theorie der fall-und steigversuche an teilchen mit brownscher bewegung, Physikalische Zeitschrift16, 289 (1915)

    1915

  3. [10]

    DeVries and F

    T. DeVries and F. Primeau, Dynamically and observa- tionally constrained estimates of water-mass distribu- tions and ages in the global ocean, Journal of Physical Oceanography41, 2381 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    S. Kim, H. Kim, H. Dijkstra, and S. An, Slow and soft passage through tipping point of the atlantic meridional overturning circulation in a changing climate, npj Cli- mate and Atmospheric Science5, 10.1038/s41612-022- 00236-8 (2022)

    2022 doi

  5. [12]

    M. Cini, G. Zappa, F. Ragone, and S. Corti, Simulating amoc tipping driven by internal climate variability with a rare event algorithm, npj Climate and Atmospheric Sci- ence7, 31 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Yamasaki, H

    T. Yamasaki, H. Kobayashi, and H. Imai, Analysis of ab- sorbing times of quantum walks, Phys. Rev. A68, 012302 (2003)

    2003

  7. [14]

    Kempe, Discrete quantum walks hit exponentially faster, Probability Theory and Related Fields133, 215 (2005)

    J. Kempe, Discrete quantum walks hit exponentially faster, Probability Theory and Related Fields133, 215 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    Friedman, D

    H. Friedman, D. A. Kessler, and E. Barkai, Quantum walks: The first detected passage time problem, Phys. Rev. E95, 032141 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    Thiel, E

    F. Thiel, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler, First detected arrival of a quantum walker on an infinite line, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040502 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Yin and E

    R. Yin and E. Barkai, Restart expedites quantum walk hitting times, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 050802 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    M. J. Kewming, A. Kiely, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, First passage times for continuous quantum measurement currents, Phys. Rev. A109, L050202 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Misra and E

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, The Zeno’s Paradox in Quantum Theory, J. Math. Phys.18, 756 (1977)

    1977

  13. [20]

    Das and D

    S. Das and D. D¨ urr, Arrival time distributions of spin-1/2 particles, Scientific Reports9, 2242 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum walks: a comprehen- sive review, Quantum Information Processing11, 1015 (2012)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Shenvi, J

    N. Shenvi, J. Kempe, and K. B. Whaley, Quantum random-walk search algorithm, Phys. Rev. A67, 052307 (2003)

    2003

  16. [23]

    Mentesoglu, R

    K. Mentesoglu, R. Trivedi, and S. Mouradian, Sequen- tial measurements as a resource for quantum metrology 11 (2026), arXiv:2605.00287 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    H. M. Wiseman, Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 205 (1996)

    1996

  18. [25]

    Pi˜ nol, T

    E. Pi˜ nol, T. K. Mavrogordatos, D. Keys, R. Veyron, P. Sierant, M. Angel Garc ´ ıa-March, S. Grandi, M. W. Mitchell, J. Wehr, and M. Lewenstein, Telling different unravelings apart via nonlinear quantum-trajectory av- erages, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032057 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    A. J. Piper, Q. Liu, A. Camacho Garibay, D. Kiesewetter, V. Leshchenko, J. E. Bækhøj, P. Agostini, K. J. Schafer, L. F. DiMauro, and Y. Tang, Attosecond clocking and control of strong field quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 073201 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    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

  21. [28]

    A. A. Allocca, D. K. Verma, S. Ganeshan, and J. H. Wil- son, Universality of stochastic control of quantum chaos with measurement and feedback, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 210401 (2026)

    2026

  22. [29]

    A. P. Antonov, Y. Zheng, B. Liebchen, and H. L¨ owen, Engineering active motion in quantum matter, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033008 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Zabalo, M

    A. Zabalo, M. J. Gullans, J. H. Wilson, R. Vasseur, A. W. W. Ludwig, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and J. H. Pixley, Operator scaling dimensions and multifrac- tality at measurement-induced transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050602 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Deter- ministic equations for feedback control of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 050401 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Determinis- tic equations for feedback control of open quantum sys- tems. ii. properties of the memory function, Phys. Rev. A114, 012215 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    A. J. B. Rosal, G. Fiusa, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, De- terministic equations for feedback control of open quan- tum systems. iii. full counting statistics for jump-based feedback, Phys. Rev. A114, 012216 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    J. M. Ryan, S. Gorbaty, T. J. Kessler, M. G. Peaks, S. W. Teitsworth, and C. Noel, Experimental measurement of quantum first-passage time distributions, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, L022025 (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Ion- trap measurements of electric-field noise near surfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1419 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, C. A. Sack- ett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Decoherence and decay of motional quantum states of a trapped atom coupled to engineered reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A62, 053807 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Fl¨ uhmann and J

    C. Fl¨ uhmann and J. P. Home, Direct characteristic- function tomography of quantum states of the trapped- ion motional oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 043602 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris,Mathe- matical Methods for Physicists, 7th ed. (Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On Information and Suf- ficiency, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics22, 79 (1951)

    1951

  35. [43]

    Raghu and I

    A. Raghu and I. Neri, Thermodynamic bounds and sym- metries in first-passage problems of fluctuating currents, New Journal of Physics27, 124602 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd ed., Springer series in synergetics (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Vogel, Nonclassical states: An observable criterion, Phys

    W. Vogel, Nonclassical states: An observable criterion, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1849 (2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    Richter and W

    T. Richter and W. Vogel, Nonclassicality of quantum states: A hierarchy of observable conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 283601 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    J. Park, Y. Lu, J. Lee, Y. Shen, K. Zhang, S. Zhang, M. S. Zubairy, K. Kim, and H. Nha, Revealing nonclassicality beyond gaussian states via a single marginal distribution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 891 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Quantum correlations and pho- ton statistics, inOptical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. 573–658

    1995

  41. [49]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. Milburn,Quantum Optics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Van Herstraeten and N

    Z. Van Herstraeten and N. J. Cerf, Quantum wigner en- tropy, Phys. Rev. A104, 042211 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, Quantum measurement and the transformation from quantum to classical prob- abilities, Phys. Rev. A54, 1146 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    D. F. V. James, Theory of heating of the quantum ground state of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 317 (1998)

    1998

  46. [54]

    A. J. Rasmusson, I. Jung, F. G. Schroer, A. Kypriani- dis, and P. Richerme, Measurement-induced heating of a trapped ion, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics57, 225002 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Mølmer, Y

    K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte carlo wave-function method in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  48. [56]

    Yoshikawa, K

    J.-i. Yoshikawa, K. Makino, S. Kurata, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Creation, storage, and on-demand release of optical quantum states with a negative wigner func- tion, Phys. Rev. X3, 041028 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    R. L. Hudson, When is the wigner quasi-probability den- sity non-negative?, Reports on Mathematical Physics6, 249 (1974)

    1974

  50. [58]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Negativity of the wigner function as an indicator of non-classicality, Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, 396 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    J. K. Eastman, J. J. Hope, and A. R. R. Carvalho, Tun- ing quantum measurements to control chaos, Scientific Reports7, 44684 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive wigner functions ren- der classical simulation of quantum computation efficient, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 230503 (2012). 12

    2012

  53. [61]

    Veitch, C

    V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, and J. Emerson, Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation, New Journal of Physics14, 113011 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    M. S. Winnel, N. Hosseinidehaj, and T. C. Ralph, Gener- alized quantum scissors for noiseless linear amplification, Phys. Rev. A102, 063715 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Leo´ nski and A

    W. Leo´ nski and A. Kowalewska-Kud laszyk, Chapter 3 - quantum scissors – finite-dimensional states engineering (Elsevier, 2011) pp. 131–185

    2011

  56. [64]

    S. K. ¨Ozdemir, A. Miranowicz, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Quantum-scissors device for optical state truncation: A proposal for practical realization, Phys. Rev. A64, 063818 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    E. P. Mattos and A. Vidiella-Barranco, Generation of nonclassical states of light via truncation of mixed states, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B39, 1885 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    D. P. Gupta and M. E. Muldoon, Inequalities for the smallest zeros of laguerre polynomials and their q- analogues, Journal of Inequalities in Pure & Applied Mathematics8(2007)

    2007

  59. [67]

    G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris, Chapter 20 - integral transforms, inMathematical Methods for Physi- cists (Seventh Edition), edited by G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris (Academic Press, Boston, 2013) seventh edition ed., pp. 963–1046

    2013

  60. [68]

    H¨ anggi and P

    P. H¨ anggi and P. Talkner, First-passage time problems for non-markovian processes, Phys. Rev. A32, 1934 (1985)

    1985

  61. [69]

    Crandall, First-crossing probabilities of the linear os- cillator, Journal of Sound and Vibration12, 285 (1970)

    S. Crandall, First-crossing probabilities of the linear os- cillator, Journal of Sound and Vibration12, 285 (1970)

    1970

  62. [70]

    Vanvinckenroye and V

    H. Vanvinckenroye and V. Deno¨ el, Average first-passage time of a quasi-hamiltonian mathieu oscillator with para- metric and forcing excitations, Journal of Sound and Vi- bration406, 328 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Vanvinckenroye and V

    H. Vanvinckenroye and V. Deno¨ el, Second-order moment of the first passage time of a quasi-hamiltonian oscilla- tor with stochastic parametric and forcing excitations, Journal of Sound and Vibration427, 178 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    C. W. Gardiner,Stochastic methods: a handbook for the natural and social sciences, 4th ed., Springer series in synergetics (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Measure of the non-gaussian character of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. A76, 042327 (2007). 13 Appendix A: First-passage-time distribution Using both the master equation and the quantum trajectories approach, we can solve for the fir...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.