Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 4 cited by

Subsystem decompositions of quantum evolutions and transformations between causal perspectives

T0 review · 0 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 The two causal perspectives of the quantum switch cannot be related by any change of subsystem decomposition, so they are not two equivalent descriptions of the same process.

desk verdict A clean, checkable no-go result: Alice's and Bob's causal perspectives in the quantum switch are not related by any fixed subsystem-decomposition isomorphism, and the proof is worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16504 v1 pith:5JGARQG7 submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph

Julian Wechs , Ognyan Oreshkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords indefinitecausalorderquantumswitchtime-delocalisedsubsystemsperspectivessubsystemdecompositionscircuitoperatorreferenceframes
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 two causal perspectives of the quantum switch—Alice's view and Bob's view of a process with indefinite causal order—are just two ways of carving up the same underlying quantum evolution. The authors formalize a subsystem decomposition of a quantum circuit by unfolding the circuit into a single operator on the global Hilbert space of all systems at all times, and show how that operator changes under an arbitrary unitary relabelling of the subsystems. Their main result is negative: for the quantum switch there is no such relabelling that turns Alice's temporal circuit into Bob's, for arbitrary choices of the local operations. This matters because the intuition that causal perspectives should be equivalent underlies recent relational and quantum-reference-frame pictures of indefinite causal order. In the discrete circuit setting where such processes are usually studied, distinct causal perspectives are not equivalent descriptions of the same evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the circuit operator: the tensor product of the Kraus operator at every time step of a circuit, acting on the global Hilbert space formed by all systems at all times. A change of subsystem decomposition is defined as a unitary isomorphism $J$ on that global space, under which the operator transforms by conjugation, $K \mapsto J K J^\dagger$ (Eqs. (4)–(5)). Because conjugation preserves ${\rm Tr}[\Omega\Omega^\dagger]$, comparing this invariant for sums of circuit operators built from two specific choices of Bob's unitary is what proves the no-go result. The two causal perspectives under study are the temporal circuits of Fig. 4, each with a target and a control qubit at eight time steps; each is separately related to the cyclic quantum-switch circuit by an isomorphism $J_A$ or $J_B$ that introduces extra ancilla systems $E_A$ or $E_B$ which must be traced out.

What would settle it

The decisive check is the trace calculation in Appendix D: verify whether ${\rm Tr}[\Omega^{(A)}\Omega^{(A)\dagger}] = 2^{15}+2^{13}$ and ${\rm Tr}[\Omega^{(B)}\Omega^{(B)\dagger}] = 2^{15}$ for the two summed operators defined there. If those numbers are equal, or if a single unitary $J$ satisfying Eq. (11) for all operations can be written down explicitly, the no-go claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (11): there is no unitary isomorphism $J$ from the 16-qubit temporal Hilbert space of Alice's perspective to that of Bob's such that $J K_{\rm temp}^{(A)}(|\psi\rangle,U_A,U_B,\langle\phi|) J^{\dagger} = K_{\rm temp}^{(B)}(|\psi\rangle,U_A,U_B,\langle\phi|)$ for all preparations $|\psi\rangle$, unitaries $U_A,U_B$, and measurements $\langle\phi|$. For any single fixed choice of operations the two circuit operators are unitarily similar, so a superficial check can suggest equivalence; the obstruction appears when multiple choices of operations are combined. Taking $U_A = \mathbb{1}$, preparation and measurement $|00\rangle$ and $\langle 00|$, and $U_B$ equal to $\sigma_X$ or $\sigma_Y$, the paper evaluates ${\rm Tr}[\Omega^{(A)}\Omega^{(A)\dagger}] = 2^{15}+2^{13}$ and ${\rm Tr}[\Omega^{(B)}\Omega^{(B)\dagger}] = 2^{15}$, a difference that conjugation by any fixed $J$ would preserve. Hence the two causal perspectives are incompatible subsystem decompositions of the same evolution in the discrete setting.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that a change of subsystem decomposition is one fixed unitary relabelling of the entire collection of quantum systems across time, applied identically for every choice of the preparation, the unitaries, and the final measurement, and that the two discrete circuits of Fig. 4 correctly represent the two causal perspectives; continuous-time descriptions could behave differently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Alice's and Bob's causal perspectives in the quantum switch cannot both be subsystem decompositions of one and the same global evolution, so the process-matrix description does not act as an observer-neutral reference from which either perspective can be reached by a fixed subsystem relabelling.
  • The probability of a circuit is invariant under any change of subsystem decomposition, so the framework supplies a consistency check that any candidate equivalence between two circuit descriptions must pass.
  • The impossibility holds for the whole family of possible operations; for any single fixed choice of all operations the two circuit operators are unitarily similar, which means the no-go is not visible in a single run of the switch.
  • The formalism also covers cyclic and consistent circuits, giving a common language for time-delocalised realisations of indefinite causal order beyond the quantum switch.
  • Whether a continuous-time formulation could restore equivalence between causal perspectives remains open, and the authors identify it as the key question for hypothetical gravitational realisations of indefinite causal order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the no-go survives in a continuous-time or gravitational setting, then relations between causal perspectives would have to be operation-dependent maps rather than fixed subsystem relabellings, which would require a new notion of coordinate transformation.
  • The trace-invariant comparison could be turned into a general equivalence test: given two proposed time-delocalised realisations of the same process, compare ${\rm Tr}[\Omega\Omega^\dagger]$ over a small set of operation choices instead of attempting to construct an isomorphism.
  • A structural conjecture suggested by the proof is that any two causal perspectives whose constructions require different auxiliary systems that must be traced out will be inequivalent in this sense; the quantum switch would then be one instance of a general pattern.
  • The same method may apply to other causally indefinite processes with multiple party perspectives, so the result is not necessarily specific to the quantum switch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a Hilbert-space-level description of quantum circuits, including cyclic ones, in terms of 'circuit operators' acting on the global Hilbert space of all temporal systems, and formalizes a change of subsystem decomposition as conjugation by a fixed unitary J (Eqs. (4)-(5)). It applies this framework to the quantum switch: Alice's and Bob's causal perspectives are each embedded into the cyclic process-matrix description via extended Hilbert spaces (Eqs. (9)-(10), Appendices B-C). The central result is Eq. (11): there is no fixed unitary J mapping Alice's temporal circuit operator to Bob's for arbitrary preparations, unitaries, and measurements. Appendix D proves this by summing the two circuit operators for UB = sigma_X and UB = sigma_Y and comparing Tr[Omega Omega-dagger], which evaluates to 2^15+2^13 for Alice's perspective and 2^15 for Bob's. The authors explicitly scope the result to the discrete-circuit setting and leave the continuous-time framework as an open question.

Significance. The result is a substantive negative statement: under the natural discrete fixed-isomorphism formalization, the two causal perspectives in the quantum switch cannot be regarded as different subsystem decompositions of the same time-delocalised circuit. The proof in Appendix D is explicit and self-contained, uses a correct unitary invariant, and does not rely on free parameters or hidden assumptions. The paper also gives a clear formal framework for subsystem decompositions of quantum circuits that is likely to be useful beyond this particular no-go result. I find no load-bearing technical gap; the discrete-time, fixed-J scope is acknowledged openly in the Discussion, so the stress-test concern about scope does not amount to a defect.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (23)] The right-hand side of Eq. (23) labels the map as JA, but this equation defines Bob's isomorphism JB; the label should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix D] The trace values Tr[Omega(A) Omega(A)^dagger] = 2^15 + 2^13 and Tr[Omega(B) Omega(B)^dagger] = 2^15 are quoted without the intermediate contraction steps; adding those steps would make the self-contained proof easier to verify.
  3. [Appendix D, first paragraph] The claim that the two circuit operators are unitarily similar for a fixed choice of operations is explained qualitatively but not constructed explicitly; a short explicit J would remove a small presentation gap.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The displayed formula for C_{S_i}[M] is dense and the index contractions are not spelled out; a brief explanation of how the double-ket bra and ket implement the partial trace would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go result is a self-contained linear-algebra argument against explicitly defined circuit operators.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central claim, Eq. (11), is a well-posed mathematical statement about the non-existence of a fixed unitary isomorphism J between the two circuit operators K_temp^(A) and K_temp^(B), which are defined explicitly in Eqs. (15) and (21). The no-go proof in Appendix D does not assume the conclusion: it hypothesizes a fixed J satisfying Eq. (11) for arbitrary preparations, unitaries, and measurements, derives J Omega^(A) J^dagger = Omega^(B) for the two particular choices of U_B, and then uses the unitary invariant Tr[Omega Omega^dagger] to reach a contradiction via the computed values 2^15 + 2^13 versus 2^15. This trace computation follows directly from the definitions of the two circuits, not from any fitted parameter or prior conclusion. The identification of the two temporal circuits with Alice's and Bob's causal perspectives is taken from independent prior work (Refs. [25-27]) and is explicitly scoped to discrete circuits; the paper acknowledges that a continuous framework could behave differently. The self-citations to time-delocalised subsystem results (Refs. [17,18]) are backed by explicit isomorphisms in Appendices B and C, so they are not used as unverified authority. In particular, the paper reproduces the relevant equivalences with its own calculations rather than importing the main result from a citation. No step reduces to its input by construction, and there is no fitted quantity being relabeled as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. It rests on the process-matrix framework, the time-delocalised-subsystem formalism, and the definition that subsystem changes are unitary conjugations on the global Hilbert space. The no-go proof is a finite linear-algebra computation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The composition of a circuit is obtained by trace-like contractions (link product) of the circuit superoperator (Eqs. 2-3).
    This defines the framework; it matches the process-matrix and link-product formalism of Refs. [1,41,42].
  • domain assumption A change of subsystem decomposition is a fixed unitary isomorphism J on the global Hilbert space, with K mapped to J K J† (Eqs. 4-5).
    This formalises 'change of subsystem decomposition'; the no-go theorem depends on J being independent of the local operations.
  • domain assumption The quantum switch is represented in the process matrix framework by the circuit operator K_SW of Eq. (7).
    Standard description from Refs. [1,6,9]; the paper takes this as the object that each causal perspective must reproduce after tracing ancillas.
  • domain assumption Alice's and Bob's causal perspectives correspond to the temporal circuits in Fig. 4, with circuit operators K_temp^(A) and K_temp^(B).
    This identification follows Refs. [25-27] and is needed to interpret the no-go as a statement about causal perspectives.
  • standard math The Hilbert-Schmidt norm Tr[ΩΩ†] is invariant under unitary conjugation.
    Used in Appendix D to derive the contradiction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subsystem decompositions of quantum evolutions and transformations between causal perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JGARQG7

@misc{pith2026241116504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subsystem decompositions of quantum evolutions and transformations between causal perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JGARQG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16504}
}
read the original abstract

One can theoretically conceive of processes where the causal order between quantum operations is no longer well-defined. Certain such causally indefinite processes have an operational interpretation in terms of quantum operations on time-delocalised subsystems -- that is, they can take place as part of standard quantum mechanical evolutions on quantum systems that are delocalised in time. In this paper, we formalise the underlying idea that quantum evolutions can be represented with respect to different subsystem decompositions in a general way. We introduce a description of quantum circuits, including cyclic ones, in terms of an operator acting on the global Hilbert space of all systems in the circuit. This allows us to express in a concise form how a given circuit transforms under arbitrary changes of subsystem decompositions. We then explore the link between this framework and the concept of causal perspectives, which has been introduced to describe causally indefinite processes from the point of view of the different parties involved. Surprisingly, we show that the causal perspectives that one can associate to the different parties in the quantum switch, a paradigmatic example of a causally indefinite process, cannot be related by a change of subsystem decomposition, i.e., they cannot be seen as two equivalent descriptions of the same process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A quantum circuit consists of discrete time steps, in each of which a quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Cyclic circuit that describes the quantum switch. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two alternative temporal circuits realising the quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The temporal circuit describing Alice’s causal perspective, and the “extended” cyclic circuit, are related by a change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relation between the temporal circuit describing Bob’s causal perspective and the “extended” cyclic circuit in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Causality from the spectrum: Emergence of causal order from process-matrix mereology

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A process matrix can be unitarily transformed to a fixed-causal-order process exactly when its eigenvalue multiplicities are divisible by the final output dimension; generic high-dimensional spectra are close to such spectra.

  2. Partitions in quantum theory

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A definition of multipartitions of quantum systems into possibly non-factor sub-C* algebras, with a representation theorem showing that some partitions, such as fermionic modes, are not fully representable on tensor-p...

  3. Agency under indefinite causality: operational eternalism in higher-order quantum theory

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In indefinite-causal-order quantum theory, an observer is a perspective-dependent grouping of input/output data, with a new 'friendliness' criterion for causally compatible agents.

  4. A map of indefinite causal order

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional

    A conceptual map of indefinite causal order covering the quantum switch, process matrices, superposition of causal structures, and four open debates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Oreshkov, F

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner, Nat. Commun. 3, 1092 (2012), arXiv:1105.4464 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Hardy, (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0509120

    L. Hardy, (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0509120

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Hardy, (2018), arXiv:1807.10980 [quant-ph]

    L. Hardy, (2018), arXiv:1807.10980 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, and Č. Brukner, Nat. Commun. 10, 3772 (2019), arXiv:1708.00248 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Chiribella, Phys

    G. Chiribella, Phys. Rev. A 86, 040301 (2012), arXiv:1109.5154 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Val- iron, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022318 (2013), arXiv:0912.0195 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Ebler, S

    D. Ebler, S. Salek, and G. Chiribella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 120502 (2018), arXiv:1711.10165 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Araújo, F

    M. Araújo, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 250402 (2014), arXiv:1401.8127 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Araújo, C

    M. Araújo, C. Branciard, F. Costa, A. Feix, C. Giar- matzi, and Č. Brukner, New J. Phys.17, 102001 (2015), arXiv:1506.03776 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. Feix, M. Araújo, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. A92, 052326 (2015), arXiv:1508.07840 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. A. Guérin, A. Feix, M. Araújo, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100502 (2016), arXiv:1605.07372 [quant- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Wechs, H

    J. Wechs, H. Dourdent, A. A. Abbott, and C. Bran- ciard, PRX Quantum2, 030335 (2021), arXiv:2101.08796 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. T. Quintino, Q. Dong, A. Shimbo, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, Phys. Rev. A100, 062339 (2019)

    2019

  6. [15]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Journal of Mathematical Physics 63, 042203 (2022), arXiv:2105.13369 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Araújo, A

    M. Araújo, A. Feix, M. Navascués, and Č. Brukner, Quantum 1, 10 (2017), arXiv:1611.08535 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Oreshkov, Quantum3, 206 (2019), arXiv:1801.07594 [quant-ph]

    O. Oreshkov, Quantum3, 206 (2019), arXiv:1801.07594 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Wechs, C

    J. Wechs, C. Branciard, and O. Oreshkov, Nature Com- munications 14, 1471 (2023), arXiv:2201.11832 [quant- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Kabel, A.-C

    V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield, and Časlav Brukner, (2024), arXiv:2402.10267 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    J.-P. W. MacLean, K. Ried, R. W. Spekkens, and K. J. Resch, Nat. Commun.8, 15149 (2017), arXiv:1606.04523 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Vilasini and R

    V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 080201 (2024), arXiv:2408.13387 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Vilasini and R

    V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. A110, 022227 (2024), arXiv:2203.11245 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Ormrod, A

    N. Ormrod, A. Vanrietvelde, and J. Barrett, Quantum 7, 1028 (2023), arXiv:2204.10273 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Paunković and M

    N. Paunković and M. Vojinović, Quantum4, 275 (2020), arXiv:1905.09682 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [25]

    P. A. Guérin, M. Krumm, C. Budroni, and Č. Brukner, (2018), arXiv:1806.10374 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and Č. Brukner, Nature Communications 11, 2672 (2020), arXiv:1908.10165 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Baumann, M

    V. Baumann, M. Krumm, P. A. Guérin, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Research4, 013180 (2022), arXiv:2105.02304 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    The systems Si can be composed of several subsystems and the operations Mi can be composed of several op- erations that act on these subsystems in parallel, but for the general formulation we develop here, we treat each time step as consisting of one overall operation acting o...

  20. [29]

    Baumeler and S

    Ä. Baumeler and S. Wolf, Entropy 19 (2017), 10.3390/e19070326, arXiv:1601.06522 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Baumeler and S

    Ä. Baumeler and S. Wolf, Proc. R. Soc. A.474, 20170698 (2018), arXiv:1611.05641 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Vanrietvelde, N

    A. Vanrietvelde, N. Ormrod, H. Kristjánsson, and J. Barrett, (2022), arXiv:2206.10042 [quant-ph]

    2022

  23. [32]

    Oreshkov and C

    O. Oreshkov and C. Giarmatzi, New J. Phys.18, 093020 (2016), arXiv:1506.05449 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Wechs, A

    J. Wechs, A. A. Abbott, and C. Branciard, New J. Phys. 21, 013027 (2019), arXiv:1807.10557 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    generalised Born rule

    To establish the connection with the conventional formu- lation of the process matrix framework, the interested reader may note thatC[W ⊗ MA ⊗ MB] amounts to first computing the Choi matrices of W, MA and MB, and then taking theirlink product (introduced in [41, 42]; see also ...

  26. [35]

    The general case where the parties perform arbitrary quantum operations can be dealt with by introducing ancillary incoming and outgoing systems that purify the parties’ operations

  27. [36]

    N. S. Móller, B. Sahdo, and N. Yokomizo, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042414 (2021), arXiv:2012.03989 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    N. S. Móller, B. Sahdo, and N. Yokomizo, Quantum8, 1248 (2024), arXiv:2306.10984 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Castro-Ruiz and O

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov, (2021), arXiv:2110.13199 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Na- ture Communications 10, 494 (2019), arXiv:1712.07207 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, Quantum 4, 225 (2020), arXiv:1809.00556 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 060401 (2008), arXiv:0712.1325 [quant- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022339 (2009), arXiv:0904.4483 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [43]

    control” incoming (outgoing) qubitX (X ′), and with “target

    M. Araújo, P. A. Guérin, and Ä. Baumeler, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052315 (2017), arXiv:1706.09854 [quant-ph]. 7 APPENDIX A. Circuit operations with multiple Kraus operators In this Appendix, we give more details on Eqs. (2)– (5), which describe the case where the operationsMi have mu...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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