Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Learning agent-based approach to the characterization of open quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's oQMLA framework learns both the Hamiltonian and the jump operators of a Markovian open quantum system from experimental data, returning an interpretable operator-level model rather than a dense process matrix.

desk verdict Useful and honest extension of QMLA to open systems; the simulations support the predictive claims, but the abstract's 'independently captures' operator claim overreaches when the true jump operator lies outside the primitive set. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05350 v2 pith:65FZKOXA submitted 2025-01-09 quant-ph

Lorenzo Fioroni , Ivan Rojkov , Florentin Reiter This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz
keywords openquantumsystemsmodellearningagentLindbladmasterequationprocesscharacterizationgeneticalgorithmBayesianinferencenoisesuperconductingqubits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces oQMLA, an extension of the Quantum Model Learning Agent that targets open quantum systems. Its claim is that a single adaptive procedure can learn both the Hamiltonian and the jump operators of a Markovian system from experimental data, so that the coherent and incoherent parts of the dynamics are recovered independently. Candidate models are defined through the diagonal Lindblad master equation, searched with a genetic algorithm over a library of coherent and dissipative operator primitives, and parameterized by Bayesian inference. The payoff is an interpretable, operator-level description of a device's dynamics rather than a dense process matrix, which is exactly the information needed to design error mitigation and calibration. Simulations on two-qubit systems recover the true primitives and rates even with local operations and readout errors, and a test on a superconducting processor yields a qualitative characterization of the noise in repeated CNOT gates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the open Quantum Model Learning Agent (oQMLA), whose model class is the diagonal Lindblad master equation $\partial_t \rho = \sum_i \alpha_i \mathcal{H}[h_i](\rho) + \sum_k \Gamma_k \mathcal{D}[L_k](\rho)$, with Hamiltonian superoperators $\mathcal{H}[h] = -i[h,\rho]$ and dissipators $\mathcal{D}[L] = L\rho L^\dagger - \frac{1}{2}\{L^\dagger L,\rho\}$ built from a fixed primitive library $S$. A genetic algorithm encodes each candidate model as a bit-string chromosome and applies elitism, roulette-wheel selection, uniform crossover, and regularized mutations to explore the model space. A sequential Monte Carlo Bayesian inference routine updates a particle distribution over the rates, and the particle-guess heuristic sets the evolution time to the inverse of the current parameter uncertainty. The RMSE-based fitness function, defined as the inverse of the root mean squared error between predicted and observed outcome probabilities, ranks models independently of their shape and tolerates small spurious terms.

What would settle it

Run oQMLA on a system with known non-Markovian noise, or with a true jump operator deliberately omitted from the primitive library, hold out some experiments, and check whether the output model's predicted probabilities match the held-out data within the RMSE the algorithm reported; a persistent or schedule-dependent mismatch would show that the recovered Hamiltonian and jump operators do not independently capture the true dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an agent can simultaneously identify the coherent and incoherent parts of a quantum evolution governed by the diagonal Lindblad master equation, treating Hamiltonian terms and jump operators as weighted primitives in one shared model space. The genetic search over that space, combined with sequential Monte Carlo Bayesian inference for the rates and an RMSE-based fitness for ranking, converges to the correct primitives and accurate rates in simulated two-qubit systems. The method keeps working when operations are restricted to local measurements and when readout errors of a few percent corrupt the data, and it returns an approximate decomposition when the true jump operator is absent from the primitive library. On real hardware, the same routine produces a qualitative prediction of the dynamics of repeated CNOT gates on a superconducting processor, with the main practical limits being measurement noise and the difficulty of estimating many correlated rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the device being characterized forgets its past quickly and that its dominant errors can be expressed, exactly or almost exactly, by the fixed library of Hamiltonian and jump operators the algorithm is given; outside that regime the output is only a best approximation within a restricted model class.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the primitive library contains the true operators, oQMLA identifies the correct Hamiltonian and jump-operator primitives and estimates their rates accurately in about twelve generations, after searching only a few hundred of the $2^{50}$ possible models.
  • The method remains functional when restricted to separable initial states and local measurements, at the cost of slower and more variable convergence than with full-state access.
  • Simulated readout errors averaging around 2% leave the recovered model essentially unchanged and mainly set a lower bound on achievable prediction error.
  • When the true jump operator is a combination of library operators, oQMLA returns a decomposition into those components with adjusted rates, and its fitness function tolerates small spurious terms.
  • On a superconducting processor, oQMLA predicts the measured evolution of repeated CNOT gates qualitatively, with the hardware model achieving a mean prediction error around three percent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to let the genetic search grow its own operators: when two jump operators with comparable rates appear, add their linear combination to the primitive library, allowing oQMLA to discover arbitrary jump operators rather than only their components.
  • A testable way to probe the Markov assumption is to re-run the learned generator at different circuit depths or time scales; if the inferred rates drift, memory effects are present that the diagonal Lindblad model class cannot represent.
  • The RMSE fitness gives a hardware-independent scale for comparing model quality in probability space, which could be reused to rank alternative noise models across different devices without redefining the score.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Quantum Model Learning Agent (QMLA) framework to open quantum systems by modeling dynamics with the diagonal Lindblad master equation, Eq. (2). Candidate models are built as weighted sums of Hamiltonian and dissipator primitives drawn from a fixed operator set S (Section II.A), with rates learned by sequential Monte Carlo Bayesian inference, models ranked by an RMSE-based fitness function, and new models proposed by a genetic algorithm. The method is validated on simulated two-qubit systems, including restricted local operations, readout errors, and a case where the true jump operator is not in S, and it is then interfaced with IBM's ibm_lagos processor to study CNOT noise. The central claim is that oQMLA simultaneously learns the Hamiltonian and jump operators and thereby 'independently captures both the coherent and incoherent dynamics of a system.'

Significance. If fully substantiated, oQMLA would be a useful tool for interpretable, operator-level characterization of Markovian open quantum systems, potentially requiring fewer resources than full process tomography while returning physically meaningful rates and channels. The simulated validations against ground truth not used in fitting are a genuine strength, as is the demonstrated robustness to readout errors and local-only operations, and the hardware interfacing is a useful practical contribution. However, the paper presents a heuristic fitting procedure inside a restricted model class, and it does not establish uniqueness or error bounds for the learned operator decomposition outside the exactly representable cases. The hardness result of the stress-test concern is real: in the approximate-only and hardware regimes, good predictive fitness does not by itself imply that the returned Hamiltonian and jump operators describe the actual coherent and incoherent dynamics. The contribution is therefore promising but currently overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (2)] The model class is restricted to sums of dissipators D[L_k] for L_k in a fixed primitive set S, and this class is not closed under linear combinations of jump operators: for example, D[aX+bZ] contains cross-terms that cannot be represented by any sum of D[X] and D[Z] with adjusted rates. Since the RMSE fitness in Eq. (7) is invariant under re-parameterizations that yield the same predictive distribution, the mapping from data to a unique operator decomposition is underdetermined in general. The paper does not provide identifiability conditions or an error bound relating the RMSE-optimal model to the true operators. The claim that oQMLA 'independently captures' both coherent and incoherent dynamics therefore needs to be either restricted to cases where the true jump operators lie in S or qualified with a quantitative identifiability analysis.
  2. [Section III.D, Fig. 6b] The approximate-only test case is exactly the non-closed-class problem: the true jump operator O=0.3YX+0.7ZI is not in S, and Fig. 6b shows that oQMLA returns D[YX] and D[ZI] with rates that differ from the ground-truth components. The text attributes this to the Bayesian routine 'compensating for the missing cross-terms,' which means the resulting rates are not estimates of any physical quantity but gauge degrees of freedom chosen to minimize prediction error. Since the paper gives no error bound linking predictive RMSE to operator-space error, this simulation does not support the central claim that oQMLA independently captures the coherent and incoherent dynamics; it only supports predictive equivalence within the model class. This limitation should be stated prominently rather than as a parenthetical remark.
  3. [Section IV.B, Fig. 9] The hardware demonstration is only qualitative and lacks ground truth. The best fitness is about 30, corresponding to a mean prediction error of roughly 3% (footnote [52]), and the authors attribute the degraded performance to measurement noise and poor parameter estimation rather than to model misidentification. Given the acknowledged model-class restriction of Section II.A and the likely presence of non-Markovian and non-Pauli noise on real hardware, the operator list in Fig. 9b cannot be claimed to describe the device's actual coherent and incoherent dynamics. The paper should either provide a quantitative approximation-error analysis against an independent characterization method (e.g., gate-set tomography or randomized benchmarking of the same gate) or explicitly reframe the hardware section as a demonstration of the interface and workflow rather than as a validation of the operator-level characterization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.B, footnote [52]] The text states that the highest fitness value is 'around 30,' while footnote [52] reports lowering the convergence threshold to 33; these numbers appear inconsistent and should be clarified.
  2. [Equation (10)] The notation ⌊·⌉_1 is nonstandard and is not defined in the text; a short definition of this rounding operation would improve readability.
  3. [Figures 3-6] The learned rates are reported without error bars or credible intervals, even though each experiment is repeated over five independent executions; reporting the spread of the learned parameters would materially strengthen the claim of robustness.
  4. [Data Availability] The data availability statement only offers data 'upon reasonable request' and no code is released; given the large number of algorithmic hyperparameters (target number of primitives T, particle counts, mutation probabilities), a public release of the oQMLA implementation would substantially improve reproducibility.
  5. [Overall validation] The paper does not benchmark oQMLA against existing process-characterization methods, such as process tomography, Lindblad tomography, or other model-learning agents (e.g., Refs. [12, 21, 28]); a quantitative comparison on the same simulated test cases would help calibrate the claimed advantages in interpretability and measurement efficiency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: simulated ground-truth validation is independent; Section III.D is an identifiability limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper is a machine-learning characterization method, so fitting rates to data is its intended function rather than a hidden circularity. The central validation in Section III is against simulated ground-truth models that the training routine does not receive: oQMLA must select primitives from a large search space and estimate parameters, and the outputs are then compared to the true Hamiltonian and jump operators (Figs. 3b, 4b, 5b). This is an external benchmark. The RMSE fitness (Eqs. 7-8) is used both as a model-selection objective and as a reported performance metric, which introduces a mild in-sample selection bias, but the structural recovery against ground truth does not reduce to the fitness function by construction. Section III.D explicitly acknowledges that when the true jump operator is a superposition not in the primitive set S, the learned rates differ from the ground-truth components because the Bayesian routine compensates for missing cross-terms; this is an identifiability and model-class limitation, not a derivation that equates the output with the input. The hardware section (IV) lacks a known ground truth, so it cannot independently certify the operator decomposition, but the paper presents it as qualitative evidence and attributes the degraded fitness to measurement noise and parameter-estimation challenges. The only self-citation, Ref. [13] within the range [8-13], is a general reference to prior work on coherent-error characterization and is not load-bearing for any claim. No prediction in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The framework's assumptions are the Markovian Lindblad form and a fixed primitive library. The main hand-chosen knobs are model-size regularization, prior centers, and SMC particle counts.

free parameters (4)
  • Target number of primitives T = 7 for the hardware run
    Hand-chosen; sets mutation probabilities via Eq. (9) and regularizes model complexity.
  • Prior center for hardware Bayesian inference = 8 kHz
    Chosen from simulator output to bias hardware inference toward plausible rates.
  • Particle count for sequential Monte Carlo = not reported
    The paper notes particle number must be reduced for the 11-parameter hardware model, but does not report values; this affects parameter precision.
  • Evolution-time heuristic scale = t = 1/sigma, rounded to first decimal in hardware
    Ad hoc mapping from parameter uncertainty to experiment time; hardware rounding to integer CNOT pairs adds another design choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The system dynamics are Markovian and governed by the diagonal Lindblad master equation, Eq. (2).
    Invoked in Section II A; requires Born, Markov, and rotating-wave approximations. If the hardware noise is non-Markovian, the learned Liouvillian is only an approximation.
  • domain assumption The true jump operators can be represented, exactly or to good approximation, as weighted sums of primitives from the fixed set S.
    Used throughout Section II A; Section III D shows approximation error when this fails. The output cannot contain operators outside S unless dynamically added, which is future work.
  • standard math Bayesian sequential Monte Carlo provides a reliable posterior over model parameters.
    Relies on SMC from Ref. [36]; the paper notes in Section IV B that with eleven correlated rates the particle approximation degrades.
  • domain assumption The classical Lindblad simulator faithfully represents measurement statistics of the device.
    Used in training and testing; hardware section acknowledges mismatch via measurement errors and model complexity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning agent-based approach to the characterization of open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65FZKOXA

@misc{pith2026250105350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning agent-based approach to the characterization of open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65FZKOXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05350}
}
read the original abstract

Characterizing quantum processes is crucial for the execution of quantum algorithms on available quantum devices. A powerful framework for this purpose is the Quantum Model Learning Agent (QMLA) which characterizes a given system by learning its Hamiltonian via adaptive generations of informative experiments and their validation against simulated models. Identifying the incoherent noise of a quantum device in addition to its coherent interactions is, however, as essential. Precise knowledge of such imperfections of a quantum device allows to devise strategies to mitigate detrimental effects, for example via quantum error correction. We introduce the open Quantum Model Learning Agent (oQMLA) framework to account for Markovian noise through the Liouvillian formalism. By simultaneously learning the Hamiltonian and jump operators, oQMLA independently captures both the coherent and incoherent dynamics of a system. The added complexity of open systems necessitates advanced algorithmic strategies. Among these, we implement regularization to steer the algorithm towards plausible models and an unbiased metric to evaluate the quality of the results. We validate our implementation in simulated scenarios of increasing complexity, demonstrating its robustness to hardware-induced measurement errors and its ability to characterize systems using only local operations. Additionally, we develop a scheme to interface oQMLA with a publicly available superconducting quantum computer, showcasing its practical utility. These advancements represent a significant step toward improving the performance of quantum hardware and contribute to the broader goal of advancing quantum technologies and their applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows a schematic representation of the operations of the genetic step. First, we enforce elitism by copying the individual achieving the highest value of the fitness in generation N to generation N + 1. Elitism ensures that the qual￾ity of the models found by oQMLA can only increase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. show that, when the available resources are not limited, oQMLA can find the model describing the evo￾lution of an interacting open two-qubit system in a few generations only. In particular, before the true model of the exemplified system has been found, oQMLA tested up to 300 of the 250 total models. B. Local operations The previous simulations assumed that the initial state |ψ⟩ can be accurately prepared and that m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , and to measurement errors, reported by IBM to average around 1.5%. Another notable observation from the model presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Calibration of Quantum Devices via Robust Statistical Methods

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Advanced Bayesian samplers, especially sequential Monte Carlo with MCMC moves and tempered likelihood estimation, outperform Qiskit's default calibration fits on IBMQ hardware, cutting data needs by up to about 99% in...

  2. Inverse Physics-informed neural networks procedure for detecting noise in open quantum systems

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural network constrained by the Lindblad master equation simultaneously estimates Hamiltonian couplings and decay rates from noisy expectation-value data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [21]

    Learning the dynamics of Markovian open quantum systems from experimental data

    S. Wallace, Y. Altmann, B. D. Gerardot, E. M. Gauger, and C. Bonato, Learning the dynamics of Markovian open quantum systems from experimental data (2024), arXiv:2410.17942

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [52]

    Because of this variability, we had to lower the threshold on the fitness value used to determine the convergence of the algorithm to 33, corresponding to a mean prediction error of approximately 3%

    work page

  3. [1]

    Werninghaus, D

    M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy, S. Machnes, F. K. Wilhelm, and S. Filipp, Leakage reduction in fast super- conducting qubit gates via optimal control, npj Quantum Inf.7, 14 (2021)

    2021

  4. [2]

    D. J. Egger and F. K. Wilhelm, Adaptive hybrid optimal quantum control for imprecisely characterized systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 240503 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [3]

    Lobino, C

    M. Lobino, C. Kupchak, E. Figueroa, and A. I. Lvovsky, Memory for light as a quantum process, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 203601 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [4]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on com- plex matrices, Linear algebra and its applications10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on com- plex matrices, Linear algebra and its applications10, 285 (1975)

    1975

  7. [5]

    Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep

    A. Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Math. Phys.3, 275 (1972)

    1972

  8. [6]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar, Quantum-process tomography: Resource analysis of dif- ferent strategies, Phys. Rev. A77, 032322 (2008)

    2008

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezz` e, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 141 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate set tomography, Quantum5, 557 (2021)

    2021

  3. [9]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quan- tum gates, Phys. Rev. A77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    C. A. Riofrio, D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, T. Monz, D. Nigg, R. Blatt, and J. Eisert, Experimental quantum compressed sensing for a seven-qubit system, Nat. Com- mun.8, 15305 (2017). 12

    2017

  5. [12]

    Ahmed, F

    S. Ahmed, F. Quijandr ´ ıa, and A. F. Kockum, Gradient- Descent Quantum Process Tomography by Learning Kraus Operators, Physical Review Letters130, 150402 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Kaufmann, I

    N. Kaufmann, I. Rojkov, and F. Reiter, Characterization of coherent errors in gate layers with robustness to pauli noise, Physical Review Applied23, 10.1103/physrevap- plied.23.034014 (2025)

    2025 doi

  7. [14]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nat. Phys.14, 447 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Carleo, Y

    G. Carleo, Y. Nomura, and M. Imada, Constructing ex- act representations of quantum many-body systems with deep neural networks, Nat. Commun.9, 5322 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Ahmed, C

    S. Ahmed, C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, F. Nori, and A. F. Kockum, Quantum state tomography with conditional generative adversarial networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140502 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    A. A. Gentile, B. Flynn, S. Knauer, N. Wiebe, S. Paesani, C. E. Granade, J. G. Rarity, R. Santagati, and A. Laing, Learning models of quantum systems from experiments, Nat. Phys.17, 837 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Flynn, A

    B. Flynn, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, R. Santagati, and A. Laing, Quantum model learning agent: characterisa- tion of quantum systems through machine learning, New J. Phys.24, 053034 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Pastori, T

    L. Pastori, T. Olsacher, C. Kokail, and P. Zoller, Charac- terization and verification of trotterized digital quantum simulation via hamiltonian and liouvillian learning, PRX Quantum3, 030324 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gen- tile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’brien, J. G. Rar- ity, A. Laing,et al., Experimental quantum hamiltonian learning, Nat. Phys.13, 551 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Santagati, A

    R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, S. Knauer, S. Schmitt, S. Paesani, C. Granade, N. Wiebe, C. Osterkamp, L. P. McGuinness, J. Wang,et al., Magnetic-field learning us- ing a single electronic spin in diamond with one-photon readout at room temperature, Phys. Rev. X9, 021019 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  19. [27]

    Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Adv.10, 10.1063/1.5115323 (2020)

    D. Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Adv.10, 10.1063/1.5115323 (2020)

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    G. O. Samach, A. Greene, J. Borregaard, M. Christandl, J. Barreto, D. K. Kim, C. M. McNally, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, Y. Sung, D. Rosenberg, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavs- son, M. Kjaergaard, and W. D. Oliver, Lindblad tomog- raph...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory ap- proach to circuit qed: Quantum jumps and the zeno ef- fect, Physical Review A77, 10.1103/physreva.77.012112 (2008)

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Dis- persive regime of circuit qed: Photon-dependent qubit dephasing and relaxation rates, Physical Review A79, 10.1103/physreva.79.013819 (2009)

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Nakav, R

    H. Nakav, R. Finkelstein, L. Peleg, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Effect of fast noise on the fidelity of trapped-ion quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A107, 042622 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory, Robust online hamiltonian learning, New J. Phys.14, 103013 (2012)

    2012

  26. [35]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum re- sources, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190501 (2014)

    2014

  27. [36]

    Doucet, N

    A. Doucet, N. de Freitas, and N. Gordon, eds.,Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice, Information Science and Statistics (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  28. [37]

    Granade and N

    C. Granade and N. Wiebe, Structured filtering, New J. Phys.19, 083014 (2017)

    2017

  29. [38]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  30. [39]

    D. E. Goldberg and J. H. Holland, Genetic algo- rithms and machine learning, Machine Learning3, 10.1023/a:1022602019183 (1988)

    1988 doi

  31. [40]

    Rudolph, Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans

    G. Rudolph, Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst.5, 96 (1994)

    1994

  32. [41]

    Iosifescu,Finite Markov Processes and Their Appli- cations(Courier Corporation, 1981)

    M. Iosifescu,Finite Markov Processes and Their Appli- cations(Courier Corporation, 1981)

    1981

  33. [42]

    Blickle and L

    T. Blickle and L. Thiele, A comparison of selection schemes used in evolutionary algorithms, Evol. Comput. 4, 361–394 (1996)

    1996

  34. [43]

    Davis, ed.,Handbook of genetic algorithms(Van Nos- trand Reinhold, 1991)

    L. Davis, ed.,Handbook of genetic algorithms(Van Nos- trand Reinhold, 1991)

    1991

  35. [44]

    Nachman, M

    B. Nachman, M. Urbanek, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer, Unfolding quantum computer readout noise, npj Quantum Inf.6, 84 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    IBM Quantum, https://quantum.ibm.com/ (2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  38. [47]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Wille, R

    R. Wille, R. Van Meter, and Y. Naveh, Ibm’s qiskit tool chain: Working with and developing for real quantum computers, in2019 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)(IEEE, 2019)

    2019

  40. [49]

    D. J. Egger, C. Capecci, B. Pokharel, P. K. Barkoutsos, L. E. Fischer, L. Guidoni, and I. Tavernelli, Pulse vari- ational quantum eigensolver on cross-resonance-based 13 hardware, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033159 (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

    IBM Quantum, Device backend noise model simulations (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    IBM Quantum, NoiseModel - Qiskit Aer 0.15.0 documen- tation (2022)

    2022

  43. [53]

    Settineri, V

    A. Settineri, V. Macr ´ ı, A. Ridolfo, O. Di Stefano, A. F. Kockum, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, Dissipation and ther- mal noise in hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong- coupling regime, Physical Review A98, 10.1103/phys- reva.98.053834 (2018)

    2018 doi

  44. [54]

    Zhang, M

    C. Zhang, M. Yu, Y. Yan, L. Chen, Z. L¨ u, and Y. Zhao, Emission spectral non-markovianity in qubit–cavity sys- tems in the ultrastrong coupling regime, The Journal of Chemical Physics157, 10.1063/5.0123871 (2022)

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    J. Jin, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, Exact dynamics of dissi- pative electronic systems and quantum transport: Hier- archical equations of motion approach, The Journal of Chemical Physics128, 10.1063/1.2938087 (2008)

    2008 doi

  46. [56]

    Milz and K

    S. Milz and K. Modi, Quantum stochastic processes and quantum non-markovian phenomena, PRX Quantum2, 030201 (2021)

    2021

  47. [57]

    L. M. Gambardella and M. Dorigo, Solving symmetric and asymmetric tsps by ant colonies, inProceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computa- tion(IEEE, 1996) pp. 622–627

    1996

  48. [58]

    Dorigo, V

    M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni, Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, part b (cybernetics)26, 29 (1996)

    1996

  49. [59]

    Kennedy and R

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimiza- tion, inProceedings of ICNN’95 - International Confer- ence on Neural Networks, ICNN-95, Vol. 4 (IEEE, 1995)

    1995

  50. [60]

    A. P. Piotrowski, J. J. Napiorkowski, and A. E. Pi- otrowska, Population size in particle swarm optimization, Swarm Evol. Comput.58, 100718 (2020)

    2020

  51. [61]

    Guilmin, R

    P. Guilmin, R. Gautier, A. Bocquet, and ´E. Genois, Dynamiqs: an open-source python library for gpu- accelerated and differentiable simulation of quantum sys- tems (2024)

    2024

  52. [62]

    Mercurio, Y.-T

    A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, Quantumtoolbox.jl: An efficient julia framework for simulating open quantum systems (2025)

    2025

  53. [250]

    First, each model is encoded in a|S|-bits string, referred to aschromosome

    In this work, we utilize a genetic algorithm for this task [19, 20]. First, each model is encoded in a|S|-bits string, referred to aschromosome. A 1 (0) in position isignals the presence (absence) in the model of thei-th primitive defined inS. Once all models in a branch have ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.