pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19511 · v1 · pith:7EJGNLYYnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Distinguishing quantum processes with bounded coherent memory

Magdalini Zonnios , Felix C. Binder This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum process discriminationmulti-time processescoherent memoryMAD strategiesstrategy normadaptive probingrecurrent quantum dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Any adaptive strategy for distinguishing multi-time quantum processes can be compiled into a single MAD with bounded coherent memory and an internal counter.

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

The paper introduces machines for autonomous distinction (MADs) that apply one fixed quantum instrument at every time step while retaining the classical outcome record and a coherent memory of fixed dimension d_A. It defines a memory-parametrized distinguishability measure that increases with memory size and proves the hierarchy is complete at any finite N: every admissible adaptive probing strategy can be exactly reproduced by some MAD equipped with an internal counter. For recurrent processes arising from repeated system-environment interactions, the authors derive a reduced single-step description that isolates the creation of new distinguishing information from the propagation and decay of earlier information. Numerical tests on repeated-interaction models confirm that larger coherent memory systematically raises success probability and narrows the gap to the full strategy-norm distance while remaining easier to compute.

Core claim

The central claim is that the MAD hierarchy saturates the strategy-norm benchmark because any N-step adaptive probing strategy can be compiled into a single MAD that uses an internal counter and sufficiently large coherent memory; the resulting memory-parametrized measure d^(N)_MAD therefore equals the optimal strategy-norm distance once d_A is large enough.

What carries the argument

MAD (machine for autonomous distinction): a probing strategy that applies the same quantum instrument at each time step, stores the full classical outcome record, and maintains coherent memory of dimension d_A.

If this is right

  • The distinguishability measure rises monotonically as coherent memory dimension increases.
  • At any fixed finite N the measure equals the strategy-norm distance once memory is large enough.
  • Recurrent processes admit a single-step description separating generation of new distinguishing information from its propagation and decay.
  • Numerical evaluation of MAD success probabilities is substantially more tractable than optimizing over arbitrary adaptive strategies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Devices with limited quantum memory could still achieve optimal distinction by fixing one instrument and adding a simple counter.
  • The single-step reduction for recurrent processes may simplify the analysis of continuous-time or infinite-horizon discrimination tasks.
  • Choosing the optimal fixed instrument for a given process class becomes a practical design problem once the completeness result is accepted.

Load-bearing premise

That every adaptive N-step strategy can be exactly reproduced by a MAD that uses only one fixed instrument, an internal counter, and finite coherent memory.

What would settle it

An explicit N-step adaptive strategy whose distinguishing power cannot be matched by any MAD with finite coherent memory and an internal counter, or a concrete process pair where the MAD distance remains strictly below the strategy norm for all finite d_A.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19511 by Felix C. Binder, Magdalini Zonnios.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-time process discrimination as an oper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A quantum process over N time steps can be rep￾resented as a quantum comb P N (blue), with open “slots” on the system where interventions may be performed. A multi￾time tester {T N j }j (pink) is a correlated sequence of opera￾tions (potentially with memory) inserted into these slots to produce an outcome j. Without loss of generality, any tester can be written as a sequence of CPTP maps followed by a fina… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) A machine for autonomous distinction (MAD) is a probing device modelled as a quantum instrument act￾ing on the system and a coherent ancillary memory. Each use of the instrument can be realized by a unitary interaction with an auxiliary probe followed by a projective measurement on the probe, its nonselective action being CPTP. In the au￾tonomous implementation shown here, the unitary acts on the syste… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A recurrent process hypothesis probed by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Helstrom success probability p MAD succ for numer￾ically optimized MAD testers distinguishing the repeated￾interaction processes generated by the unitaries in Eq. (40), with θP = 0.2 and θQ = 0.5, compared with the strategy￾norm success benchmark. Increasing the coherent ancilla di￾mension dA ∈ {0, 2, 4}, for a time-dependent strategy (orange lines), or time-independent strategy (blue lines), systemati￾cal… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: provides strong numerical support for the ef￾fective description developed in Sec. IV B. In particu￾lar, the results support the idea that driven–dissipative dynamics govern the distinguishability which is continu￾ously generated at each step, while also being suppressed by mixing. Here, the simulated success probability is 2 4 6 8 10 Number of time steps N 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 H els t r o m s u c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distinguishing multi-time quantum processes is a fundamental task underlying the diagnosis, benchmarking, and learning of temporally correlated quantum dynamics. The standard benchmark for distinguishing two processes is the strategy-norm distance, which optimizes over arbitrary adaptive probing strategies but can require large coherent memory and time-dependent control. We introduce machines for autonomous distinction~($\mathsf{MAD}$s): probing strategies that apply the same quantum instrument at each time step, retain the full classical outcome record, and carry a coherent memory of dimension $d_A$. Optimizing over these strategies defines a memory-parametrized distinguishability measure, $d^{(N)}_{\mathsf{MAD}}(\mathbf{P}^N,\mathbf{Q}^N;d_A)$. We show that the resulting hierarchy is monotone in coherent memory and complete at finite times. Specifically, any admissible $N$-step probing strategy can be compiled into a single $\mathsf{MAD}$ with an internal counter and sufficiently large coherent memory, so the hierarchy saturates the strategy-norm benchmark. For recurrent processes generated by repeated system--environment interactions, we derive a single-step description that separates the generation of new distinguishing information from the propagation and decay of information generated at earlier times. Numerical results in a repeated-interaction model show that increasing coherent memory systematically improves the $\mathsf{MAD}$ success probability and closes the gap to the strategy-norm distance while remaining substantially more tractable to evaluate. $\mathsf{MAD}$ distinguishability therefore provides an operational and scalable framework for quantifying what can be learned about genuinely multi-time quantum processes with bounded coherent memory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces machines for autonomous distinction (MADs) as probing strategies for multi-time quantum processes that apply a fixed quantum instrument at each time step, retain the full classical outcome record, and carry coherent memory of dimension d_A. It defines the memory-parametrized distinguishability measure d^{(N)}_{MAD}(P^N, Q^N; d_A), proves that the resulting hierarchy is monotone in coherent memory dimension, and establishes completeness at finite N: any admissible N-step adaptive strategy can be compiled into a single MAD augmented by an internal counter and sufficiently large but finite d_A, thereby saturating the strategy-norm distance. For recurrent processes, a single-step description is derived that separates generation of new distinguishing information from propagation/decay of prior information. Numerical results in a repeated-interaction model illustrate that increasing d_A improves success probability and narrows the gap to the strategy-norm benchmark while remaining more tractable.

Significance. If the completeness and compilation results hold, the MAD hierarchy supplies an operational, resource-bounded framework for quantifying what can be learned about genuinely multi-time quantum processes, directly relevant to process benchmarking and learning under realistic memory constraints. The explicit single-step reduction for recurrent processes and the demonstration that bounded coherent memory plus a counter suffices to recover full adaptive power at finite N are notable strengths; the numerical evidence further supports practical utility by showing systematic improvement toward the strategy-norm limit.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2, definition of MAD: the precise form of the fixed instrument and how the internal counter is encoded in the coherent memory should be stated explicitly with an equation, as the compilation construction in the completeness theorem relies on this detail.
  2. The numerical section would benefit from an explicit statement of the optimization method used to evaluate d^{(N)}_{MAD} for finite d_A (e.g., SDP formulation or iterative solver), including any convergence criteria, to allow reproducibility.
  3. Figure 3 caption: the plotted quantities (success probability vs. d_A) should include error bars or indicate whether the values are exact or obtained from a relaxation, to clarify how close the MAD values are to the strategy-norm benchmark.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their accurate summary of our manuscript, the positive significance assessment, and the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines the MAD class directly via fixed-instrument probing with classical record and coherent memory d_A, then proves monotonicity and completeness as independent mathematical results: any N-step adaptive strategy compiles into an equivalent MAD (with internal counter) for sufficiently large finite d_A. This saturates the externally defined strategy-norm distance without reducing to a fit, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations equate a prediction to its own input by construction, and the completeness statement is a simulation theorem rather than an ansatz or renaming. The central claims therefore rest on explicit constructions and standard quantum instrument theory, remaining self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5800 in / 1164 out tokens · 23263 ms · 2026-06-26T20:27:00.657585+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Boundedness: 0≤d (N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A)≤1

  2. [2]

    Symmetry: d(N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A) =d (N) MAD(QN ,P N;d A)

  3. [3]

    Proof.Boundedness follows sinced (N) MAD is one half of a trace distance between two final classical–quantum states, hence lies in [0,1]

    Triangle inequality: d(N) MAD(PN ,R N;d A)≤d (N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A) +d (N) MAD(QN ,R N;d A). Proof.Boundedness follows sinced (N) MAD is one half of a trace distance between two final classical–quantum states, hence lies in [0,1]. Symmetry is immediate from ∥ρ−σ∥ 1 =∥σ−ρ∥ 1. For the triangle inequality, fix any MADtesterTand letρ T,H N denote the correspond...

  4. [4]

    Monotonicity in coherent memory: Ifd ′ A ≥d A, then d(N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d ′ A)≥d (N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A)

  5. [5]

    Monotonicity in time: IfP N andQ N are theN- step restrictions of consistent(N+1)-step processes PN+1 andQ N+1, then d(N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A)≤d (N+1) MAD (PN+1 ,Q N+1;d A)

  6. [6]

    Upper bound by the strategy-norm distance: For all dA, d(N) MAD(PN ,Q N;d A)≤d (N) str (PN ,Q N), whered (N) str (PN ,Q N)denotes the optimal distin- guishability over the full class of admissible testers, equivalently the strategy-norm-defined distinguisha- bility. Proof.For monotonicity ind A, embed anyMADtester with coherent memory dimensiond A into on...

    2022

  7. [7]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Physical Review A80, 022339 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    F. A. Pollock, C. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. A97, 012127 (2018)

    2018

  9. [10]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    2018

  10. [11]

    Gilchrist, N

    A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A71, 062310 (2005)

    2005

  11. [12]

    Gutoski and J

    G. Gutoski and J. Watrous, inProceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)(ACM, 2007) pp. 565–574

    2007

  12. [13]

    Gutoski, Journal of Mathematical Physics53, 032202 (2012)

    G. Gutoski, Journal of Mathematical Physics53, 032202 (2012)

    2012

  13. [14]

    Zambon, Phys

    G. Zambon, Phys. Rev. A110, 042210 (2024)

    2024

  14. [15]

    F. A. Pollock, C. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040405 (2018)

    2018

  15. [16]

    S. Milz, D. Egloff, P. Taranto, T. Theurer, M. B. Plenio, A. Smirne, and S. F. Huelga, Physical Review X10, 041049 (2020)

    2020

  16. [17]

    Taranto, M

    P. Taranto, M. T. Quintino, M. Murao, and S. Milz, Quantum8, 1328 (2024)

    2024

  17. [18]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Physical Review Letters101, 180501 (2008)

    2008

  18. [19]

    Taranto, F

    P. Taranto, F. A. Pollock, S. Milz, M. Tomamichel, and K. Modi, npj Quantum Information7, 149 (2021)

    2021

  19. [20]

    Giarmatzi and F

    C. Giarmatzi and F. Costa, Quantum7, 1036 (2023)

    2023

  20. [21]

    T.-A. Ohst, S. Zhang, H. C. Nguyen, M. Pl´ avala, and M. T. Quintino, Quantum10, 1988 (2026), arXiv:2411.08110

    arXiv 1988

  21. [22]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  22. [23]

    B. M. Terhal, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  23. [24]

    Heshami, D

    K. Heshami, D. G. England, P. C. Humphreys, P. J. Bus- tard, V. M. Acosta, J. Nunn, and B. J. Sussman, Journal of Modern Optics63, 2005 (2016)

    2005

  24. [25]

    F. A. Pollock, C. Rodr´ ıguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Physical Review A97, 012127 (2018)

    2018

  25. [26]

    M. M. Wilde, M. Berta, C. Hirche, and E. Kaur, Letters in Mathematical Physics110, 2277 (2020)

    2020

  26. [27]

    Hirche, Quantum7, 1064 (2023)

    C. Hirche, Quantum7, 1064 (2023)

    2023

  27. [28]

    Katariya and M

    V. Katariya and M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Processing20, 78 (2021)

    2021

  28. [29]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 025008 (2022)

    2022

  29. [30]

    Wang and M

    X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Physical Review Research1, 033169 (2019)

    2019

  30. [31]

    Nakahira and K

    K. Nakahira and K. Kato, Physical Review A103, 062606 (2021)

    2021

  31. [32]

    S. Milz, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Open Systems & Information Dynamics24, 1740016 (2017)

    2017

  32. [33]

    Milz and K

    S. Milz and K. Modi, PRX Quantum2, 030201 (2021)

    2021

  33. [34]

    Ortega-Taberner, E

    C. Ortega-Taberner, E. O’Neill, E. Butler, G. E. Fux, and P. R. Eastham, The Journal of Chemical Physics 161, 124119 (2024)

    2024

  34. [35]

    G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hol- lenberg, and K. Modi, Nature Communications11, 6301 (2020)

    2020

  35. [36]

    Zhang, B

    H. Zhang, B. Pokharel, E. M. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, Physical Review Applied17, 054018 (2022)

    2022

  36. [37]

    Nakamura and J

    K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Physical Review Re- search6, 033215 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Physical Review A 102, 052206 (2020)

    2020

  38. [39]

    Dowling, K

    N. Dowling, K. Modi, R. N. Mu˜ noz, S. Singh, and G. A. L. White, Physical Review X14, 041018 (2024)

    2024

  39. [40]

    C. W. Helstrom, Journal of Statistical Physics1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  40. [41]

    Bae and L.-C

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical48, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  41. [42]

    Jiang, T

    H. Jiang, T. Kathuria, Y. T. Lee, S. Padmanabhan, and Z. Song, 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Founda- tions of Computer Science (FOCS) , 910 (2020). 16

    2020

  42. [43]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, D. W. Leung, and J. Wa- trous, Physical Review A81, 032339 (2010)

    2010

  43. [44]

    Jenˇ cov´ a and M

    A. Jenˇ cov´ a and M. Pl´ avala, Journal of Mathematical Physics57, 122203 (2016)

    2016

  44. [45]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Physical Review Letters127, 200504 (2021)

    2021

  45. [46]

    Salek, M

    F. Salek, M. Hayashi, and A. Winter, Physical Review A105, 022419 (2022)

    2022

  46. [47]

    Nakahira, Physical Review A104, 062609 (2021)

    K. Nakahira, Physical Review A104, 062609 (2021)

    2021

  47. [48]

    Kretschmann and R

    D. Kretschmann and R. F. Werner, Physical Review A 72, 062323 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0502106 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [49]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Physics Reports954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  49. [50]

    Cygorek, M

    M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Nature Physics 18, 662 (2022)

    2022

  50. [51]

    G. E. Fux, E. P. Butler, P. R. Eastham, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Physical Review Letters126, 200401 (2021)

    2021

  51. [52]

    Ivander, L

    F. Ivander, L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee, Nature Communi- cations15, 8087 (2024)

    2024

  52. [53]

    Fujii and K

    K. Fujii and K. Nakajima, inReservoir Computing: The- ory, Physical Implementations, and Applications, edited by K. Nakajima and I. Fischer (Springer Singapore, Sin- gapore, 2021) pp. 423–450

    2021

  53. [54]

    Nakajima, K

    K. Nakajima, K. Fujii, M. Negoro, K. Mitarai, and M. Kitagawa, Phys. Rev. Applied11, 034021 (2019)

    2019

  54. [55]

    Mujal, R

    P. Mujal, R. Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J. Nokkala, J. Garc´ ıa-Beni, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100027 (2021)

    2021

  55. [56]

    L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki, Physical Review Research3, 013077 (2021)

    2021

  56. [57]

    Suzuki, Q

    Y. Suzuki, Q. Gao, K. C. Pradel, K. Yasuoka, and N. Ya- mamoto, Scientific Reports12, 1353 (2022)

    2022

  57. [58]

    Variational quantum dimension reduction for recurrent quantum models,

    C. Lyu, X. Wang, M. Gu, T. J. Elliott, and C. Yang, “Variational quantum dimension reduction for recurrent quantum models,” (2026), arXiv:2603.09567 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  58. [59]

    Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  59. [60]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  60. [61]

    G. E. Fux, P. Fowler-Wright, J. Beckles, E. P. But- ler, P. R. Eastham, D. Gribben, J. Keeling, D. Kilda, P. Kirton, E. D. C. Lawrence, B. W. Lovett, E. O’Neill, A. Strathearn, and R. de Wit, Journal of Chemical Physics161, 124108 (2024)

    2024

  61. [62]

    Cygorek and E

    M. Cygorek and E. M. Gauger, Journal of Chemical Physics161, 074111 (2024)

    2024

  62. [63]

    Process tensor approaches to non- markovian quantum dynamics,

    J. Keeling, E. M. Stoudenmire, M.-C. Ba˜ nuls, and D. R. Reichman, “Process tensor approaches to non- markovian quantum dynamics,” (2025), invited perspec- tive, arXiv:2509.07661 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Reinforcement learning for quantum processes with memory,

    J. Lumbreras, R. C. Huang, Y. Hu, M. Fanizza, and M. Gu, “Reinforcement learning for quantum processes with memory,” (2026), arXiv:2603.25138 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [65]

    White, F

    G. White, F. Pollock, L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. Hill, PRX Quantum3, 020344 (2022)

    2022

  65. [66]

    Zhang, B

    H. Zhang, B. Pokharel, E. Levenson-Falk, and D. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 054018 (2022)

    2022

  66. [67]

    G. A. L. White, K. Modi, and C. D. Hill, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 160401 (2023)

    2023

  67. [68]

    Tripathi, D

    V. Tripathi, D. Kowsari, K. Saurav, H. Zhang, E. M. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, Chemical Reviews125, 5745 (2024)

    2024

  68. [69]

    Hashim, L

    A. Hashim, L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, R. K. Naik, T. Chistolini, J. Hines, J. Marceaux, Y. Kim, P. Gokhale, T. Tomesh, S. Chen, L. Jiang, S. Ferracin, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, K. C. Young, I. Siddiqi, and R. Blume-Kohout, PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025)

    2025

  69. [70]

    G. A. L. White, P. Jurcevic, C. D. Hill, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. X15, 021047 (2025)

    2025

  70. [71]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Wu, G. A. L. White, Z. Xiang, S. Hu, Z. Peng, Y. Liu, D. Zheng, X. Fu, A. Huang, D. Poletti, K. Modi, J. Wu, M. Deng, and C. Guo, Communications Physics8, 29 (2025)

    2025

  71. [72]

    Ghosh, B

    S. Ghosh, B. Opanchuk, L. Rosales-Z´ arate, B. Wilson, and M. D. Reid, npj Quantum Information5, 35 (2019)

    2019

  72. [73]

    Nakajima, K

    K. Nakajima, K. Fujii, M. Negoro, K. Mitarai, and M. Kitagawa, Physical Review Applied11, 034021 (2019)

    2019

  73. [74]

    Sannia, R

    A. Sannia, R. Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, M. C. Soriano, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Quantum8, 1291 (2024)

    2024

  74. [75]

    Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na and J.-P

    R. Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na and J.-P. Ortega, Physical Review E 111, 065306 (2025), arXiv:2412.08322 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Wringe, S

    C. Wringe, S. Stepney, and M. Trefzer, International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems 40, 313 (2025)

    2025

  76. [77]

    J. P. Crutchfield and K. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 105 (1989)

    1989

  77. [78]

    C. R. Shalizi and J. P. Crutchfield, J. Stat. Phys.104, 817 (2001)

    2001

  78. [79]

    M. Gu, K. Wiesner, E. Rieper, and V. Vedral, Nat. Com- mun.3, 762 (2012)

    2012

  79. [80]

    Thompson, A

    J. Thompson, A. J. P. Garner, V. Vedral, and M. Gu, npj Quantum Information3, 6 (2017)

    2017

  80. [81]

    F. C. Binder, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 240502 (2018)

    2018

Showing first 80 references.