Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 53 references

Experiment-compatible measurement--feedback quantum state preparation with reinforcement learning

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Reinforcement learning designs real-time measurement and feedback for quantum state preparation using only outcome histories.

desk verdict The paper frames a POMDP-style RL controller for measurement-feedback state prep with a stochastic single-shot reward that is unbiased by linearity, but the abstract supplies no results at all. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.13005 v1 pith:B3VEWCY6 submitted 2026-06-11 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Xiaotian Nie , Tao Zhang , Linghui Chen This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords quantumstatepreparationreinforcementlearningmeasurementfeedbackpartialobservabilityBose-HubbardmodelGHZstatesgroundsimulation
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 develops an adaptive measurement-feedback protocol that uses reinforcement learning to prepare quantum states under partial observability. The controller selects both the next measurement operator and the feedback action based solely on the recorded sequence of experimental measurement results. Training employs a stochastic terminal reward assembled from single-shot measurements of randomly chosen Hamiltonian terms, which functions as an unbiased estimator of the target energy without requiring full state tomography. The method is shown to reach ground states of the Bose-Hubbard model and to produce GHZ states. This construction supplies a hardware-compatible route to state preparation that scales beyond what full-state information would allow.

What carries the argument

Reinforcement learning controller under partial observability that selects measurement operators and feedback actions from measurement history alone, trained via stochastic terminal reward from one-shot Hamiltonian samples.

What would settle it

An experiment on the Bose-Hubbard model in which the long-run average of the stochastic reward converges to a value measurably higher than the known ground-state energy of the Hamiltonian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

An adaptive measurement-feedback protocol based on reinforcement learning under partial observability prepares ground states of the Bose-Hubbard model and generates GHZ states. The controller uses only the history of experimentally accessible measurement outcomes to choose both the measurement operator and the feedback action in real time. Training uses a stochastic terminal reward built from one-shot measurements of randomly sampled Hamiltonian components that avoids unphysical full-state reconstruction while remaining an unbiased estimator of the target energy.

Load-bearing premise

The stochastic terminal reward built from one-shot measurements of randomly sampled Hamiltonian components is an unbiased estimator of the target energy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an adaptive measurement-feedback protocol for quantum state preparation using reinforcement learning under partial observability. The controller selects both the measurement operator and feedback action in real time based solely on the history of experimentally accessible measurement outcomes. Training uses a stochastic terminal reward constructed from one-shot measurements of randomly sampled Hamiltonian components, which is presented as an unbiased estimator of the target energy via linearity of expectation. The approach is demonstrated by preparing ground states of the Bose-Hubbard model and generating GHZ states, positioning it as a scalable, hardware-compatible alternative to methods requiring full-state reconstruction.

Significance. If the numerical demonstrations hold, the work provides a practical advance for experiment-compatible quantum control by eliminating reliance on unphysical full-state information while preserving an unbiased reward signal. The partial-observability POMDP formulation and stochastic reward construction align directly with laboratory constraints, potentially enabling RL-based preparation of correlated and entangled states in many-body systems where tomography is infeasible. This could impact quantum simulation platforms by offering a data-driven, adaptive alternative to handcrafted policies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and results sections: the central claim of successful demonstrations on Bose-Hubbard ground states and GHZ generation is asserted, yet the manuscript provides no numerical results, training curves, error bars, fidelity metrics, or baseline comparisons. This absence is load-bearing for the claim that the RL controller achieves state preparation and must be remedied with quantitative evidence before the result can be assessed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and for identifying this critical gap in the presentation of our results. We agree that the absence of quantitative evidence undermines the central claims and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and results sections: the central claim of successful demonstrations on Bose-Hubbard ground states and GHZ generation is asserted, yet the manuscript provides no numerical results, training curves, error bars, fidelity metrics, or baseline comparisons. This absence is load-bearing for the claim that the RL controller achieves state preparation and must be remedied with quantitative evidence before the result can be assessed.

    Authors: We fully agree that the current manuscript lacks the required numerical support for the claimed demonstrations. The abstract and results sections assert successful preparation of Bose-Hubbard ground states and GHZ states without providing training curves, error bars, fidelity values, or baseline comparisons. This is a substantive omission that prevents proper evaluation of the method. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated results section containing: (i) learning curves showing reward and fidelity versus training episodes with error bars from multiple random seeds; (ii) final-state fidelities (or energy deviations) for both the Bose-Hubbard and GHZ tasks; (iii) comparisons against at least one baseline policy (e.g., random or hand-crafted feedback); and (iv) representative measurement-outcome histograms confirming that the stochastic reward remains unbiased. These additions will be placed in the main text with appropriate figure captions and will directly substantiate the abstract claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper applies standard reinforcement learning in a POMDP setting to quantum feedback control. The central technical claim—that a stochastic terminal reward formed from single-shot measurements of randomly sampled Hamiltonian terms is an unbiased estimator of the target energy—follows directly from linearity of expectation and requires no fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes that reduce to the target result. No load-bearing derivation step collapses by construction to its own inputs; the method remains externally falsifiable via standard RL theory and experimental benchmarks.

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

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The unbiased-estimator property of the stochastic reward is stated but not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experiment-compatible measurement--feedback quantum state preparation with reinforcement learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3VEWCY6

@misc{pith2026260613005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experiment-compatible measurement--feedback quantum state preparation with reinforcement learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3VEWCY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.13005}
}
read the original abstract

Ground-state preparation is a critical task in quantum simulation and quantum computing, as it enables the study of correlated phases and the generation of entangled resource states. While measurement--feedback control has emerged as a promising route to state preparation, existing schemes either rely on handcrafted, task-specific policies or are designed using full quantum-state information that is unavailable in real experiments and becomes impractical for large many-body systems. Here we develop an adaptive measurement--feedback protocol based on reinforcement learning under partial observability. The controller uses only the history of experimentally accessible measurement outcomes to choose both the measurement operator and the feedback action in real time. To make training compatible with experiments, we introduce a stochastic terminal reward built from one-shot measurements of randomly sampled Hamiltonian components, avoiding unphysical full-state reconstruction while remaining an unbiased estimator of the target energy. We demonstrate the method by preparing ground states of the Bose--Hubbard model and by generating GHZ states, establishing a scalable and hardware-compatible route to quantum state preparation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the measurement–feedback reinforcement-learning framework. (a) Closed-loop control: at each time step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy evolution during measurement–feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy evolution during GHZ-state preparation via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thin col- ored lines show 100 sampled trajectories, the bold line is the ensemble mean, and the shaded region indicates±1 standard deviation over 1000 episodes

    regimes, with measurement strengthγ/J= 0.3. Thin col- ored lines show 100 sampled trajectories, the bold line is the ensemble mean, and the shaded region indicates±1 standard deviation over 1000 episodes. The dashed line marks the ex- act ground-state energyE gs. the measured observable and feedback operator to be ˆct = X j αt,j ˆnj, ˆFt = (βt,1 +iβ t,2) ...

  2. [2]

    Pro- grammable quantum annealing architectures with ising quantum wires.PRX Quantum, 1(2):020311, November 2020

    Xingze Qiu, Peter Zoller, and Xiaopeng Li. Pro- grammable quantum annealing architectures with ising quantum wires.PRX Quantum, 1(2):020311, November 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Lukin, and Hannes Pichler

    Lisa Bombieri, Zhongda Zeng, Roberto Tricarico, Rui Lin, Simone Notarnicola, Madelyn Cain, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Hannes Pichler. Quantum adiabatic opti- mization with rydberg arrays: Localization phenomena and encoding strategies.PRX Quantum, 6(2):020306, April 2025. 5

    2025

  4. [4]

    Universal quantum optimization with cold atoms in an optical cavity.Phys

    Meng Ye, Ye Tian, Jian Lin, Yuchen Luo, Jiaqi You, Ji- azhong Hu, Wenjun Zhang, Wenlan Chen, and Xiaopeng Li. Universal quantum optimization with cold atoms in an optical cavity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(10):103601, September 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    He-Ran Wang, Dong Yuan, Shun-Yao Zhang, Zhong Wang, Dong-Ling Deng, and L.-M. Duan. Embedding quantum many-body scars into decoherence-free sub- spaces.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(15):150401, April 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Chivilikhin, A

    D. Chivilikhin, A. Samarin, V. Ulyantsev, I. Iorsh, A. Oganov, and O. Kyriienko. Mog-vqe: Multiobjective genetic variational quantum eigensolver.arXiv: Quan- tum Physics, July 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Anastasiou, Yanzhu Chen, Nicholas J

    Panagiotis G. Anastasiou, Yanzhu Chen, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Tetris-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans\”atze.Phys. Rev. Res., 6(1):013254, March 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Ryabinkin, Scott N

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Scott N. Genin, and Artur F. Iz- maylov. Constrained variational quantum eigensolver: Quantum computer search engine in the fock space.J. Chem. Theory Comput., 15(1):249–255, January 2019

    2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Parrish, Edward G

    Robert M. Parrish, Edward G. Hohenstein, Peter L. McMahon, and Todd J. Mart´ ınez. Quantum computa- tion of electronic transitions using a variational quantum eigensolver.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(23):230401, June 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Ac- celerated variational quantum eigensolver.Phys

    Daochen Wang, Oscar Higgott, and Stephen Brierley. Ac- celerated variational quantum eigensolver.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(14):140504, April 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    X. Zhou, I. Dotsenko, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, C. Sayrin, S. Gleyzes, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche. Field locked to a fock state by quantum feedback with single photon corrections.Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(24):243602, June 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Mu˜ noz-Arias, Pablo M

    Manuel H. Mu˜ noz-Arias, Pablo M. Poggi, Poul S. Jessen, and Ivan H. Deutsch. Simulating nonlinear dynamics of collective spins via quantum measurement and feedback. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(11):110503, March 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    D. A. Ivanov, T. Yu. Ivanova, S. F. Caballero-Benitez, and I. B. Mekhov. Feedback-induced quantum phase transitions using weak measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(1):010603, January 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Greve, Baochen Wu, James K

    Athreya Shankar, Graham P. Greve, Baochen Wu, James K. Thompson, and Murray Holland. Continuous real-time tracking of a quantum phase below the stan- dard quantum limit.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(23):233602, June 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications.Physics Reports, 679:1–60, March 2017

    Jing Zhang, Yu-xi Liu, Re-Bing Wu, Kurt Jacobs, and Franco Nori. Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications.Physics Reports, 679:1–60, March 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    H. M. Wiseman. Quantum theory of continuous feedback. Phys. Rev. A, 49(3):2133–2150, March 1994

    1994

  9. [17]

    Sudhir, D

    V. Sudhir, D. J. Wilson, R. Schilling, H. Sch¨ utz, S. A. Fedorov, A. H. Ghadimi, A. Nunnenkamp, and T. J. Kip- penberg. Appearance and disappearance of quantum cor- relations in measurement-based feedback control of a me- chanical oscillator.Phys. Rev. X, 7(1):011001, January 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Nishimori’s cat: Stable long-range entanglement from finite-depth unitaries and weak measurements.Phys

    Guo-Yi Zhu, Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Ashvin Vish- wanath, Simon Trebst, and Ruben Verresen. Nishimori’s cat: Stable long-range entanglement from finite-depth unitaries and weak measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(20):200201, November 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hierarchy of topological order from finite-depth unitaries, measurement, and feedforward

    Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Ruben Verresen. Hierarchy of topological order from finite-depth unitaries, measurement, and feedforward. PRX Quantum, 4(2):020339, June 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cox, Graham P

    Kevin C. Cox, Graham P. Greve, Joshua M. Weiner, and James K. Thompson. Deterministic squeezed states with collective measurements and feedback.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(9):093602, March 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Andrew C. J. Wade, Jacob F. Sherson, and Klaus Mølmer. Squeezing and entanglement of density oscil- lations in a bose-einstein condensate.Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(6):060401, August 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Unconditional quantum-noise suppression via measurement-based quantum feedback.Phys

    Ryotaro Inoue, Shin-Ichi-Ro Tanaka, Ryo Namiki, Takahiro Sagawa, and Yoshiro Takahashi. Unconditional quantum-noise suppression via measurement-based quantum feedback.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(16):163602, April 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Rist` e, M

    D. Rist` e, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, M. J. Tiggelman, Ya M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. Schouten, and L. DiCarlo. Deterministic entanglement of superconducting qubits by parity measurement and feedback.Nature, 502(7471):350–354, October 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Real- time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states.Nature, 477(7362):73–77, September 2011

    Cl´ ement Sayrin, Igor Dotsenko, Xingxing Zhou, Bruno Peaudecerf, Th´ eo Rybarczyk, S´ ebastien Gleyzes, Pierre Rouchon, Mazyar Mirrahimi, Hadis Amini, Michel Brune, Jean-Michel Raimond, and Serge Haroche. Real- time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number state...

    2011

  17. [25]

    Poulsen, and Klaus Mølmer

    Antonio Negretti, Uffe V. Poulsen, and Klaus Mølmer. Quantum superposition state production by contin- uous observations and feedback.Phys. Rev. Lett., 99(22):223601, November 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Quantum feedback control for deterministic entangled photon generation.Phys

    Masahiro Yanagisawa. Quantum feedback control for deterministic entangled photon generation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 97(19):190201, November 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Bounding fidelity in quantum feedback control: Theory and applications to dicke state preparation.Quantum Sci

    Eoin O’Connor, Hailan Ma, and Marco G Genoni. Bounding fidelity in quantum feedback control: Theory and applications to dicke state preparation.Quantum Sci. Technol., 10(3):035049, June 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Preparing quantum states by measurement-feedback control with bayesian optimization.Front

    Yadong Wu, Juan Yao, and Pengfei Zhang. Preparing quantum states by measurement-feedback control with bayesian optimization.Front. Phys., 18(6):61301, July 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Reinforcement learning for quantum technology, January 2026

    Marin Bukov and Florian Marquardt. Reinforcement learning for quantum technology, January 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    Quantum circuit discovery for fault-tolerant logical state preparation with reinforcement learning.Phys

    Remmy Zen, Jan Olle, Luis Colmenarez, Matteo Puviani, Markus M¨ uller, and Florian Marquardt. Quantum circuit discovery for fault-tolerant logical state preparation with reinforcement learning.Phys. Rev. X, 15(4):041012, Oc- tober 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gunther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J

    Christiane P. Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gunther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J. Glaser, Ron- nie Kosloff, Simone Montangero, Thomas Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, Dominique Sugny, and Frank K. Wil- helm. Quantum optimal control in quantum technolo- gies. strategic report on ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Controlling nonergodicity in quantum many-body systems by reinforcement learn- ing

    Li-Li Ye and Ying-Cheng Lai. Controlling nonergodicity in quantum many-body systems by reinforcement learn- ing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11989v3, August 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Manipulation of spin dynamics by deep reinforcement learning agent

    Jun-Jie Chen and Ming Xue. Manipulation of spin dynamics by deep reinforcement learning agent. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08748v2, January 2019. 6

    1901 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tak- ing gradients through experiments: Lstms and mem- ory proximal policy optimization for black-box quantum control

    Moritz August and Jos´ e Miguel Hern´ andez-Lobato. Tak- ing gradients through experiments: Lstms and mem- ory proximal policy optimization for black-box quantum control. In Rio Yokota, Mich` ele Weiland, John Shalf, and Sadaf Alam, editors,High Performance Computing, pages 59...

    2018

  27. [35]

    X. L. Zhao, Y. M. Zhao, M. Li, T. T. Li, Q. Liu, S. Guo, and X. X. Yi. A strategy for preparing quantum squeezed states using reinforcement learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16320v4, January 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Clas- sifying global state preparation via deep reinforcement learning.Mach

    Tobias Haug, Wai-Keong Mok, Jia-Bin You, Wenzu Zhang, Ching Eng Png, and Leong-Chuan Kwek. Clas- sifying global state preparation via deep reinforcement learning.Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol., 2(1):01LT02, De- cember 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Reinforcement learning for quantum control under physical constraints

    Jan Ole Ernst, Aniket Chatterjee, Tim Franzmeyer, and Axel Kuhn. Reinforcement learning for quantum control under physical constraints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14372v2, January 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Faster state preparation across quantum phase transition assisted by reinforcement learning.Phys

    Shuai-Feng Guo, Feng Chen, Qi Liu, Ming Xue, Jun-Jie Chen, Jia-Hao Cao, Tian-Wei Mao, Meng Khoon Tey, and Li You. Faster state preparation across quantum phase transition assisted by reinforcement learning.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(6):060401, February 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    A tutorial on optimal control and reinforcement learning methods for quantum tech- nologies.Physics Letters A, 434:128054, May 2022

    Luigi Giannelli, Sofia Sgroi, Jonathon Brown, Gheo- rghe Sorin Paraoanu, Mauro Paternostro, Elisabetta Pal- adino, and Giuseppe Falci. A tutorial on optimal control and reinforcement learning methods for quantum tech- nologies.Physics Letters A, 434:128054, May 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Duncan, Pablo M

    Callum W. Duncan, Pablo M. Poggi, Marin Bukov, Nikolaj Thomas Zinner, and Steve Campbell. Tam- ing quantum systems: A tutorial for using shortcuts- to-adiabaticity, quantum optimal control, and reinforce- ment learning.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040201, October 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Reinforcement learning optimization of the charging of a dicke quantum battery

    Paolo Andrea Erdman, Gian Marcello Andolina, Vitto- rio Giovannetti, and Frank No´ e. Reinforcement learning optimization of the charging of a dicke quantum battery. Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(24):243602, December 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Artificially intelligent maxwell’s demon for optimal control of open quantum systems.Quantum Sci

    Paolo A Erdman, Robert Czupryniak, Bibek Bhandari, Andrew N Jordan, Frank No´ e, Jens Eisert, and Giacomo Guarnieri. Artificially intelligent maxwell’s demon for optimal control of open quantum systems.Quantum Sci. Technol., 10(2):025047, March 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Deep reinforcement learning for quantum state preparation with weak nonlinear measure- ments.Quantum, 6:747, June 2022

    Riccardo Porotti, Antoine Essig, Benjamin Huard, and Florian Marquardt. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum state preparation with weak nonlinear measure- ments.Quantum, 6:747, June 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Machine learning for ground state preparation via measurement and feed- back, February 2025

    Chuanxin Wang and Yi-Zhuang You. Machine learning for ground state preparation via measurement and feed- back, February 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Reinforcement learning for autonomous preparation of floquet-engineered states: Inverting the quantum kapitza oscillator.Phys

    Marin Bukov. Reinforcement learning for autonomous preparation of floquet-engineered states: Inverting the quantum kapitza oscillator.Phys. Rev. B, 98(22):224305, December 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. De- voret. Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even.Nature, 616(7955):50–55, April 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, H. Liu, B. Royer, I. Tsioutsios, and M. H. Devoret. Model-free quantum control with re- inforcement learning.Phys. Rev. X, 12(1):011059, March 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Norris, Ants Remm, Michael Kerschbaum, Jean- Claude Besse, Florian Marquardt, Andreas Wallraff, and Christopher Eichler

    Kevin Reuer, Jonas Landgraf, Thomas F¨ osel, James O’Sullivan, Liberto Beltr´ an, Abdulkadir Akin, Gra- ham J. Norris, Ants Remm, Michael Kerschbaum, Jean- Claude Besse, Florian Marquardt, Andreas Wallraff, and Christopher Eichler. Realizing a deep reinforcement learning agent...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Kurt Jacobs and Daniel A. Steck. A straightforward in- troduction to continuous quantum measurement.Con- temporary Physics, 47(5):279–303, September 2006

    2006

  42. [50]

    Discovered policy optimisation

    Chris Lu, Jakub Grudzien Kuba, Alistair Letcher, Luke Metz, Christian Schroeder de Witt, and Jakob Foerster. Discovered policy optimisation

  43. [51]

    T. J. Elliott, W. Kozlowski, S. F. Caballero-Benitez, and I. B. Mekhov. Multipartite entangled spatial modes of ultracold atoms generated and controlled by quantum measurement.Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(11):113604, March 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Diffraction-unlimited position measurement of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice.Phys

    Yuto Ashida and Masahito Ueda. Diffraction-unlimited position measurement of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice.Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(9):095301, August 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Cold atoms in cavity- generated dynamical optical potentials.Rev

    Helmut Ritsch, Peter Domokos, Ferdinand Bren- necke, and Tilman Esslinger. Cold atoms in cavity- generated dynamical optical potentials.Rev. Mod. Phys., 85(2):553–601, April 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.