REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references
Restoring Heisenberg-Limited Precision in Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems via Dynamical Decoupling
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper proves that carefully chosen dynamical-decoupling pulses restore Heisenberg-limited precision ($t^2$) in open quantum systems even when the environment has memory, without assuming Markovian noise.
desk verdict Worth refereeing with revisions: the paper has a useful theorem and a clean example, but the sufficiency proof has a gap and the Jaynes-Cummings equation contains an ill-defined sign factor. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is a time-dependent control Hamiltonian $H_C(t)$ acting only on the probe, whose unitaries $U_C(kT)$ average the system-environment coupling $H_{SE}$ to $c\,1_S \otimes J_E$ while preserving a nontrivial averaged signal Hamiltonian $H_S^{\rm eff}(\omega)$. The argument runs through the average-Hamiltonian approximation: over $n$ short intervals of length $T$, the time-ordered evolution is replaced by $e^{-i nT(H_S^{\rm eff}\otimes 1_E+1_S\otimes H_E^{\rm eff})}$, and when the dynamical decoupling condition (Eq. 15) holds the total evolution factorizes as $U_S^{\rm eff}(\omega,t)\otimes U_E^{\rm eff}(t)$. Theorem 1 characterizes when such unitaries exist: a mixed-unitary channel $\Phi$ that keeps $\Phi(H_S)$ nontrivial, makes $\Phi(\langle \psi|H_{SE}|\psi\rangle_E)$ proportional to the identity, and makes its diagonal entries constant in the eigenbasis of $\Phi(H_S)$.
What would settle it
Simulate or measure frequency estimation in a strongly non-Markovian reservoir (e.g., damped Jaynes-Cummings with $\gamma_0\gg\lambda$) under $\pi/2$ dynamical-decoupling pulses with fixed finite width and spacing $T$, and compare the QFI to $4t^2\mathrm{Var}[G_{\rm eff}]$; if the curve bends away from quadratic growth as $T$ approaches $1/\lambda$ and the deviation fails to vanish with decreasing $T$, the average-Hamiltonian idealization is the limiting failure point.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the central result is that Heisenberg scaling is not tied to closed-system evolution: a system-specific control Hamiltonian $H_C(t)$ can dynamically decouple the probe from its environment while preserving the signal, regardless of whether the noise is Markovian or non-Markovian. Theorem 1 gives necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of a mixed-unitary channel $\Phi$: $\Phi(H_S)$ must be non-trivial, the averaged environment-induced term $\Phi(\langle \psi|H_{SE}|\psi\rangle_E)$ must be orthogonal to the traceless part of $\Phi(H_S)$, and its diagonal entries in the eigenbasis of $\Phi(H_S)$ must be constant. When these hold, the effective evolution factorizes as $\tilde{U}_{\rm tot}\approx U_S^{\rm eff}(\omega,t)\otimes U_E^{\rm eff}(t)$, so for $H_S(\omega)=\omega G_S$ the quantum Fisher information becomes $F_\omega^{(Q)}(\rho_S(\omega,t))\approx 4t^2\,\mathrm{Var}[G_{\rm eff}]$, i.e. the Heisenberg $t^2$ growth. The same framework covers discrete, non-periodic control sequences, generalizing earlier integral decoupling conditions, and the damped Jaynes-Cummings example confirms the predicted recovery of quadratic scaling under a Lorentzian non-Markovian reservoir.
Load-bearing premise
The argument's load-bearing idealization is the average-Hamiltonian approximation: pulses are taken to be instantaneous delta functions and intervals so short that the Hamiltonian is effectively time-independent, so the replacement $e^{-iT\sum \tilde H(kT)}$ is exact only in the limit of infinitely fast control; finite pulses or intervals comparable to the environment correlation time degrade the quadratic scaling.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For any $H_S(\omega)=\omega G_S$ satisfying the theorem's conditions, the quantum Fisher information grows as $4t^2 \mathrm{Var}[G_{\rm eff}]$, matching the noiseless Heisenberg limit rather than the shot-noise limit.
- The necessary and sufficient conditions give a concrete test for whether a given system-environment Hamiltonian can be decoupled while keeping the signal: the environment-averaged coupling must be trace-orthogonal to the signal part and constant on diagonals in the signal eigenbasis.
- The discrete summation condition extends prior integral decoupling conditions to non-periodic control sequences, so the control needs only to average over intervals, not to repeat periodically.
- In the damped Jaynes-Cummings example with a Lorentzian, strongly non-Markovian reservoir ($\gamma_0 \gg \lambda$), the controlled quantum Fisher information approaches the noiseless quadratic curve.
- Because no complete-positivity or Markovian assumption enters, the result applies to general open-system dynamics, including correlated initial system-environment states.
Reading between the lines
- A practical design rule suggested by the proof is to implement a control sequence whose average is a pinching channel onto the eigenbasis of the effective signal, which cancels noise whose environment-averaged matrix is diagonal-constant in that basis; the paper gives a two-qubit illustration of this principle but not a general pulse-construction algorithm.
- A natural next test, already implied by the example's finite-pulse gap, is to simulate finite-width pulses and compare with the average-Hamiltonian prediction; such simulations would define the practical upper bound on pulse interval for each noise spectrum.
- If the framework extends to $N$ correlated probes—a question the paper explicitly leaves open—then dynamical decoupling could restore both $t^2$ and $N^2$ scaling simultaneously, which would matter for entangled sensors in memory-bearing environments.
- Dynamical decoupling here acts like error correction without syndrome measurement, so it may complement quantum error correction in settings where the Markovian assumptions behind standard QEC break down.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies quantum frequency estimation in open quantum systems with non-Markovian noise. The authors propose to apply dynamical decoupling (DDT) to the system, with the aim of removing the system-environment interaction while keeping the parameter-dependent part of the system Hamiltonian active. They formulate Theorem 1, giving necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a sequence of unitary controls satisfying two conditions: (i) the averaged interaction takes a trivial c 1_S ⊗ J_E form, and (ii) the averaged signal Hamiltonian remains non-trivial. Under these conditions and an average-Hamiltonian approximation, they show the effective evolution factorizes, the generator of the parameter is approximately t G_eff, and the QFI scales as 4 t^2 Var[G_eff], i.e., Heisenberg scaling, without assuming Markovian dynamics. They illustrate the approach with the damped Jaynes-Cummings model with a Lorentzian spectral density and detuning, reporting that pi-pulse DDT restores near-Heisenberg QFI. A detailed proof of Theorem 1 is given in Appendix A, and the example is solved in Appendices B and C.
Significance. If the results were fully correct, they would be a valuable generalization of dynamical-decoupling-based metrology to non-Markovian environments. The clean separation between the decoupling condition (Eq. 15) and the signal-preservation condition (Eq. 16) is a useful organizing principle, and the sufficient conditions in Corollary 1.1 are concrete and checkable. The paper also correctly stresses the importance of the global QFI bound (Eq. 8), and the Jaynes-Cummings model is an apt non-Markovian testbed. The manuscript is clearly written and the main idea is easy to grasp. However, the central theorem's proof contains an unjustified uniformity assumption, the finite-T corrections to the average-Hamiltonian limit are not quantified, and the example's equations contain sign-factor inconsistencies that call the numerical demonstration into question. These are substantial but potentially repairable issues.
major comments (4)
- [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 1 (sufficiency)] After constructing the channel Φ' = Π ∘ Φ, the proof discretizes the probability density p'(x) into weights m_j/n, and then states 'Assume that p'(x) is the uniform distribution' to conclude m_j/n = 1/n (Eqs. A6-A8). This assumption is not valid for a general mixed unitary channel, and it is exactly what is needed to turn an arbitrary convex combination into the equal-weight average required by the theorem. The discretization step is also only approximate, whereas Theorem 1 is an exact existence statement. As written, the sufficiency direction is not proven. I suggest replacing this step with a multiset construction (repeating a unitary m_j times to obtain an equal-weight average) and, if exact weights are not achievable, stating the theorem with an approximation guarantee; alternatively, restrict the theorem to channels admitting a finite equal-weight representation. The necessity direction appears sound.
- [Section III.A, Eqs. (11)-(14) and (19)-(22)] The central QFI scaling F_ω^(Q) ∝ t^2 is derived after replacing the time-ordered product of n interval evolutions by the single exponential e^{-i n T (H_S^eff ⊗ 1_E + 1_S ⊗ H_E + H_SE^eff)}. This is the average-Hamiltonian approximation. For finite pulse spacing T, the Magnus expansion contains corrections of order T per interval (e.g., commutators involving H_SE), and these accumulate over n = t/T intervals, producing a residual system-environment coupling of order t T. The manuscript does not bound this error, and the concluding sentence that increasing the pulse number 'can further restore ideal precision' is not backed by a quantitative statement. To claim restoration of Heisenberg scaling in a real protocol, the authors need a result of the form |F_ω^(Q)(t) - 4 t^2 Var[G_eff]| ≤ ε(t,T) with ε → 0 as T → 0 uniformly on the relevant time scale, or an explicit demonstration that the leading correction does not destroy the t^2 term. Figure 3 shows only short times and a visible gap, so it does not by itself establish asymptotic t^2 scaling.
- [Section IV.B, Eqs. (31)-(32)] The factor (-1)^{n+τ/T} is not well-defined because n = t/T and τ/T are not integers in general; (-1)^x for non-integer x is a complex phase, not a parity sign. Both Eq. (31) and Eq. (32) contain this factor, so the product in the convolution is (-1)^{2n+2τ/T} = e^{2 i π τ/T}, which is not identically 1 and does not yield the standard sign pattern expected from dynamical decoupling. Relatedly, Eq. (33), obtained by differentiating Eq. (31), is independent of n and T, which is inconsistent with the claim that the pulses alter the dynamics; the numerical results in Fig. 3 therefore need to be re-derived and re-verified. The recurrence in Appendix C is the natural place to check the correct piecewise-constant sign factors, but the present formulation does not make this consistent.
- [Section IV.B, control sequence and Eq. (15)] For the chosen H_C(t) = (π/2) Σ_{k=0}^{n-1} δ(t-kT) σ_z, the control unitary after k pulses is U_C(kT) = (-i)^k σ_z^k, so the interaction in the k-th interval is (-1)^k (σ_+ B + σ_- B†), up to an irrelevant global phase. Hence the average in Eq. (15) is proportional to (1/n) Σ_{k=0}^{n-1} (-1)^k (σ_+ B + σ_- B†), which vanishes only for even n; for odd n the decoupling condition is not satisfied. The statement that 'It can be readily verified that the control unitary evolution satisfies the DDT condition in Eq. 15' is therefore true only for a restricted parity of n (or in a suitable limit), and this restriction should be stated and incorporated in the derivation.
minor comments (5)
- [Section I] The scaling is stated as 'δ2ω ∝ /(N t)2' (twice in the same paragraph); it should read δ²ω ∝ 1/(N t)².
- [Section III.A, Eq. (20)] The eigenvectors |ψ_k⟩ and eigenvalues λ_k should be those of the initial system state ρ_S(0) (or the state before encoding), not of ρ_S(ω,t); although the final state is related by a unitary commuting with A, this should be stated to avoid ambiguity.
- [Appendix B, Eq. (B9)] The integrand should contain e^{-i(ω_0-ω_k)τ}, not e^{-i(ω_0-ω_k)t}; as written, the subsequent substitution into Eq. (B7) does not produce the convolution in Eq. (B10).
- [Appendix A] There is a typo 'Not that the above expression is nontrivial' which should read 'Note that...'; also the notation U(kT) versus U_C(kT) is inconsistent across the theorem statement and the proof.
- [Section IV.B, Eq. (34) and Appendix C] The notation for τ_n, the arguments of the hyperbolic functions in the expression for B_n, and the definitions of η_± are hard to follow; for example, Eq. (C3) contains sinh(d T n / 2), which appears to be a typo for sinh(d (n-1) T / 2). Please clarify and check for typographical errors.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the QFI scaling follows forward from the explicit decoupling condition, whose existence is proven, and the example parameters are illustrative rather than fitted.
full rationale
The derivation chain is a forward application of control theory. The paper assumes a control Hamiltonian HC(t), defines the average-Hamiltonian approximation (Eqs. 11–14), imposes the decoupling condition (Eq. 15), proves in Theorem 1 necessary and sufficient conditions for a set of unitaries to satisfy that condition while keeping the effective signal Hamiltonian nontrivial, and then computes the QFI from the resulting factorized evolution. Each step uses standard quantum-metrology identities (the variance formula for unitary encoding and the SLD expression), and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Jaynes–Cummings example chooses lambda, gamma0, and Delta as illustrative parameters, and the DDT sequence is the standard pi/2 pulse train; the QFI curve with DDT in Fig. 3 is a numerical solution of the controlled model, not a curve forced to t^2. The only author self-citation ([27]) appears in the introduction as an example of QEC-assisted metrology and is not load-bearing for the central theorem. Concerns about the average-Hamiltonian approximation for finite T, the unquantified commutator corrections, and the ill-defined factor (-1)^(n+tau/T) in Eq. 31 are correctness and rigor issues rather than circularity, and under the review rules they do not change the circularity score.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- Spectral width λ =
0.5 (in Figs. 1-3)
- Coupling rate γ0 =
10λ = 5
- Detuning Δ =
3λ = 1.5
- Control pulse interval T (or number of pulses n) =
Not specified in text for Fig. 3
assumptions (7)
- standard math The total system-environment evolution is unitary and described by the von Neumann equation (Eq. 6).
- domain assumption The parameter ω to be estimated enters only through the system Hamiltonian HS(ω), not through HE or HSE (Eq. 5).
- domain assumption The control unitaries UC(kT) can be applied as instantaneous delta-function pulses at zero time cost (HC(t) in Sec. IV.B).
- domain assumption The evolution can be divided into small time intervals T, over which the Hamiltonian is approximately time-independent, and the total unitary is well approximated by the exponential of the sum of interval Hamiltonians (Eqs. 11-14).
- ad hoc to paper In the proof of Theorem 1, the mixed unitary channel Φ' can be represented as a uniform discrete average over n unitaries with equal weights (Appendix A, Eqs. A5-A8).
- domain assumption The environment spectral density is Lorentzian with detuning (Eq. 24) and the rotating wave approximation holds (Eq. 23).
- domain assumption The initial system-environment state is separable, as used in the explicit QFI formula (Eq. 22) and the example.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Restoring Heisenberg-Limited Precision in Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems via Dynamical Decoupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTW5LP6K
@misc{pith2026250101917,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Restoring Heisenberg-Limited Precision in Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems via Dynamical Decoupling},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTW5LP6K}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01917}
}
read the original abstract
Non-classical resources enable measurements to achieve a precision that exceeds the limits predicted by the central limit theorem. However, environmental noise arising from system-environment interactions severely limits the performance of such resources through decoherence. While significant progress has been made in mitigating Markovian noise, the extent to which non-Markovian noise can be mitigated remains poorly understood. We demonstrate that Heisenberg Scaling, the ultimate quantum limit on measurement precision, can be recovered in quantum metrology under non-Markovian noise by leveraging carefully designed Dynamical Decoupling Techniques. Importantly, our approach does not rely on assumptions of Markovian dynamics. By imposing appropriate conditions on the control Hamiltonian, we show that HS can be achieved irrespective of whether the noise is Markovian or non-Markovian. We also prove necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such control Hamiltonians. As an illustrative example, we apply our framework to the damped Jaynes-Cummings model, successfully mitigating memory effects and maintaining measurement precision in complex, non-Markovian environments. These findings highlight the power of quantum control to overcome decoherence challenges and enhance metrological performance in realistic, noisy quantum systems.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[66]
En- hancement of parameter-estimation precision in noisy systems by dynamical decoupling pulses,
Q. S. Tan, Y . Huang, X. Yin, L. M. Kuang and X. Wang “En- hancement of parameter-estimation precision in noisy systems by dynamical decoupling pulses,” Phys. Rev. A. 87, 032102 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[68]
Dynamical decoupling leads to improved scaling in noisy quantum metrology,
P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis and W. Dür “Dynamical decoupling leads to improved scaling in noisy quantum metrology,” New. Jou. Phys. 18, 073034 (2016). 15
work page 2016
-
[1]
Increasing the astrophysical reach of the advanced virgo detector via the application of squeezed vacuum states of light,
S. Acernese et all. “Increasing the astrophysical reach of the advanced virgo detector via the application of squeezed vacuum states of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231108 (2019)
2019
-
[2]
Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy,
M. Tse et all. “Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)
2019
-
[3]
Improvement of an atomic clock using squeezed vacuum,
I. Kruse et all. “Improvement of an atomic clock using squeezed vacuum,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 143004 (2016)
2016
-
[4]
An elementary quantum network of entangled optical atomic clocks,
B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance and D. M. Lucas “An elementary quantum network of entangled optical atomic clocks,” Nat.609, 689–694 (2022)
2022
-
[5]
Quantum optical tech- nologies for metrology, sensing, and imaging,
J. P. Dowling and K. P. Seshadreesan “Quantum optical tech- nologies for metrology, sensing, and imaging,” Jou. Ligh. Tech. 33, 2359–2370 (2015)
2015
-
[6]
Quantum metrology and its application in biology,
M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen “Quantum metrology and its application in biology,” Phys. Rep. 615, 1–59 (2016)
work page 2016
Show all 85 references
-
[7]
Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology,
M. F. Riedel, P. Böhi, Y . Li, T. W. Hänsch, A. Sinatra and P. Treutlein “Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology,” 464, 1170–1173 (2010)
2010
-
[8]
Quan- tum sensing with squeezed light,
B. J. Lawrie, P. D. Lett, A. M. Marino and R. C. Pooser “Quan- tum sensing with squeezed light,” Acs. Phot. 6, 1307–1318 (2019)
2019
-
[9]
Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource,
A. Streltsov, G. Adesso and M.B. Plenio “Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)
2017
-
[10]
Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit,
V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone “Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit,” Sci. 306, 1330–1336 (2004)
2004
-
[11]
Quantum metrol- ogy,
V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone “Quantum metrol- ogy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)
2006
-
[12]
Opti- mal quantum phase estimation,
U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lun- deen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek and I. A. Walmsley “Opti- mal quantum phase estimation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 040403 (2009)
2009
-
[13]
Optimal quantum measure- ments for phase estimation,
B. C. Sanders and G. J. Milburn, “Optimal quantum measure- ments for phase estimation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2944 (1995)
1995
-
[14]
General opti- mality of the Heisenberg limit for quantum metrology,
M. Zwierz, C. A. Pérez-Delgado and P. Pieter “General opti- mality of the Heisenberg limit for quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 180402 (2010)
2010
-
[15]
The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology,
R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Kołody ´nski and M. Gu¸ t˘a “The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology,” Nat. Comm.. 3, 1063 (2012)
2012
-
[16]
Quantum entanglement,
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009)
2009
-
[17]
The "transition probability
A. Uhlmann “The "transition probability" in the state space of a-algebra,” Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273–279 (1976)
1976
-
[18]
States of an ensemble of two-level atoms with reduced quantum uncer- tainty,
M. H. Schleier-Smith, I. D. Leroux and V . Vuleti ´c “States of an ensemble of two-level atoms with reduced quantum uncer- tainty,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 073604 (2010)
2010
-
[19]
Scaling laws for the decay of multiqubit entanglement,
L. Aolita, R. Chaves, D. Cavalcanti, A. Acín and L. Davidovich “Scaling laws for the decay of multiqubit entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080501 (2008)
2008
-
[20]
Beauty and the noisy beast,
L. Maccone and V . Giovannetti “Beauty and the noisy beast,” Nat. Phys. 7, 376–377 (2011)
2011
-
[21]
Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement,
S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio and J. I. Cirac “Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3865 (1997)
1997
-
[22]
Precision limits in quantum metrol- ogy with open quantum systems,
J. F. Haase, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, J. Kołodynski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski “Precision limits in quantum metrol- ogy with open quantum systems,” Quan. Meas. Quan. Metr. 5, 13–39 (2016)
2016
-
[23]
Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency esti- mation,
A. Smirne, J. Kołody ´nski, S. F. Huelga and R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski “Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency esti- mation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120801 (2016)
2016
-
[24]
Improved quan- tum metrology using quantum error correction,
W. Dür, F. Michalis, F. Froewis and B. Kraus “Improved quan- tum metrology using quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. 14 Lett. 112, 080801 (2014)
2014
-
[25]
Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,
S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill and L. Jiang “Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,” Nat. Comm. 9, 78 (2018)
2018
-
[26]
Adaptive quantum metrology under general markovian noise,
R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Czajkowski and P. Sekatski “Adaptive quantum metrology under general markovian noise,” Phys. Rev. X. 7, 041009 (2017)
2017
-
[27]
Quantum-error-correction- assisted quantum metrology without entanglement,
K. C. Tan, S. Omkar and H. Jeong “Quantum-error-correction- assisted quantum metrology without entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A. 100, 022312 (2019)
2019
-
[28]
Restoring Heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment,
F. Albarelli, M. A. C. Rossi, D. Tamascelli and M. G. Genoni “Restoring Heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment,” Quan. 2, 110 (2018)
2018
-
[29]
Quan- tum metrology with full and fast quantum control,
P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Kołody ´nski and W. Dür “Quan- tum metrology with full and fast quantum control,” Quan.1, 27 (2017)
2017
-
[30]
Lecture notes in physics,
K. Kraus “Lecture notes in physics,” Sta. Eff. Oper. Fund. Not. Quan. Theo. 90, (1983)
1983
-
[31]
Collo- quium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems,
H. P. Breuer, E. M. Laine, J. Piilo and B. Vacchini “Collo- quium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016)
2016
-
[32]
Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems,
Á. Rivasl “Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 160601 (2020)
2020
-
[33]
Photon-echo quantum memory in solid state systems,
W. Tittel, M. Afzelius, T. Chaneliere, R. L. Cone, S. Kröll, S. A. Moiseev and M. Sellars “Photon-echo quantum memory in solid state systems,” Las. & Phot. Rev.4, 244–267 (2010)
2010
-
[34]
Efficient quantum memory for light,
M. P. Hedges, J. J. Longdell, Y . Li and M. J. Sellars “Efficient quantum memory for light,” Nat. 465, 1052–1056 (2010)
2010
-
[35]
Experimental demonstration of instrument- specific quantum memory effects and non-markovian process recovery for common-cause processes,
Y . Guo, P. Taranto, B. H. Liu, X. M. Hu, Y . F. Huang, C. F. Li and G. C. Guo “Experimental demonstration of instrument- specific quantum memory effects and non-markovian process recovery for common-cause processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230401 (2021)
2021
-
[36]
The theory of open quantum systems,
H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione “The theory of open quantum systems,” Oxford University Press, USA , (2002)
2002
-
[37]
Quantum non- Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection,
Á Rivas, S. Huelga and M. B. Plenio, “Quantum non- Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014)
2014
-
[38]
Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open sys- tems,
H. P. Breuer, E. M. Laine and J. Piilo “Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open sys- tems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)
2009
-
[39]
Assess- ing non-Markovian quantum dynamics,
M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt and J. I. Cirac “Assess- ing non-Markovian quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150402 (2008)
2008
-
[40]
Canon- ical form of master equations and characterization of non- Markovianity,
M. J .W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li and E. Andersson “Canon- ical form of master equations and characterization of non- Markovianity,” Phys. Rev. A.89, 042120 (2014)
2014
-
[41]
Minimal entropy of states emerg- ing from noisy quantum channels,
C. King and M. B. Ruskai “Minimal entropy of states emerg- ing from noisy quantum channels,” IEEE. Trans. Inf. Theo. 47, 192–209 (2001)
2001
-
[42]
Quantum coding theorems,
A. S. Holevo “Quantum coding theorems,” Russ. Math. Sur. 53, 1295 (1998)
1998
-
[43]
Continuous-variable-entanglement dynamics in struc- tured reservoirs,
R. Vasile, S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris and S. Manis- calco “Continuous-variable-entanglement dynamics in struc- tured reservoirs,” Phys. Rev. A.80, 062324 (2009)
2009
-
[44]
Experimental control of the transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,
B. H. Liu, L. Li, Y . F. Huang, C. F. Li, G. C. Guo, E. M. Laine, H. P. Breuer and J. Piilo “Experimental control of the transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,” Nat. Phys. 7, 931–934 (2011)
2011
-
[45]
Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics,
C. Gardiner and P. Zoller “Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics,” Springer Science & Busi- ness Media (2004)
2004
-
[46]
Quantum com- puters and dissipation,
G. M. Palma, K. A. Suominen and A. Ekert “Quantum com- puters and dissipation,” Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 452, 567–584 (1996)
1996
-
[47]
Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation,
C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett “Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation,” Phys. Rev. A.31, 3761 (1985)
1985
-
[48]
Non-Markovian dissipative semiclassical dynamics,
W. Koch, F. Großmann, J. T. Stockburger and J Ankerhold “Non-Markovian dissipative semiclassical dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 230402 (2008)
2008
-
[49]
Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,
A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt and R. J. Schoelkopf “Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155–1208 (2010)
2010
-
[50]
Wiring up quantum sys- tems,
R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin “Wiring up quantum sys- tems,” Nat. 451, 664–669 (2008)
2008
-
[51]
Finite-time disentanglement via spon- taneous emission,
T. Yu and J. H. Eberly “Finite-time disentanglement via spon- taneous emission,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 140404 (2004)
2004
-
[52]
General non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,
W. M. Zhang, P. Y . Lo, H. N. Xiong, M. Tu, Wei-Yuan and F. Nori “General non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 170402 (2012)
2012
-
[53]
Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system,
A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg and W. Zwerger “Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system,” Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)
1987
-
[54]
Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system,
A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett “Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system,” Ann. Phys. 149, 374–456 (1983)
1983
-
[55]
Nonequilibrium quantum criticality and non-Markovian environment: Critical exponent of a quan- tum phase transition,
D. Nagy and P. Domokos “Nonequilibrium quantum criticality and non-Markovian environment: Critical exponent of a quan- tum phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 043601 (2015)
2015
-
[56]
Theory of the spin bath,
N. V . Prokof’Ev and P. C. E. Stamp “Theory of the spin bath,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 669 (2000)
2000
-
[57]
Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,
L. Viola, E. Knill and S. Lloyd “Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)
1999
-
[58]
Fault-tolerant quantum dy- namical decoupling,
K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, “Fault-tolerant quantum dy- namical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 180501 (2005)
2005
-
[59]
Preserving qubit coherence by dynamical decoupling,
W. Yang, Z. Y . Wang and R. B. Liu “Preserving qubit coherence by dynamical decoupling,” Fron. Phys. China 6, 2–14 (2011)
2011
-
[60]
Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath,
L. G. De, Z. H. Wang, D. Riste, V . V . Dobrovitski and R. Hanson “Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath,” Sci. 330, 60–63 (2010)
2010
-
[61]
Combining dynamical de- coupling with fault-tolerant quantum computation,
H. K. Ng, D. A. Lidar and J. Preskill “Combining dynamical de- coupling with fault-tolerant quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A. 84, 012305 (2011)
2011
-
[62]
Protecting conditional quantum gates by robust dynamical decoupling,
C. Piltz, B. Scharfenberger, A. Khromova, A. F. Varón and C. Wunderlich “Protecting conditional quantum gates by robust dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 200501 (2013)
2013
-
[63]
High fidelity quantum gates via dynamical decoupling,
J. R. West, D. A. Lidar, B. H. Fong and M. F. Gyure “High fidelity quantum gates via dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 230503 (2010)
2010
-
[64]
Concatenat- ing dynamical decoupling with decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,
Y . Zhang, Z. W. Zhou, B. Yu, Bo and G. C. Guo “Concatenat- ing dynamical decoupling with decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A.69, 042315 (2004)
2004
-
[65]
Dynamical de- coupling of quantum two-level systems by coherent multiple Landau–Zener transitions,
S. Matityahu, H. Schmidt, A. Bilmes, A. Shnirman, G. Weiss, A. V . Ustinov, M. Schechter and J. Lisenfeld “Dynamical de- coupling of quantum two-level systems by coherent multiple Landau–Zener transitions,” npj. Quan. Inf. 5, 114 (2019)
2019
-
[67]
Dephasing-assisted parameter estimation in the presence of dynamical decoupling,
Q. S. Tan, Y . Huang, X. Yin, L. M. Kuang and X. Wang “Dephasing-assisted parameter estimation in the presence of dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. A.89, 063604 (2014)
2014
-
[69]
Enhanced solid-state multispin metrology using dynamical decoupling,
L. M. Pham, N. Bar-Gill, C. Belthangady, S. D. Le, P. Cappel- laro, M. D. Lukin, A. Yacoby and R. L. Walsworth “Enhanced solid-state multispin metrology using dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 045214 (2012)
2012
-
[70]
Effects of diffusion on free pre- cession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments,
H. Y . Carr and E. M. Purcell “Effects of diffusion on free pre- cession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments,” Phys. Rev. 94, 630 (1954)
1954
-
[71]
How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits,
Ł. Cywi ´nski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave and S. S. Das “How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. B. 77, 174509 (2008)
2008
-
[72]
Robust dynamical decoupling,
A. M. Souza, G. A. Alvarez and D. Suter “Robust dynamical decoupling,” Phi. Tran. Roy. Soc. A.370, 4748–4769 (2012)
2012
-
[73]
Keeping a Quantum Bit Alive by Optimized π-Pulse Sequences,
G. S. Uhrig, G. A. Alvarez and D. Suter “Keeping a Quantum Bit Alive by Optimized π-Pulse Sequences,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100504 (2007)
2007
-
[74]
Dynamical decou- pling sequence construction as a filter-design problem,
M. J Biercuk, A. C. Doherty and H. Uys “Dynamical decou- pling sequence construction as a filter-design problem,” Jou. Phys. B. 44, 154002 (2011)
2011
-
[75]
Maximizing Infor- mation on the Environment by Dynamically Controlled Qubit Probes,
A. Zwick, G. A. Álvarez and G. Kurizki “Maximizing Infor- mation on the Environment by Dynamically Controlled Qubit Probes,” Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 014007 (2016)
2016
-
[76]
Optimal Control for One-Qubit Quantum Sensing,
F. Poggiali, P. Cappellaro and N. Fabbri “Optimal Control for One-Qubit Quantum Sensing,” Phys. Rev. X8, 021059 (2012)
2012
-
[77]
Information and the Accuracy At- tainable in the Estimation of Statistical Parameters,
S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson “ Information and the Accuracy At- tainable in the Estimation of Statistical Parameters,” Spri. Seri. Stat. (1992)
1992
-
[78]
Maximum Likelihood Estimation,
J. X. Pan and K. T. Fang “Maximum Likelihood Estimation,” Spri. Seri. Stat. (2002)
2002
-
[79]
Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states,
S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves “Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.72 3439 (1994)
1994
-
[80]
Quantum estimation for quan- tum technology,
M. G. A. Paris and C. M. Caves “Quantum estimation for quan- tum technology,” Inte. Jou. Quan. Inf. 7, 125–137 (2009)
2009
-
[81]
Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians,
S. Pang and A. Jordan “Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians,” Nat. Comm. 8, 14695 (2017)
2017
-
[82]
Control of decoherence: Analysis and comparison of three different strategies,
P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse and D. A. Lidar “Control of decoherence: Analysis and comparison of three different strategies,” Phys. Rev. A.71, 022302 (2005)
2005
-
[83]
Single- qubit error mitigation by simulating non-Markovian dynamics,
M. Rossini, D. Maile, J. Ankerhold and B. I. C. Donvil “Single- qubit error mitigation by simulating non-Markovian dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 110603 (2023)
2023
-
[84]
High-dynamic-range magnetometry with a single nuclear spin in diamond,
G. Waldherr, J. Beck, P. Neumann, R. S. Said, M. Nitsche, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, J. Twamley, F. Jelezko and J. Wrachtrup “High-dynamic-range magnetometry with a single nuclear spin in diamond,” Nat. Nanotech 7, 105–108 (2012)
2012
-
[85]
Quantum Fisher informa- tion flow and non-Markovian processes of open systems,
X. M. Lu, X. Wang and C. P. Sun “Quantum Fisher informa- tion flow and non-Markovian processes of open systems,” Phys. Rev. A. 82, 042103 (2010)
2010
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.