Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives one deterministic equation describing all feedback schemes for sequentially measured open quantum systems, then specializes it to quantum-jump feedback with memory of the last jump and elapsed time, obtaining integral…

desk verdict Solid derivation of a new renewal-type feedback master equation; the continuous-limit convention needs tightening but the central physics and the recovery of prior results are credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01934 v3 pith:PD5WF4ZN submitted 2025-07-02 quant-ph

Alberto J. B. Rosal , Patrick P. Potts , Gabriel T. Landi This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords openquantumsystemsfeedbackcontroljumpsmemory-resolvedstatedeterministicintegralequationscontinuousmeasurementmastersteady
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 claims that feedback control of open quantum systems, where a system is repeatedly measured and the outcome record or a compressed memory of it selects the next control action, can be described by a single deterministic equation for the memory-resolved state. From that equation, every previously known feedback master equation follows as a special case, and new schemes become tractable. The main technical result is a specialization to quantum-jump detection in which the memory stores the channel of the last detected jump and the time elapsed since it occurred; in the continuous-measurement limit, the memory-resolved state obeys closed integral equations rather than a Markovian differential equation. These equations make it possible to find steady states from an eigenvalue problem and to compute jump statistics, which stochastic trajectory simulations handle only slowly and noisily. The value of the paper, if right, is that a broad class of feedback protocols, including time-dependent drives, delays, and pulses, now has a deterministic, analytical description.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the memory-resolved state $\varrho_n(y)=\mathbb{E}[\rho_{x_{1:n}}\delta_{y,y_n}]$, a deterministic density matrix that averages over trajectories conditioned on a causal memory $y_n=f_n(x_n,y_{n-1})$; Result 1 gives its one-step update $\varrho_{n+1}(y)=\sum_{x',y'}\delta_{y,f_{n+1}(x',y')}M_{x'}(y')\varrho_n(y')$. For quantum jumps, the special memories are the jump memory $k_n=x_n+k_{n-1}\delta_{x_n,0}$ and the counting memory $\tau_n=\delta_{x_n,0}(\tau_{n-1}+\delta t)$. Taking $\delta t\to 0$ turns the discrete update into the integral equations of Result 2, where the no-jump propagator $G(k,\tau)=\mathcal{T}[e^{\int_0^\tau ds\, \mathcal{L}_0(k,s)}]$ carries the time-dependent feedback applied between jumps.

What would settle it

In a photon-counting experiment on a single driven emitter under the Example-2 feedback protocol (pulse applied $\tau_c$ after each detected jump), record the histogram of waiting times between jumps and compare it with the stationary prediction $\mathrm{Tr}[\varrho_{ss}(\tau)] = \gamma_B(\bar{N}_B+1)\langle B|\bar{\rho}_{ss}|B\rangle \mathrm{Tr}[G(\tau)(|G\rangle\langle G|)]$ from Eqs. (S6)-(S7); systematic deviation beyond detector resolution would falsify the deterministic equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Result 2: for a system monitored by quantum-jump detection with instruments $M_0\rho=(1+\delta t \mathcal{L}_0)\rho$ and $M_k\rho=\delta t \mathcal{J}_k\rho$, and with memory recording the last jump channel $k$ and the elapsed time $\tau$ since it occurred, the memory-resolved state in the continuous limit $\delta t\to 0$ satisfies $\varrho_t(k,0)=2\delta(t)\delta_{k,\bar{k}}\bar{\rho}_0+\sum_{q\in\Sigma}\int_0^t d\tau\, \mathcal{J}_k(q,\tau)\varrho_t(q,\tau)$ and $\varrho_t(k,\tau)=G(k,\tau)\varrho_{t-\tau}(k,0)$, where $G(k,\tau)$ is the time-ordered no-jump propagator. These equations are deterministic and non-Markovian in form, yet amenable to analytical treatment: the steady state, when it exists, is the eigenvector of the super-operator $\Omega=\sum_k\int_0^\infty d\tau\, G(k,\tau)\mathcal{J}_k$ with eigenvalue 1, and the trace $\mathrm{Tr}[\varrho_t(k,\tau)]$ gives the joint distribution of the last jump and the waiting time. The paper further shows that when feedback depends only on the last jump channel, the equation reduces to a set of coupled Lindblad-like equations, and that Result 1, the generic deterministic equation, recovers all earlier feedback master equations as particular choices of memory function and instrument.

Load-bearing premise

The continuous-measurement limit $\delta t\to 0$ of the stroboscopic jump instruments, with the boundary convention $\int_0^t d\tau\, \delta(t-\tau)=1/2$ for the initial-condition delta, is well-defined and produces the integral equations of Result 2; if that limit or the delta convention is not legitimate, the mathematical grounding of the central result collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All previously derived feedback master equations, for weak Gaussian measurements with low-pass memory, homodyne diffusion feedback, single-jump feedback, and charge-based feedback, reduce to Result 1, giving a unified basis for the field.
  • Time-dependent jump feedback protocols that were previously accessible only through stochastic simulations now have deterministic integral equations; optimal drive durations, delay thresholds, and steady-state populations can be computed analytically.
  • The steady state of a jump-feedback protocol is obtained as the unit eigenvector of $\Omega$, and the memory-resolved state yields waiting-time distributions and mean jump intervals directly.
  • For a qubit coupled to a thermal bath, population inversion $P_e>1/2$ is achievable for $\gamma/\lambda\le 1.145$ and bath occupation below a critical value, with maximum feedback delay of order $1/\gamma$ in the strong-drive regime.
  • The three-level 'reverting quantum transitions' experiment, previously modeled by stochastic sampling of homodyne trajectories, is described analytically in the photon-counting limit, including the state immediately after the feedback pulse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because any causal function $f_n$ defines a valid feedback protocol in Result 1, the framework effectively parameterizes the space of feedback strategies by data-processing functions; one could invert it to design a memory that steers the system toward a target steady state.
  • The integral-equation form suggests that the feedback dynamics are non-Markovian in the memory variable but can be solved by discretizing $\tau$; this may make large parameter sweeps numerically cheaper than trajectory ensembles.
  • The renewal structure of quantum jumps means the elapsed-time memory $\varrho_t(k,\tau)$ is a direct probe of the feedback's effect on jump statistics; comparing its prediction for waiting-time distributions with photon-counting data would be a sharp laboratory test of the whole framework.
  • Extending the same memory construction to more general counting variables, such as accumulated charge or time spent in a given state, could yield deterministic equations for an even broader class of feedback protocols, including those with non-Markovian filters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general framework for feedback control of open quantum systems described by sequential instruments. Result 1 gives a deterministic equation for the memory-resolved state for any causal memory. Specializing to quantum-jump monitoring with memories recording the last jump channel and the time since the last jump, Result 2 provides deterministic integral equations (8)-(9) for the resolved state in the continuous-measurement limit. From these, the authors derive a master equation for jump-only feedback, a closed renewal-type equation for the unconditional state, and a steady-state eigenvector equation. Two examples are treated analytically: population inversion of a qubit against a thermal bath and real-time reversal of quantum transitions. The Supplemental Material contains detailed derivations and shows that several previous feedback master equations are special cases of Result 1.

Significance. If the central derivation is valid, the paper makes a strong contribution: it provides a unified starting point from which known feedback master equations (Wiseman-Milburn, Annby-Andersson et al., Kewming et al.) are recovered, and it extends deterministic feedback equations to time-dependent strategies depending on the last jump and the elapsed time. The two worked examples yield analytical steady-state solutions and threshold predictions (e.g., the drive-strength ratio gamma/lambda < 1.145 for population inversion, and the maximum feedback delay) that are directly testable and would be difficult to obtain from stochastic simulations. The recovery of existing results in Supplemental Sec. S.V is an important independent validation of the framework. The paper also gives explicit, experimentally motivated protocols and shows how jump statistics become accessible in the stationary regime.

major comments (1)
  1. [Supplemental S.II.B.1, Eqs. (A35)-(A40); main text Eqs. (8)-(12)] The passage from the discrete recursion (A35) to the continuous equations (8)-(9) is formal and not fully specified. In the discrete setting, ϱ_n(k,0) is a probability mass concentrated at τ=0, whereas in Eq. (8) the object ϱ_t(k,0) has the character of a density/rate; the paper does not state the implicit rescaling by 1/δt that makes the continuous limit well-defined. Furthermore, the initial-condition term 2δ(t)δ_{k,¯k}ρ̄0 and the boundary convention ∫_0^t dτ δ(t−τ)=1/2 are asserted rather than derived from the δt→0 limit of the discrete recursion. This matters because Eq. (12) - and therefore the steady-state equation (13) and both examples - depends on the factor 2 being exactly compensated by the half-boundary convention. While the convention is explicit and internally consistent, the absence of a derivation leaves a load-bearing gap: a reader cannot verify from the supplemental material that the discrete limit indeed produces this boundary convention, rather than the more common endpoint convention ∫_0^t δ=1, which would introduce a spurious factor of 2. I recommend adding to the Supplemental Material a subsection that derives the δt→0 limit from Eqs. (A35)-(A38) with a precise statement of the rescaling of ϱ_n(k,0) and the origin of the half-boundary convention.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, second paragraph] There is a typo: "previouslylly known" should read "previously known".
  2. [Main text after Eq. (8)] The phrase "The term2δ(t)δ_{k,¯k}ρ̄0" is missing a space after "term"; it should read "The term 2δ(t)".
  3. [Result 2 statement] In the sentence "In the limitδt→0this evolves according to...", there is a missing space between "limit" and "δt", and later "time-ordering operator ." has an extra space before the period.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] In "Fig. 3(b) showsP e as a function of ¯N", a space is missing after "shows".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Result 2 is derived from the instrument recursion and is not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Result 1 is a direct algebraic consequence of the definition of the memory-resolved state ϱ_n(y)=E[ρ_{x1:n}δ_{y,y_n}] together with the causal update y_{n+1}=f_{n+1}(x_{n+1},y_n); no target result is inserted into the definition. Result 2 follows by substituting the quantum-jump instruments M0ρ=(1+δt L0)ρ and Mkρ=δt J_kρ into Eq. (A33) and taking δt→0. The factor 2 and the boundary convention ∫_0^t dτ δ(t−τ)=1/2 are stated explicitly and are used to reproduce the discrete initial-condition contribution; they are not fitted to the later predictions, and Eq. (12) is a rewritten renewal equation rather than an independent fitted output. The examples solve the derived algebraic steady-state equation (13) with explicit Liouvillians. Recoveries of Refs. [29]–[32] in the Supplemental Material are validations, not premises. Self-citations such as [56] supply standard quantum-jump facts (negative real parts of the no-jump Liouvillian and renewal structure) that do not incorporate the paper's central results. The only notable concern is the formality of the δt→0 continuous-measurement limit, which is a mathematical-rigor issue rather than a circularity.

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

The central derivation relies on standard open quantum system tools: instruments, Kraus operators, Lindblad master equations, and quantum jump unraveling. No new physical entities are introduced. The key assumptions are the causal-memory feedback structure and the formal continuous-measurement limit with the stated delta convention.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard quantum measurement postulates described by instruments {M_x} (Section 'Sequential measurements').
    Instruments and Kraus operators are used to define the measurement and dynamical evolution at each step.
  • domain assumption Quantum jump unraveling of the Lindblad master equation, with M_0ρ=(1+δtL_0)ρ and M_kρ=δt J_k ρ.
    This specific infinitesimal instrument decomposition is the basis for Result 2 and requires that the monitored jumps are rare and the no-jump evolution is generated by L_0.
  • domain assumption Feedback is implemented by modifying the instrument based on a causal memory y_n = f_n(x_n, y_{n-1}).
    The entire framework rests on the assumption that any relevant feedback can be encoded in a causal memory function. While very general, this excludes non-causal or hidden-memory feedback.
  • domain assumption The no-jump propagator G(k,τ) decays to zero as τ→∞, i.e., L_0(k,τ) has only eigenvalues with negative real part (Section S.III).
    Needed to guarantee the existence of a steady state and the validity of the eigenvalue equation for ρ_ss. The authors state this condition when deriving the steady state.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary convention ∫_0^t dτ δ(t−τ)=1/2 for the initial-condition delta in Result 2.
    This convention is introduced to make the normalization of the memory-resolved state consistent when the delta lies at the integration boundary. It is a formal choice rather than a standard mathematical result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PD5WF4ZN

@misc{pith2026250701934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PD5WF4ZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01934}
}
read the original abstract

Feedback control in open quantum dynamics is crucial for the advancement of various coherent platforms. However, currently only a handful of feedback master equations exist in the literature, which are restricted to specific types of feedback. In this letter we first introduce a unifying framework, based on a single general equation, that describes all possible feedback schemes in sequentially (and continuously) measured systems, and from which all previous results follow. Next, we specialize it to the case of quantum jumps and introduce a new type of feedback based on the channel of the last detected jump, as well as the time elapsed since it occurred. Our description is experimentally grounded, and naturally allows for the introduction of realistic effects, such as time-delays in the feedback loop. We illustrate our results with two time-dependent feedback protocols conditioned on quantum-jump detections: one achieving population inversion of a two-level system against a thermal bath, and another enabling real-time reversal of quantum transitions, both admitting steady-state solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. General feedback diagram. A detection outcome is stored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Conditional evolution under feedback. The instruments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Reverting quantum transitions. (a) Three-level system with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Population inversion via time-dependent feedback with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. An operational continuum limit of quantum combs

    quant-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    A continuous process tensor is defined by embedding the discrete multi-partite Choi matrix of a quantum comb into bosonic Fock space, closing the gap between discrete and continuum descriptions of multi-time quantum p...

  2. Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems III: Full counting statistics for jump-based feedback

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Memory-based quantum-jump feedback is mapped to a Markovian Lindblad equation on an enlarged space, enabling full counting statistics of any counting observable.

  3. Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems II: Properties of the memory function

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For feedback-driven monitored quantum systems, the memory function's statistics follow from a deterministic hybrid classical-quantum state; demonstrated on qubit cooling and Rabi stabilization.

  4. Deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian signal processing

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A deterministic master equation for non-Markovian quantum feedback follows from rewriting finite-memory signal rules as higher-dimensional Markovian vector signals (Eq. 2), with momentum and T-step embeddings worked out.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hopkins, K

    A. Hopkins, K. Jacobs, S. Habib, and K. Schwab, Phys. Rev. B 68, 235328 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    D’Urso, B

    B. D’Urso, B. Odom, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 043001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    D. A. Steck, K. Jacobs, H. Mabuchi, S. Habib, and T. Bhat- tacharya, Phys. Rev. A74, 012322 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Bushev, D

    P. Bushev, D. Rotter, A. Wilson, F. m. c. Dubin, C. Becher, J. Eschner, R. Blatt, V . Steixner, P. Rabl, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043003 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Jacobs, H

    K. Jacobs, H. I. Nurdin, F. W. Strauch, and M. James, Phys. Rev. A91, 043812 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Frimmer, J

    M. Frimmer, J. Gieseler, and L. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 163601 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    J. Guo, R. Norte, and S. Gr ¨oblacher, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 223602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Buffoni, A

    L. Buffoni, A. Solfanelli, P. Verrucchi, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070603 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    S. K. Manikandan and S. Qvarfort, Phys. Rev. A107, 023516 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    De Sousa, P

    G. De Sousa, P. Bakhshinezhad, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Samuelsson, P. P. Potts, and C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. E111, 014152 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Sarovar, C

    M. Sarovar, C. Ahn, K. Jacobs, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A69, 052324 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Marcos, A

    D. Marcos, A. Smith, A. Bednorz, and N. Yunger Halpern, Phys. Rev. X10, 041013 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Rist `e, M

    D. Rist `e, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, M. J. Tiggel- man, Y . M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. Schouten, and L. Di- Carlo, Nature502, 350 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    J. P. Pekola, Nature Physics11, 118 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    P. P. Potts and P. Samuelsson, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 210603 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Barker, M

    D. Barker, M. Scandi, S. Lehmann, C. Thelander, K. A. Dick, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and V . F. Maisi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 040602 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fu- jisawa, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Vijay, C

    R. Vijay, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, S. J. Weber, K. W. Murch, R. Naik, A. N. Korotkov, and I. Siddiqi, Nature490, 77 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Rist `e, C

    D. Rist `e, C. C. Bultink, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 240502 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, E

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, N. Roch, D. Darson, P. Morfin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, Phys. Rev. X3, 021008 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and J. Prior, Quantum5, 500 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    M. D. Vidrighin, O. Dahlsten, M. Barbieri, M. S. Kim, V . Ve- dral, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 050401 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Naghiloo, J

    M. Naghiloo, J. J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030604 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Ribezzi-Crivellari and F

    M. Ribezzi-Crivellari and F. Ritort, Nature Physics15, 660 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 090602 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 180602 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    K. Funo, Y . Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. E88, 052121 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Tilloy, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    A. Tilloy, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Annby-Andersson, F

    B. Annby-Andersson, F. Bakhshinezhad, D. Bhattacharyya, G. De Sousa, C. Jarzynski, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050401 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 548 (1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A49, 2133 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    M. J. Kewming, A. Kiely, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. A109, L050202 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, Contemporary Physics47, 279 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measurement and 6 Control(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    V . P. Belavkin, Autom. Remote Control44, 178 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    V . P. Belavkin, J. Multivar. Anal.42, 171 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    V . P. Belavkin, inInformation Complexity and Control in Quan- tum Physics, edited by A. Blaquiere, S. Diner, and G. Lochak (Springer Vienna, Vienna, 1987) pp. 311–329

    1987

  30. [38]

    V . P. Belavkin, Commun. Math. Phys.146, 611 (1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B63, 115403 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and Its Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    K. Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and Its Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Y .-X

    J. Zhang, Y .-X. Liu, R.-B. Wu, K. Jacobs, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.679, 1 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Sayrin, I

    C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature477, 73–77 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Guti ´errez-J´auregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, Nature570, 200 (2019), arXiv:1902.10355 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hofmann, V

    A. Hofmann, V . F. Maisi, C. Gold, T. Kr¨ahenmann, C. R¨ossler, J. Basset, P. M¨arki, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 206803 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    F. Ye, A. Ellaboudy, and J. M. Nichol, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044063 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    It turns out that if the system is incoherent, this example can be described using classical master equations [64], but this is no longer possible in a genuinely coherent scenario

  39. [47]

    See the Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by pub- lisher] for detailed derivations of the main results and the exam- ples presented in this Letter

  40. [48]

    A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08085 (2025), quant-ph

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. J. B. Rosal, G. Fiusa, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.11078 (2025), quant-ph

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The continuous monitoring limit is obtained by applying mea- surements at regular intervalst i =iδtwithδt >0, and then taking the limitδt→0

  43. [51]

    Milz and K

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

    2021

  44. [52]

    Layton, J

    I. Layton, J. Oppenheim, and Z. Weller-Davies, Quantum8, 1565 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Di ´osi, Phys

    L. Di ´osi, Phys. Rev. A107, 062206 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Oppenheim, C

    J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. ˇSoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, Quantum7, 891 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Oppenheim, Phys

    J. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. X13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Blanchard and A

    P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Annalen der Physik507, 583 (1995)

    1995

  50. [58]

    Hofheinz, E

    M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Marti- nis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, ´Edouard Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, ´Eric Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Valdivia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sin- nott, D. A. Fioretto, P.-E. Emeria...

    2024

  52. [60]

    J. C. Bergquist, R. G. Hulet, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1699 (1986)

    1986

  53. [61]

    Sauter, W

    T. Sauter, W. Neuhauser, R. Blatt, and P. E. Toschek, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1696 (1986)

    1986

  54. [62]

    Nagourney, J

    W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2797 (1986)

    1986

  55. [63]

    R. J. Cook and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1023 (1985)

    1985

  56. [64]

    Annby-Andersson, P

    B. Annby-Andersson, P. Samuelsson, V . F. Maisi, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. B101, 165404 (2020). 1 End Matter 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 2 4 6 80.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 FIG. S1. Populations of the system’s state immediately after the pulse. (a) The vertical arrow on the left-hand sid...

    2020

  57. [65]

    A simple example of feedback 2

  58. [66]

    Instruments and Quantum Measurements 4 C

    Non-linear memories 3 B. Instruments and Quantum Measurements 4 C. Quantum jump detections and instruments 5 S.II. Proof of the main results 5 A. Proof of the Result 1 5 B. Proof of the Result 2 6

  59. [67]

    Jump-based time-dependent feedback 6

  60. [68]

    Matrix equations: generators and steady state of feedback dynamics 8 2 S.IV

    Jump-based time-independent feedback 8 S.III. Matrix equations: generators and steady state of feedback dynamics 8 2 S.IV . Examples and details 10 A. Rotating frame and Rotating Wave Approximation 10 B. Example 1: inversion protocol 11 C. Example 2: reverting quantum transiti...

  61. [69]

    Charge-based feedback 19 S.I

    Diffusion 18 C. Charge-based feedback 19 S.I. BASIC DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARIES A. Data processing, Memory and Feedback

  62. [70]

    As a simple example, let us consider a projective measurement ofσ z on a two-level system (qubit)

    A simple example of feedback The purpose of this first section is to introduce readers who may be less familiar with the concept of feedback and data pro- cessing. As a simple example, let us consider a projective measurement ofσ z on a two-level system (qubit). This measureme...

  63. [71]

    Linear memories Let us consider thatx i is the outcome of the detection performed at timet i. Afternmeasurements, we have the dataset x1:n ≡(x 1,· · ·, xn), and alinear memoryis defined as a linear combination of the datax 1:n, ylin n ≡ nX i=1 gnixi ,(A4) 3 for a set of coeffi...

  64. [72]

    Non-linear memories A non-linear memory is any functiony n(x1,· · ·, xn)that cannot be written as a linear combination of the datax i as given in Eq. (A4). In the main text, we used a non-linear memory to implement a feedback protocol in the context of quantum jump detections....

  65. [73]

    Importantly, this result also holds when more than one memory is considered, i.e

    Jump-based time-dependent feedback Result (1) describes the general evolution of a feedback dynamics defined by the instrumentsMx(y)and a causal memoryy n. Importantly, this result also holds when more than one memory is considered, i.e. wheny(i) n =f (i) n (xn, y(i) n−1)withi...

  66. [74]

    The corresponding memory-resolved state is obtained by marginalizing over the time variable:ϱ t(k) = R t 0 dτ ϱt(k, τ)

    Jump-based time-independent feedback Let us consider feedback that depends solely on the last detected jump, so that the instruments can be written asMx(k, τ)→ Mx(k). The corresponding memory-resolved state is obtained by marginalizing over the time variable:ϱ t(k) = R t 0 dτ ...

  67. [75]

    Quantum Jumps Let us consider the application of a quantum channel to the system’s state conditioned on quantum jump detection. The conditional stroboscopic evolution in this feedback-measurement scenario is described by ρn =F(x) " Vxρn−1V † x Tr[Vxρn−1V † x ] # ,(A111) where ...

  68. [76]

    Considering a weak continuous Gaussian measurement of an hermitian observableAdescribed by the Kraus operators Kz [Eq

    Diffusion Let us consider another scenario where the feedback is based solely on the most recent measurement outcome, but now with diffusion. Considering a weak continuous Gaussian measurement of an hermitian observableAdescribed by the Kraus operators Kz [Eq. (A100)], the out...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.